Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 8, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 98

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M204 — Name Amendment Act, 2018

M. Polak

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

International Women’s Day

T. Wat

M. Dean

Henry Beh and Richmond Chinese Community Society

J. Yap

Simon Fraser University Childcare Society

J. Routledge

Cowichan Women Against Violence

S. Furstenau

Poverty and access to menstrual products

M. Elmore

Oral Questions

Taxation policies

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. James

Hon. J. Horgan

Real estate speculation tax

M. Stilwell

Hon. C. James

Child protection system and support for Indigenous children and families

S. Furstenau

Hon. K. Conroy

Impact of employer health tax on municipal budgets

T. Redies

Hon. C. James

J. Thornthwaite

Impact of employer health tax on school districts

J. Isaacs

Hon. C. James

Impact of employer health tax on non-profit agencies

J. Tegart

Hon. C. James

Petitions

S. Furstenau

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 5 — Amendment to Standing Orders to allow the presence of infants

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Polak

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Mungall

M. Dean

L. Reid

S. Chandra Herbert

Motion 6 — Amendment to Standing Orders on use of electronic devices

Hon. M. Farnworth

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 4 — British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act, 2018

A. Weaver

Hon. B. Ralston

G. Kyllo

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

C. Oakes

Hon. R. Fleming

D. Davies

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

G. Kyllo: Joining us in the House today is a close friend, Michelle Shaw, all

the way from Summerland. She is actually here looking after her grandson

Liam for her daughter Danielle, who’s an ironworker here attending and

participating in the building trades workshops. Would the House please make

Michelle feel very welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to look up in the gallery and see

five councillors from the city of Castlegar. I’d like to introduce His

Worship Mayor Lawrence Chernoff; Couns. Dan Rye, Florio Vassilakakis and

Bruno Tassone; as well as the chief administrative officer with the city,

Chris Barlow. Please join me in making them welcome.

S. Bond: This morning, we had a wonderful opportunity to start International

Women’s Day by joining a room full of women involved in the trades. On

behalf of the opposition, we certainly want to express our gratitude to B.C.

Building Trades and, in particular, the Build Together program that hosted

the breakfast. The room was full of energetic and determined women in the

trades.

We want to recognize especially the work done through Tom Sigurdson,

of course, but also by Lisa, Brynn and our speakers this morning, Sandra and

Julia.

I think all of us recognize that progress has been made. There is much

more work to be done, and I can’t wait to see this program continue to make

a difference as we see more and more women in the trades across British

Columbia.

A great way to start International Women’s Day.

M. Polak: We all rely on volunteers who are dedicated to getting out there on

those doorsteps every time we go to an election. I have one of those

dedicated volunteers joining us in the House today. Would the House please

welcome Brad Ratel.

R. Singh: Today, on International Women’s Day, I want to wish a very, very happy

birthday to the most important woman in my life — my mom, Sulekha. Everybody

who knows me knows how much my mom does for me. She’s basically the wind

beneath my wings.

Happy birthday, Mama. I hope you’re watching this.

S. Furstenau: I also want to acknowledge International Women’s Day. I’m absolutely

delighted to introduce Kira Jones, who is here today in the gallery. She was

a student of mine at Dwight International School, and she brings with her

the smile and laughter that I remember so well from the days when I taught

her. I’m so happy she’s here today.

I also want to acknowledge the women in our office who make the work

that we do so effective and so powerful: Claire, Jillian, Sarah, Jaymini,

Liz, Judy, Stephanie, Kayla and the most wonderful and amazing

Maeve.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to echo the comments that have been made by my colleagues

about celebrating International Women’s Day. We had a great morning with

women that are so proud to be a part of the trades. They are so proud to be

a part of building the best B.C. They talked to me about their roles as

electricians, as pipefitters, as sheet metalists and as people in mechanics.

They’re doing it all.

We know that we need to change the dial. There aren’t enough women in

the trades. We’re hovering at 3 or 5 percent. We know that we can do better,

but by all the women that were standing in solidarity with them today, we’re

going to get there.

Happy International Women’s Day to all of my colleagues here and to

all of those ladies that were joining us and that are going to join us later

on today about celebrating women in the trades.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M204 — NAME AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

M. Polak presented a bill intituled Name Amendment Act,

M. Polak: I move that the bill the Name Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice

has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a

first time now.

Many people in British Columbia choose to adopt a hyphenated or

combined surname when they marry. Unfortunately, the act, as it is

currently worded, does not afford those individuals the ability to do so

without a formal name change. While this does affect some men, the

impact is disproportionately felt by women, who must either struggle

through difficulties with their identity documents or face the expense

of a formal name change.

This amendment will mean that those who choose a hyphenated or

combined surname will be treated in the same manner as those who adopt

the surname of their spouse.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

M. Polak: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M204, Name Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

T. Wat: I rise today to speak about International Women’s Day. I rise in

celebration, but I must also speak with solemnity. Today we honour the

women who came before us who worked resiliently for us to be here. As a

province, we recently celebrated 100 years of women’s right to vote. Not

every woman’s struggles are alike, but we are all implicated in their

resolution.

International Women’s Day is about remembering and honouring the

journey, but just as much, it is about celebrating the women who sit in

the House with us. There are 32 talented female MLAs in the House today,

each of whom had to overcome hurdles to get here. Downstairs in the Hall

of Honour, there is an installation showing many of the firsts that

members still sitting today have achieved. Many of those were achieved

before we were even given the right to vote.

Sitting among us are sisters, mothers, grandmothers and daughters.

We are businesswomen, lawyers, nurses, farmers, analysts, writers and

teachers. But most important of all, we are representatives.

I’m proud of the achievements of these women. The history of women

in our province turned a new page between 2013 and 2017. We have the

most women occupying the most important positions.

It is crucial to celebrate this on a day like today when so many

women are underrepresented in parliaments around the world. We work in a

place that demands our attention and calls us to serve, and that is a

press for progress.

M. Dean: I am honoured to rise today to recognize International Women’s Day

— today, March 8. This is a day to recognize women’s achievements and

also to acknowledge the challenges that women continue to face in

pursuit of gender equity and equality.

[10:15 a.m.]

Today I am proud to stand in this House and celebrate the social,

economic, cultural and political achievements of women. I would like to

recognize the 114 women who have been elected as members of this

Legislative Assembly as symbols of progress and success towards women’s

equity.

International Women’s Day has occurred for well over a century,

with the first March 8 gathering supported by over a million people in

Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland. Prior to this, the Socialist

Party of America, United Kingdom suffragists and suffragettes and

further groups had campaigned for women’s equality. Now here we are, the

days of #MeToo and Time’s Up, and we’re talking about issues ranging

from sexual harassment and femicide to equal pay and women’s political

representation. It’s a start, but it’s only a start.

This year’s theme is Press for Progress. This is a movement with

global momentum. As UN Secretary António Guterres said: “Achieving

gender equality and empowering women and girls is the unfinished

business of our time and the greatest human rights challenge in our

world.”

Today is a global day, and it belongs to us all. We can all seize

the moment and take action to make a positive difference for women and

to transform women’s lives. It’s time to press for progress.

HENRY BEH AND

RICHMOND CHINESE COMMUNITY

SOCIETY

J. Yap: Today I rise to pay tribute to one of Richmond’s most well-known

and well-regarded community members on the occasion of his retirement.

After 29 years, Henry Beh has stepped away from his duties with the

Richmond Chinese Community Society. Most recently Henry served as

executive director, but I should note that he was a founding director,

treasurer and president as well of RCCS.

Henry immigrated to Canada, settling in Richmond in 1974, and was

part of the community effort to form RCCS in 1989. The organization

promotes the spirit of community service, helping members of the

Chinese-Canadian community get more involved in Richmond through

activities and volunteer work. Those activities include seniors wellness

programs, dancing lessons, youth group activities and fitness classes,

just to name a few.

The constant thread through all they do is the celebration of

cultural diversity. Henry and the members of RCCS strive to promote

harmony and to welcome all people to their events. Just visit RCCS’s

annual lunar new year event at a local shopping mall, and you can

experience this firsthand. People from all cultures enjoy these

festivities, and this is reflective of Henry’s pursuit of inclusive,

harmonious communities.

I’m very proud to call him both a constituent and a friend. He has

been extremely generous with his own time, energy and talents, and

Richmond is better for it. Henry recently told the Richmond

News that it’s now time to slow down and spend more time with

the family. I’ve no doubt that his two beautiful granddaughters, aged

four years and ten months, will keep him very, very busy.

I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating and

sending best wishes to Henry Beh on his retirement.

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

CHILDCARE

SOCIETY

J. Routledge: Today as we celebrate International Women’s Day, I want to give a

shout-out to the Simon Fraser University Childcare Society. SFU

Childcare is a non-profit centre that provides quality child care to

families at SFU and in the North Burnaby area.

This year SFU Childcare is celebrating its 50th anniversary.

That’s right. It’s been serving generations of North Burnaby families.

Today the society employs 65 staff and cares for 300 children, ranging

from infants to school-aged kids, in 15 different programs located

throughout the campus.

SFU Childcare is nationally recognized. SFU Childcare provides

play-based, family-focused learning. The program facilities and

curriculum reflect the beauty and nature of its mountain

location.

SFU Childcare staff engage daily in providing quality care and

designing environments that respect the capabilities and curiosities of

children. Teachers are early-care and -learning professionals dedicated

to celebrating the wonders of childhood alongside children while also

deepening their practice with children through regular reflection and

study.

[10:20 a.m.]

Tomorrow I will be attending the opening of a new child care

centre at BCIT, another groundbreaking post-secondary institution

located in Burnaby. The new centre adds 37 new child care spaces for

families in our community — 12 of them for infants and toddlers, 25 of

them for children aged three to five. These new spaces will make a big

difference to families in Burnaby, and there’s so much more to

come.

We know that women are more likely than men to interrupt their

careers, work reduced hours or miss work due to child care

responsibilities, and new research has shown us that this is one of the

biggest factors driving the gender wage gap. Next year on International

Women’s Day, I look forward to reflecting on the contributions our

government will have already made.

COWICHAN WOMEN AGAINST VIOLENCE

S. Furstenau: Living in an unsafe place under the threat of violence for not

only yourself but also your child is unimaginable for many of us in this

chamber. For a young woman named Elizabeth and her five-year-old

daughter, this was her reality. Fleeing relationship pressures in her

home community, Elizabeth took advantage of services offered by Cowichan

Women Against Violence to help her navigate a path back to a healthy,

stable life.

With the help of funding provided by the provincial domestic

violence plan, Cowichan Women Against Violence, locally known as CWAV,

provided shelter for Elizabeth and her daughter at Somenos House, where

she then transitioned to stable housing. With the support of rental

supplements, Elizabeth was able to dedicate her time first to securing a

job and then to enrolling at Vancouver Island University, where she is

training for a career in her dream job as an LPN.

With a new, safe home to grow up in, Elizabeth’s daughter is

excited to do all the things that kids her age should do. With the

support of CWAV, she was able to get her first-ever bicycle, which she

is learning to ride with her mom’s help. Both Elizabeth and her daughter

are fulfilling their potential because Elizabeth showed remarkable

strength by taking action and seeking support.

Elizabeth’s story of resilience and countless others like it

illustrate fundamental truths about women that need to be recognized on

International Women’s Day. Women are not fragile. We are not weak. We

are miracle workers. We are life-givers and game changers. We do not

need permission to be empowered; we just need a clear path. In spite of

the discrimination we have faced and continue to face worldwide, we

prove ourselves every day to be resilient and moving towards a better

future for all people.

POVERTY AND ACCESS TO

MENSTRUAL

PRODUCTS

M. Elmore: I rise in the House today to raise awareness about an important

issue facing people across British Columbia. As the Parliamentary

Secretary for Poverty Reduction, I’ve had the chance to travel to

communities all over the province and have heard from many about

affordability challenges people are facing.

One of those challenges is often hidden and is still a stigmatized

subject for many. Dubbed “period poverty,” the need for menstrual

products is not a topic that many people are willing to discuss.

Increasingly, people who menstruate are having a hard time affording the

necessary supplies due to financial constraints. I rise today to bring

attention to the work being done in our communities to help people

living in poverty face this struggle with dignity.

Period poverty disproportionately affects young women. Studies

have shown that teenage girls often feel guilty about asking their

parents for sanitary items when the family is struggling to put food on

the table. This, combined with the fact that periods remain a taboo

subject, means that people are coming up with their own solutions, often

with serious health implications.

The United Way of the Lower Mainland, the Canadian Labour

Congress, the Greater Victoria United Way, the Victoria Labour Council

and a Victoria group called Period Posse are just some of the activists

working around British Columbia to collect menstrual products and help

jump-start conversations like this to help end the stigma. In the

lead-up to International Women’s Day, these organizations have been

collecting products to support tampon Tuesday, with community partners

serving as drop-off points for products around greater Vancouver and

greater Victoria. The items collected will go to local shelters to help

provide resources to individuals in need.

I am proud to say that, with the support of the Clerk’s office

here in the Legislature, staff and members from all sides of the House

have been collecting donations and have items to contribute to this

year’s tampon Tuesday.

[10:25 a.m.]

I would like to thank the members, Clerk’s office, Parliamentary

Committees Office and the staff here at the buildings for their support,

and I would encourage everyone to contact their local shelters and see

what can be done in your communities to help tackle period

poverty.

Oral Questions

TAXATION POLICIES

A. Wilkinson: It appears that the NDP’s half-baked tax policy is starting to

receive some public scrutiny, as two taxes have rolled out in a very

ineffectual way. We have the concerns about the employer health tax

hitting societies, non-profits, hospitals, universities and schools with

unfunded liabilities which result in cutbacks in services. And, of

course, we have the so-called speculation tax, which, it turns out, is

going to ruin many seniors’ summers as they worry about their summer

cabins.

Now, Board Voice is an organization that represents non-profit

board organizations all over the province. On March 6, they sent a

letter to the Premier expressing deep concern about the new employer

health tax. To quote Board Voice, they say the lack of clarity is an

immediate challenge to budgeting and planning.

The obvious question to the Premier is: will this government

accept that they have made errors in these two taxes and reconsider

them?

Hon. C. James: I am very proud that we are eliminating MSP premiums across the

board by 2020 in this province. This will be one of the largest tax cuts

in our province’s history, a $2.6 billion savings for businesses, for

individuals, for families across the board in British

Columbia.

It doesn’t surprise me that the members on the other side would be

opposed to making sure that we’re investing in health care and saving

families dollars, because their strategy was to give the top 2 percent

of income earners a tax break and tax everybody else by increasing MSP

and increasing….

I would ask the member across the way, the Leader of the

Opposition if he is suggesting, then, that MSP premiums, a most

regressive tax, should stay in place for individuals and

families.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, that was a bit of a performance. We’ve had two solid days of

the Finance Minister giving the same answer to every

question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

A. Wilkinson: The members opposite laugh and mock small businesses. They laugh

and mock universities facing a $7 million liability. The members

opposite trivialize this as it affects real people’s lives.

We have the privilege of having the Premier here in the House

today, and he’s not prepared to answer the questions. So perhaps the

Premier can have an opportunity to respond to Board Voice.

[Applause.]

The tepid applause of his supporting cast shows their

enthusiasm.

Board Voice says in their letter to the Premier: “The impact of

the extra employers health tax cost is of critical importance. Social

service agencies are facing serious risks because of the employers

health tax.”

This is not a big task for the Premier to admit that there have

been errors made in these two taxes. Will the Premier finally answer a

question about these two taxes, rather than punting to his Finance

Minister?

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: As you well know, I’ve been here all week, and that’s the first

question I’ve had from the Leader of the Opposition. Because he is a

pseudo-veteran of this place, I’ll remind him that back in 2016, when

those people sat on this side of the House, the then Minister of Finance

said, “Housing problem? What problem?” and then six weeks later imposed

a tax that nobody understood. That’s making up policy on the

fly.

What we’ve done on this side of the House is not follow the lead

of those on the other side to double medical services premiums. We’ve

chosen instead to focus on people and eliminate medical services

premiums altogether. Rather than pretend that speculation in our housing

market was not a problem, as those on the other side of the House did,

we campaigned on putting in place a speculation tax to make sure that

our housing stock was for British Columbians — not for investors

offshore.

Again, I’m grateful to the Leader of the Opposition to finally ask

a question. My skin feels comfortable. I am at peace with myself. I am

at peace with the decisions that this government has made.

Bring it on, Member. We’re on this side of the House helping

people. You’re on that side of the House trying to go back to the 1970s.

We’re not going with you.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, I’m glad to see the Premier’s dander is up, because he’s

been asleep at the switch through these two tax implementations. He

talks about the 1970s, when the NDP did a great job of driving this

economy into recession. Of course at that time, it’s been pointed out

that the NDP would never have come into office if there’d been

proportional representation. So now we have a Premier who’s setting up a

whole game plan to preserve his longevity in this place.

Can we answer a question, Mr. Premier — just one question? An

answer would help this House. The matter, of course, is about our taxes.

These are now the subject of ridicule in the newspapers. Every columnist

in the newspaper today has pointed out the blunders that have been made

by this Finance Ministry in not contemplating the effects of the

employers health tax and the speculation tax.

Mr. Premier, just once could you answer a question rather than

bluster? Perhaps I could ask the question before you leap to your feet

to have a fight. Will the Premier admit that the thousands of summer

cabin owners and the non-profits and the universities and the agencies

that provide our social services have a point and that he needs to

reconsider these two taxes because they’re going to fail?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for a second question this

week. I’m grateful for the opportunity to stand again and talk about a

budget that’s supported overwhelmingly across British Columbia by

working people, because we put them first. The Liberal approach of

giving breaks to those at the top and making the rest of us, the other

98 percent, pay the freight is over. That ended last July, on the 18th,

when they moved to that side of the House and we moved to this side of

the House.

Our budget, tabled by the Minister of Finance a couple of weeks

ago: a $2.6 billion tax break for people. Those on the other side of the

House disagree with it. Fair enough.

Now, I understand that ignoring issues is something that they like

to do. They ignored the crisis at ICBC. They talked about unfunded

liabilities. There are some $50 billion of unfunded liabilities at B.C.

Hydro. They ignored all of that. They pretended there was no issue in

the housing market, and they continued to increase MSP premiums over the

course of their time in government.

I’ve got a news flash, Members on the other side of the House:

you’re over there, we’re over here, and we’re going to focus on people.

We’re going to make their lives better. You can continue to sing for the

days gone by, when you used to be able to have your lunches with

business investors, take in your political donations and then deliver in

this House. We’re not taking those donations. We’re going to deliver in

this House for people, every single day.

REAL ESTATE SPECULATION TAX

M. Stilwell: The NDP’s half-baked tax policy is causing chaos in my community.

Local officials, including myself, have been flooded with concerns, and

the business community, to quote our local chamber president, is

“basically terrified of the implications of this tax.”

[10:35 a.m.]

Yesterday we learned that a $30 million project by Sunrise Resort

Parksville is in jeopardy as a direct result of the NDP tax.

My question is for the Finance Minister, unless the Premier wants

to jump up again. What advice was she given by the ministry staff about

the consequences of this tax?

Hon. C. James: The first thing I would say is that we were left with a housing

crisis because the other side of the House refused to acknowledge that

there was a problem around affordability for British

Columbians.

The public has been calling for action. We committed to bringing

in a speculation tax in the election. We committed to bringing it

forward. We committed to putting together a comprehensive housing

strategy. We have done that. That includes a speculation tax.

We announced the principles of the speculation tax in the budget.

As I said in the budget lockup, details to come. We have been looking at

all of the issues that are there. We have been listening to the concerns

that have been coming forward, and details will be coming out. The

legislation will be in the fall. There will be lots of opportunity to be

able to address those issues.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: Randy Trapp, the vice-president of Sunrise Resort Parksville,

said: “Since the announcement of the speculation tax, we’ve had a

cancellation of presale contracts to the point where we no longer meet

the threshold and the future of this project is in jeopardy.”

We know that the minister ignored the advice of her expert MSP

panel. Again to the minister: did you ignore the advice of your staff on

the so-called speculation tax, yes or no?

Hon. C. James: We are doing the responsible thing. We are doing the responsible

thing in putting out the principles of a tax; in listening to the issues

that are coming forward; in working through the implementation issues,

making sure we get it right — bringing it forward in the spring,

legislation in the fall. There will be lots of opportunity for these

members to talk about how they oppose a speculation tax that British

Columbians have been asking for in this province.

CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM

AND SUPPORT FOR INDIGENOUS

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

S. Furstenau: In response to my question yesterday, the Minister of Children and

Family Development said she needed to work with Ottawa to ensure there

was funding in place for all Indigenous people and that kids would

benefit from it. I think Ottawa is on board.

In reference to the humanitarian crisis facing Canada’s child

welfare system, federal Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott said:

“This is very much reminiscent of the residential school system, where

children are being scooped up from their homes, taken from their

families, and we will pay the price of this for generations to come.” We

take babies away from women living in poverty because they are poor, and

we finance it through a perverse system that pays welfare agencies more,

the more children they seize.

To the Minister of Children and Family Development: will the

minister, here on International Women’s Day, commit to me, the members

of this chamber and every family in B.C. that the funding from the

federal government will be allocated to preventative and supportive

services that keep families healthy and together instead of financially

rewarding agencies for taking children away from their

mothers?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. I, too, was at the emergency

meeting that was called by the federal government back in January, where

we met to talk about the issues that are a crisis across the entire

country in Canada — the fact that there is overrepresentation of

Indigenous children right across the country and here in B.C. as well.

We need to do better. We need to change that trajectory.

I have committed to legislation this spring that I want to bring

into the Legislature to change that trajectory so that we can actually

have a situation where social workers can talk to First Nations before a

child is brought into care, to find out from a First Nations if, in

fact, there is someone within the First Nation, like a family member —

an auntie, a grandma — who can take the child.

The way our act reads right now, we can’t do that. We need to

change that act. I’m looking forward to bringing that legislation into

this House and having every member of the House support that legislation

so that we can move forward to change the path of Indigenous children

and their families on how child welfare is done in this

province.

[10:40 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The Third Party House Leader on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I’m happy to hear there’s legislation coming. However, the act

already stipulates, as do the practice standards, that First Nations

communities should be involved at this point.

There was no greater critic of this ministry than the NDP when

they were in opposition. Yet people on the ground are telling me that

nothing has changed. As the Representative for Children and Youth

pointed out this week, we still have a paternalistic, racist, sexist

system that treats women terribly and punishes people for being

poor.

The minister is no longer in opposition; she’s in charge. In the

last seven months, she could have issued ministerial directives. She

could have tabled legislation before now, introduced new policies or, at

the very least, issued a letter to every staff member in her ministry,

detailing her expectations on how things would be different, as her

colleague the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation has

done.

Will the minister commit to doing all of the above, in addition to

scrutinizing every apprehension that happens in this province, to ensure

that the act as it stands right now and the practice standards are being

followed in each and every case?

Hon. K. Conroy: We are looking at the act. We are looking at issues within this

province. We are reaching out to social workers and saying: “How can we

change the way that we do practices within this province?” We need to

redouble our efforts to ensure that we are changing the

system.

We’ve already responded to a number of concerns that have been

raised. For example, we have changed the way the adoption website is

run, after a number of communications and concerns that were expressed

by various First Nations communities across the province.

Also, we’re in the process of communications with social workers

on how we can change the process, how we can look at things like is it

an issue of poverty. I think our government has done due diligence in

this factor by bringing in an extensive housing plan to ensure that

poverty isn’t an issue, because it can’t be an issue when you’re taking

a child into care. You have to look at other issues to make sure that

that is not why a child has been brought into care.

We are working hard with our social workers, and social workers

are committed to doing the job that needs to be done. The bottom line is

that everybody wants the well-being and safety of children to be put

first in this province. That’s what social workers are doing.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON MUNICIPAL

BUDGETS

T. Redies: All week we’ve asked the Finance Minister if she thinks British

Columbians should pay higher property taxes. So far, she has refused to

answer the question, but we now know the answer is yes. UBC academic Tom

Davidoff, who helped craft the new NDP tax, recently said: “Residential

property taxes in Vancouver are insanely low. That is the fundamental

reason why the new tax is a great idea.” Does the Finance Minister agree

with Mr. Davidoff, yes or no?

Hon. C. James: I will let the member know what we believe in. We believe in

giving families a break in British Columbia. We believe in providing

support and ensuring that we’re funding health care to make sure the

services are there for people who need it. That’s what we believe in, on

this side of the House.

I say to the members on the other side that I understand you don’t

support the employer health tax. Well, I would ask the members on the

other side, then: what programs and services would you suggest we cut?

What programs and services don’t you support? What programs and services

would they rather we didn’t do? Would you rather we left the MSP

premiums in place? We don’t believe in that. We believe in

affordability, and that’s what we’re doing in this budget.

T. Redies: With all due respect to the Minister of Finance, raising property

taxes on every British Columbian in this province is not affordability.

It is not increasing affordability.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Thank you. We shall hear the

question.

T. Redies: One of the architects of the new, half-baked NDP tax policy says

that taxes are too low. I quote again: “That is the fundamental reason

why the new tax is a great idea.”

Will the Finance Minister explain to British Columbians why she

thinks all British Columbians should pay higher taxes?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: Coming from the other side, who gave the top 2 percent a huge tax

break and taxed everybody else by increasing MSP, ICBC, hydro rates —

you name it, hon. Speaker — there is a very clear reason that they’re

sitting on that side of the House. They didn’t listen to British

Columbians, and they certainly didn’t share the wealth of this province

with the people of British Columbia. That’s what didn’t

happen.

I’d just like to list a few things to find out which one the hon.

members would like to eliminate. Ensuring that seniors in residential

care get the care they need — that’s what we’re using our funding for in

British Columbia. Expanding Fair PharmaCare for 240,000 B.C. families.

They are going to get a break — a $2.6 billion tax break for families,

for individuals. By eliminating the MSP, we are helping families, hon.

Member.

J. Thornthwaite: Once it replaces the MSP, the NDP’s employer health tax will cost

the city of North Vancouver an extra $650,000 annually. Can the Minister

of Municipal Affairs tell residents in North Vancouver why they should

pay the NDP’s new replacement tax grab through higher property

taxes?

Hon. C. James: I would remind the member that the members and the citizens of

North Vancouver and of every other municipality and regional district in

our province will be saving dollars. It’ll be in their pocket, and they

can spend it in their communities to help keep our economy

going.

Once again, $900 in savings for individuals, $1,800 for families —

that’s money that they didn’t have and that they will have with the

elimination of a regressive tax that the previous side refused to get

rid of. We’re doing that by 2020.

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: The NDP tax grab is going to cost the city of North Vancouver over

300 percent more. But the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale is

silent.

Again, to the minister, is it fair that North Vancouver residents

will have to pay higher property taxes, yes or no?

Hon. C. James: I think we should make sure we take a look at a number of other

areas where we’re helping with affordability for the citizens of North

Vancouver and the citizens of the rest of the province.

In Budget 2018, we are freezing ferry fares on major routes and

rolling them back on small routes. We are moving forward with a

made-in-B.C. universal child care plan that will support families across

this province. We are making a $7 billion investment in housing to help

families across British Columbia. We are standing up for families in

this province. That’s what we’re going to continue to do.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON SCHOOL

DISTRICTS

J. Isaacs: The greater Victoria school district has calculated that the net

result of the MSP tax replacement is an increase of $2

million.

To the Minister of Education, is there an additional $2 million in

the budget for the constituents in his riding and the greater Victoria

school district?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: As we’ve said, the school districts and the municipalities and

other organizations that are paying MSP have 50 percent savings as of

January 1 this year. Those are dollars they have in the bank.

We are having discussions about the implementation of the

employers health tax with those school boards. We are talking with them

about how they will use the savings from this year, how they will

accommodate that. We are talking, as well, about the fact that the MSP

premiums will be gone in 2020. They will have full savings, and we will

continue those discussions.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a

supplemental.

J. Isaacs: It is not just the greater Victoria school district that will be

hit hard. Glen Hansman, the president of the BCTF, says the government

must come up with $70 million within weeks or “school districts may need

to proceed with cuts.” Will the minister admit that they’ve made a

mistake…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Thank you.

J. Isaacs: …or will school districts be forced to make cuts to the

classroom?

Hon. C. James: I think we’ve now had a first in this House. I think we’ve had a

first when I actually heard a B.C. Liberal quote the B.C. Teachers

Federation. Perhaps sitting in opposition has helped them learn the

errors of their ways in the years they took a fight with B.C. teachers,

and perhaps they’re recognizing, as we have, that a major investment in

education is a major investment in British Columbia for the families of

our province.

We will continue our discussions with school boards, we will

continue working with our major investments in education, and we will

continue supporting families by eliminating MSP.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON NON-PROFIT

AGENCIES

J. Tegart: ASK Wellness Society is a non-profit organization. It provides

social programs and housing for Kamloops’s and Merritt’s most vulnerable

people. The new NDP replacement tax will burden ASK Wellness with an

extra $97,000 a year in taxes.

To the minister, will ASK Wellness be exempt from the employer

health tax?

Hon. C. James: We are bringing in the lowest employer health tax across this

country, the lowest tax rate across this country, to ensure that we have

supports for exactly the kinds of programs and services that the member

is talking about.

We want to ensure that we have good-quality health care for all

our citizens in British Columbia. We want to ensure that families have

money in their pockets to be able to spend in small businesses, groups

and organizations and provide support for their families. That’s a

critical, important factor here. We are making sure we’re doing that.

We’re balancing the budget. It’s balanced in approach; it’s balanced

fiscally. I’m very proud of Budget 2018.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola on a supplemental.

J. Tegart: ASK Wellness is one the few organizations providing services for

mental health, addictions and affordable housing. Non-profit

organizations like ASK Wellness are especially sensitive to sudden

increases in their already lean budgets. An extra $97,000 in taxes will

force ASK Wellness to cut services and programming for Kamloops’s and

Merritt’s most vulnerable people.

Again to the minister: will front-line non-profit organizations

like ASK Wellness be made exempt from the employer health

tax?

Hon. C. James: It’s exactly the people that that organization serves that we are

supporting in this budget. In our September budget, weeks after we had

become government, one of the first increases we made, I was very proud

to say, was an increase in the support for people with disabilities and

on income assistance in British Columbia.

[10:55 a.m.]

We are, hon. Member, actually developing a poverty reduction plan,

which that side refused to do. We were the last province left without a

poverty reduction plan. The member mentioned mental health. We have put

in place a Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, to ensure that it

gets priority in our government.

I am proud of the investments we are making, and I would again ask

everyone on that side of the House, if you’re against the employers

health tax, then tell us what you would do — leave MSP premiums in

place? Continue to make it difficult for families? We’re making life

affordable for families.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

S. Furstenau: On International Women’s Day, I’m pleased to present a petition on

behalf of Women Against Violence Against Women. This petition, bearing 600

signatures, reminds us of the cuts that led to closure of over half of

B.C.’s women-serving organizations. While WAVAW was heartened to see

increases in funding for counselling services for violence against women,

this project funding differs.

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 5 — AMENDMENT TO

STANDING ORDERS TO ALLOW

THE PRESENCE OF INFANTS

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to call Motion 5 on the order paper, in my

name:

[That the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia be amended by adding the text shown as underlined:

23. If any Member takes notice that strangers are present, the

Speaker or the Chairperson (as the case may be) shall forthwith put the

question “That strangers be ordered to withdraw” without permitting any

debate or amendment: provided that the Speaker, or the Chairperson, may

whenever he or she thinks proper, order the withdrawal of strangers.

A stranger does not include an infant being cared for by a

Member. ]

With that, I would like to offer some remarks and some clarifying

guidance for the Speaker.

It is International Women’s Day, as all members of this House

know. It is also 2018, and this chamber, over the last number of

elections but even before that, has seen a new generation of members in

this chamber and new families starting.

In our desire to encourage British Columbians from all walks of

life to take part and to take their place in the deliberations that

affect all of us, it’s important that we move with the times, that we

recognize that child-bearing is a key part of life and is a key part of

life for the members of this chamber. There are, from time to time,

occasions when a member may wish to or have need to attend to the needs

of an infant in this chamber. This change allows that to happen. I think

that that is something that all of us in this chamber would welcome and

be proud of.

With that, I also know that with any change, there are always

challenges, hiccups that need to be….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, I will not say that. I told you I would not say that. But

there are things that need to be dealt with, issues that need to be

dealt with.

Hon. Speaker, for your guidance, because these are standing orders

and it will fall to you to enforce and interpret those standing orders,

we would like you to know that when these issues arrive, we believe that

LAMC and yourself are best positioned to deal with those issues, as well

as the common sense of all members.

With that guidance, this will allow this important change to the

standing orders, I think, to take place in a way that will meet the

needs of members and also of infants that will join, invariably, during

different parliaments as they take place.

With that, I await comments from my colleagues across the

way.

[11:00 a.m.]

M. Polak: I thank the member for the motion and for his comments. I also

thank the member for actively listening to some of the concerns that

arise when we make these significant changes to the way this House

operates.

I know that for all of us, the support of our families is

extremely important. And while it’s appropriate that this motion is

occurring on International Women’s Day, I also want to acknowledge that

this of course applies not only to women who would be bringing their

children into this chamber but also to men who would be bringing their

children into the chamber.

Over the years, this House has made changes that have begun to

reflect a more family-friendly approach to service as an MLA, things

like set election dates and a set legislative calendar. Those things

have made this place much more family-friendly. Now another change, one

that sees us catching up to parliaments around the world, other

jurisdictions.

There are still details to be worked out. I certainly have

confidence that with the work of the Legislative Assembly Management

Committee, we will be able to find the ways to adapt to another change

in this House that makes this place a place where more women and men who

are of child-bearing years would wish to serve.

S. Furstenau: I’m pleased to see that we are taking steps to encourage diversity

in this chamber and to encourage younger representatives to think of

this as a place that they would like to come to.

I myself benefited from the leadership and mentorship of the

member for Richmond South Centre, who was a great model of that kind of

mentorship of young women and younger women. I myself see that as an

important part of my role. Kira Jones is here today. I’ve had Kayla

Brett and Saryn Knox. Ashley Louie is coming next week.

We need to encourage young women and young men to see this as a

place that they would want to be, because we need the voices of people

who are going to be looking long into the future — for themselves and

their children and grandchildren. I applaud this movement.

Hon. M. Mungall: Sorry. I’m getting a little bit emotional because, coming into

this workplace, a lot of people just assume that it wouldn’t be

supportive for families. I have to say, and I want all British

Columbians to know that as an expecting mother, I’ve just experienced

nothing but incredible support from all of my colleagues on all sides of

the House. I want to thank you all very much for that.

This motion, I feel, really reflects not just the congratulations

and the kind words and the continuous, “What can we do to support you?”

that I’ve experienced from members from all sides. It shows that we are

actually looking into the future to make sure that parents today and

well into the future know that if they need to take their children onto

the floor of the Legislature to care for them when they need it, that

they can do so and that they are supported by the entire House to do

that.

I want to acknowledge, though, that this House first started to

really make some changes to its rules to make it more family-friendly

when the member for Richmond South Centre, back in the year 2000, led

the charge to make sure that we had maternity benefits, that we had the

change tables in the washrooms,which I know she’s very proud of. If it

wasn’t for her, mothers following her and fathers following her wouldn’t

have been able to have benefited by making sure they could come to such

a supportive workplace.

I want to ask the entire House to join me in thanking the member

for Richmond South Centre for all of the work that she started in making

this place a family-friendly space. [Applause.]

The women’s movement works every day and in every place and in

every way. The work that the member has done is one of those steps in

the women’s movement that we are celebrating today on International

Women’s Day.

Thank you so much, everybody, for supporting this motion. I look

forward to bringing the little one into this House.

M. Dean: I, too, am really proud to support this motion.

[11:05 a.m.]

This immediately demonstrates recognition of the importance of the

attachment of a child to their caregiver and the bonding between parents

and children. This means that all members can perform their duties and

also care for their infants. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender

Equity, part of my mandate is to promote equality and leadership at

senior levels in the public sector.

This motion is also particularly pertinent on International

Women’s Day because it provides so much more choice for mothers in how

they care for and feed their babies and infants. This is a modernization

of the standing orders and modernizes this chamber as a workplace for

all members. This modernization also breaks barriers and increases

access for young people, new parents, mothers and women to consider

entering, participating in and being successful in a career in this

House.

Throughout B.C., there’s a new generation of provincial leaders

who are watching the changes we’re making together who will know that

their gender will not limit their ability to serve British Columbians

and make our province a better place for everyone. That is something to

celebrate this International Women’s Day.

L. Reid: Thank you for that lovely tribute. I can tell you, as many of you

know, I’ve spent my career supporting women who are seeking public

office. No question, it’s important to me. I believe we can continue

some very good work here ensuring that we continue to be well

represented. Accommodations are necessary in this place, and the motion

today, I believe, is a gesture of welcome. I want every single person

who has a child to be welcome in this place.

The Commonwealth has led on many of these fronts. They’ve made

some amazing changes. We have as well. Back in my day, I said there

would be more women in this House if I had to birth them myself, and

truly, I want more women to be in this place. There’s no

question.

Certainly, some of the changes we made, some of the times that we

found difficulties, were in the fact that we didn’t have a set sitting

schedule. We didn’t have a scheduled time of sitting. There are many

times that we sat around the clock.

Back in the day, Joy MacPhail’s little guy, Jack, was in the

hallway. Jack is 29 today. It’s taken us a long time. We didn’t have

maternity leave. We were back here when my daughter was five days

old.

For women, for men, for parents, you know when it’s time to come

here, but you also know when it’s time to go. In my case, it was when my

daughter told her preschool class that we live in a really big house, we

have a rose garden and we have parking for 400 people. Every other

parent that day swivelled around and stared at me. I’m thinking…. It was

a challenge.

We rarely sit in September, which is a kindness to families.

Parents want to be at home getting their children established in school

— hugely important, all important accommodations.

My daughter is 18 years old today. My son is 14. We have seen some

enormous changes here. I want to give a huge tribute to Judi Tyabji, to

Jenny Kwan, to Christy Clark and to current members who have young

children. Your babies have warmed this place. There’s no question. May

they return as members one day. [Applause.]

S. Chandra Herbert: While I’m not on the list, I did just want to say, personally, a

big thank you to the member for Richmond South Centre. She has made me,

as a father in a non-traditional relationship, welcomed in a way that I

will truly always remember.

I also want to acknowledge the Liberal House Leader for

acknowledging that fathers also are in this situation. It is really

important, and thank you to all members for doing what you can to make

this a more family-friendly environment. It’s something we all have to

do, and I am really proud that we’re doing this today.

Thank you, Members.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: I should also mention, Members, that I will be providing some

further guidance on the application with respect to this change. Thank

you.

[11:10 a.m.]

MOTION 6 — AMENDMENT TO STANDING

ORDERS ON USE OF

ELECTRONIC DEVICES

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have another motion to call, a slightly different one, and that

is Motion 6. The technological member for Abbotsford West may well want

to hear this one.

[That the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia be amended by adding the following:

17A.

(1) Electronic devices must not be used by a Member who is in

possession of the floor, or during the following proceedings:

(

a) Speech from the Throne;

(

b) Royal Assent;

(

c) Prayers;

(

d) Oral Question Period;

(

e) Speaker’s rulings;

(

f) divisions;

(

g) at any other designated time pursuant to instructions by

the Speaker.

(2) Members must ensure that electronic devices are used in a manner

which does not disrupt the orderly conduct, or impinge on the dignity or

decorum, of parliamentary proceedings.

(3) Electronic devices, such as laptop computers and handheld

devices such as smart phones, must be operated silently at all times.

Phone conversations are not permitted. Electronic devices must not be

used to take photographs or to make a video or audio recording of

proceedings.

(4) Ministry officials present during Committee of Supply or

Committee of the Whole proceedings may use electronic devices to access

information.]

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And that’s a good place for them, because 17A, hon. Member, is

that electronic devices must not be used by a member who is in

possession of the floor. No chance of that happening with me.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 4. In Committee A,

I call continued estimates of the Ministry of Education.

[11:15 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — BRITISH COLUMBIA

INNOVATION COUNCIL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 4; L. Reid in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:17 a.m.

section 1.

A. Weaver: A question on

section 1. What was the motivation behind the name

change that is leading to a title change of this act?

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for his question.

We have also created an innovation commission, and the feeling was

that without a name change, the council and the commission might be

confused one with the other. Innovate B.C. is a simple, clear and bold

name, so that was the decision.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

G. Kyllo: What functional change will there be in the operations of the

Innovation Council as a result of converting to an agency?

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m not entirely clear what the member means by function, in the

sense that it was a Crown agency. It will continue as a Crown agency. It

has an expanded mandate, but operationally, it will continue in the same

way as it operated before, if you mean on the administrative and

functional side, I suppose.

If the member, perhaps, could clarify the question, I’d appreciate

that.

[11:20 a.m.]

G. Kyllo: Thank you for the clarification. Yes, basically, just looking for

if there’s going to be any change with the functional operation of it —

if the name change is going to change the functional operation of the

organization.

Hon. B. Ralston: Clearly, the mandate will be expanded. I think part of the reason

for proceeding in this way was to avoid the time lag and the disruption

of creating an entirely new agency. There will be a continuity of

programs, and then the new mandate will be expanded. Innovate B.C. will

go forward from that.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

G. Kyllo: I was just wondering if you might be able to define what “tools”

and “resources” are referencing. I note that in

section 5, No. 2 has

indicated that the tools and resources will be added to the B.C.

Innovation as per the expansion of the mandate in

section 5(a). Just to

provide a bit of extra clarification on specifically what “tools” and

“resources” are referencing.

Hon. B. Ralston: That new

section is to give the new board the opportunity to

reflect, to expand and to develop a strategic direction that’s

consistent with that change. The hope was to be more specific in terms

of giving the new board the direction and some opportunities to develop

effective policy to further develop the new mandate that they’re being

charged with.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister. You indicated that the intention was to

provide more specific direction to the new board. Could you provide, I

guess, some context or maybe an explanation — specifically, some

examples of what tools and resources might entail?

Hon. B. Ralston: The wording is more specific, offering “tools, resources and

expert guidance to entrepreneurs and companies.” That’s the policy

framework set out in the legislation, and that will be for the board to

interpret and provide the board decisions and guidance that’s required

to fulfil that mandate.

G. Kyllo: So the tools and resources. There’s no additional clarification

that’s provided for that. It’ll be totally left in the hands of the new

board to make determinations of what the expanse and direction of tools

and resources may be?

It seems, from my perspective, anyhow, that the bill should be

providing a bit more specificity when we’re giving direction to a board

on developing policy. I guess the minister’s comments are somewhat

surprising that the intention is to actually give full direction to the

board of the new agency in order to determine the future direction of

this entity.

Hon. B. Ralston: The government will rely on the expertise and the thoughts of the

board members, who will be, in most cases, experts in the field. They

will develop their analysis of what gaps there are and what needs to be

done. That will be then submitted through the budgetary process, where

those ideas, thoughts and directions can be given budgetary form, and

then it will go forward in the usual way that the budget goes forward in

the process.

The intention is not to inhibit the advice of experts and those

knowledgable in the field. What we’re looking for…. I think for this

agency to expand its mandate, to fulfil its mandate and to be more

successful, the advice of knowledgable people will be very, very

helpful.

[11:25 a.m.]

G. Kyllo: Again, just for a bit of clarification. It will be fully within

the purview of the new agency to determine what tools and resources they

feel are going to be adequate in order to fulfil the overall mandate and

objectives of the new entity.

I’m assuming that that also would mean that with those additional

tools or resources could come some pretty significant financial costs.

Just so I could get a clarification from the minister, is it up to the

new agency, then, to determine what tools and resources they would like

to see and, in essence, then to be able to give direction back to the

minister — which could have pretty significant fiscal

impacts?

Hon. B. Ralston: I don’t think that’s quite what’s intended. Certainly, there will

be advice. There will be recommendations. That will be examined. It will

then have to go through the ordinary budgetary process, Treasury Board.

The staff of the ministry will have input as well. So the member’s fears

about an open-ended financial commitment, I think, are unfounded. The

usual process of Treasury Board and budget will be in place. While there

may be many good ideas, it may not be possible to fund them

all.

G. Kyllo: When we get into the reference to the word “resources,”

specifically relating again to the word “resources,” will this wording

allow the new agency to give direct financial grants to companies or

individuals?

Hon. B. Ralston: The current rules around all of the programming apply. Again, this

is a broad and expansive word that will be used by the board to examine

what they think might be best to grow British Columbia’s technology

industry, to grow the innovation sector. Then that will be subject to

the Treasury Board process and the budgetary process, with input from

the ministry staff and from myself as the minister, and we will go

forward from there.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The intent is to give this group, the board, the opportunity to

think in somewhat expansive terms about the needs and the opportunities

in British Columbia’s tech sector and to make strong recommendations

that, within a budget, can be moved forward.

G. Kyllo: Would the minister be able to provide, I guess, any further

clarification with respect to the word “resources,” in that the word

“resources” did not exist previously? It’s my understanding that the

previous wording did not provide the agency with the opportunity to

provide grants to organizations or individuals. I was just wondering if,

by adding the term “resources,” that specifically will allow or enable

this new entity to even contemplate the award of financial grants to

companies or individuals.

Hon. B. Ralston: No, it does not. The existing parameters that apply to this area

in terms of grants would continue to apply, unless it’s

changed.

G. Kyllo: You’ve indicated that the new agency will be providing a list of

recommendations to your ministry for consideration, some of which may

have budgetary implications. Will you be sharing with the general public

what those recommendations are?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: What is envisaged is that this process will be an internal one and

follow the usual Treasury Board process. I’m sure the member is familiar

with that from his time on this side.

Those recommendations will not be public at that time. There may

well be broader public discussion by the board, a chair or the

innovation commissioner about what the vision for the agency is, but in

terms of specific recommendations that would be advanced for funding,

that will follow the usual process.

G. Kyllo: What is the current timeline proposed for filling the new

placements and appointing the new board?

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. Once the legal process….

Assuming the legislation passes, which I’m confident it will, and the

organization is constituted legally, then we will consider appointments

and make them in the next several months.

G. Kyllo: As the minister has added accessing new markets as an important

goal for the new innovation agency, does he believe that opening new

markets with trade agreements like TPP are an important step towards

innovation?

Hon. B. Ralston: I think what is important, particularly in these turbulent times,

where our trading relationship with the United States is somewhat under

pressure — to put it, probably, in fairly euphemistic terms — it’s

important that there be commercial consideration of the opportunities

for companies. One of those opportunities includes expanding to new

markets. I think the idea is to bring a commercial lens — not

exclusively, but importantly — to the work that the commission will be

doing.

G. Kyllo: I was wondering if the minister would be able to explain the

purpose of adding “expert guidance” to the mandate in

section 5(

a) and

just how that might differ from the existing

section 10(3)(

a) in the

Innovation Council Act, which allows the council to retain expert

consultation. I know that it’s a fairly minor change, but I’m just

wondering if the minister might be able to expand on the purpose and

reason for going from the current reference to retaining expert

consultation to the term “expert guidance.”

Hon. B. Ralston: I think the reason for dropping the word “retaining” was that

there’s an element that suggests that the only way that you could do

that was if you hired people or paid them,

whereas “expert guidance”

means that there could be informal mentoring, there could be advice

offered, or there could be, through outreach, a wide variety of ways in

which experts might want to contribute to the health and the growth of

this organization.

G. Kyllo: Could the minister, then, just provide clarification that the

agency still would be able to retain on a fee-for-service basis — that

it’s not just strictly going to be looking for volunteer

guidance?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Yes. It would not be limited to retaining, but it would still have

that option.

G. Kyllo: I’m wondering if the minister could provide a bit more

clarification or explain the purpose of adding “science, technology and

innovation policy” to replace the term “science policy,” and what that

expansion of language actually is intended to accomplish.

Hon. B. Ralston: This is perhaps the most important change in the legislation. The

agency was originally established as a science council, notwithstanding

that the name of the council changed. This gives a much broader scope,

with technology and innovation. That reflects the new and broader

mandate that will serve the technology sector and the innovation sector.

That is meant in the most expansive way that one could interpret that. I

think it is a significant change in the mandate from its origins as a

science council.

G. Kyllo: Obviously, with the new agency, there’s going to be considerable

work being undertaken to consult with industry and to have a look at

what the new mandate and recommendations may be going forward, as well

as looking at the expanded scope. I’m just wondering if there has been a

budget lift or any contemplation of additional staff and resources in

order to accommodate this new, expanded mandate?

Hon. B. Ralston: In the way in which this will proceed, we will rely on the advice

of the new board and what recommendations they bring forward, and then

we will consider those in the budgetary process. It’s premature to

suggest in advance that there will be an increase in the budget, but I

think this is an important agency, which will have continuity with the

previous goals and activities of the Innovation Council.

I’m optimistic that there will be great advice that will come

forward, and we will evaluate it at that time. But obviously, in this

process, it’s not appropriate for me to make a commitment to further

funding. I’m subject to the Treasury Board process and the direction of

the Minister of Finance, obviously, so I can’t make that commitment

here.

G. Kyllo: Well, if I could just, again, ask the question…. It seems

interesting that there’s going to be a new agency, with an expanded

scope, with a considerable amount of work being undertaken. It’s my

understanding, from the answer from the minister, that they will be

having to undertake those additional efforts within the existing

budget.

I guess just from my perspective, and looking at the greatly

expanded scope of the new Innovate B.C. agency, it would seem

appropriate, and there likely would be an opportunity for additional

funding requirements in order to facilitate the work that’s set out and

undertaken as part of this bill. I appreciate that the minister may not

be able to necessarily commit to funding now.

A question to the minister. Would he be willing to support

additional requests through the Treasury Board process, whether it be as

part of Budget 2019-20 or even through contingencies, in order to ensure

that this very important agency has all of the financial resources

needed in order to provide the continued support for this

sector?

Hon. B. Ralston: Well, I know that I have the support of the member for increasing

the budget, it sounds like. That may be a factor in any deliberations

that come later, but it is premature to suggest….

[11:40 a.m.]

Certainly, this is not the venue for discussing an expansion of

the budget. Certainly, I agree with the member in his characterization

of the expanded mandate. Certainly, that will be considered. And in due

course, decisions will be made about that.

G. Kyllo: There’s also a reference to building capacity. I was just

wondering if the minister may be able to provide some additional context

or expansion, maybe even specific examples for us, as far as what

building capacity is actually meant to entertain.

Hon. B. Ralston: The term “building the capacity” is one that’s frequently used and

is, I think, a broad term for the activities of the present council,

which will be of the new agency with its expanded mandate. That would

include the, as sometimes called, acceleration process, the incubation

process, mentoring, devising business plans, planning marketing plans

and recruiting key personnel.

Generally, all those attributes — and I know the member is

familiar with that, having operated his own businesses — the ability to

make the business more effective, more focused, and to bring the kind of

results that the originator or the founder of the business might have

imagined when they set out on this path.

It’s a broad range of services and support to build successful

companies that will go on to expand, employ more people and deliver

greater prosperity to British Columbia and to Canada.

G. Kyllo: The reference about building capacity to access new markets and

attracting investment — would the minister be able to provide a bit more

context about attracting investment? Will the new agency actually be

involved in outward work to attract investment into this particular

sector? So again, just a bit more clarification on the term “attract

investment.”

Hon. B. Ralston: In building a company, sometimes one of the goals is to attract

new investment into that particular company. That would be part of the

assistance that would be provided.

The ministry itself has an investment attraction strategy, and the

innovation commissioner will also assist, particularly for technology

companies, in resourcing and offering advice on where investment for any

particular company might come from.

It’s meant, again, as a broad term. It will not be an investment

attraction agency. That will be part of the support that’s offered, and

that will be provided in conjunction with the ministry itself, the

innovation commissioner. It even leads to other private funders, whether

they’re equity funds or other sources of funds that may seek or wish to

invest in start-up companies.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for his answer.

What I heard from that is that there will be more of a supportive

role of supporting investment attraction to B.C., but the agency will

not be actually actively participating in outward advertising, marketing

or in other ways trying to attract investment to the sector. I’m just

looking for a bit more clarification, if I could.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Let me answer it this way. It’s a different emphasis than the

member is suggesting. Part of a successful company and part of the

preparation to be a successful company is to prepare the leadership of

the company to go out and pitch their idea, pitch their company to those

who might seek to invest in it, whether it’s venture capital firms or

whether it’s banks, more conventional financing, even angel

investors.

In order to be ready to do that, there would be assistance,

coaching, mentoring provided to make or help that company be successful.

But the main focus of the agency will not be investment attraction. It

will be part of the ecosystem, part of the broader supports offered by

the ministry, the innovation commissioner and the private

sector.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for the additional

explanation.

We had a look at trying to, I guess, provide assistance for

technology companies that are working throughout our province in

attracting outside investment, increasing their competitiveness to

compete in an ever-growing global marketplace. I’m just wondering if the

minister could share with us what his perspective is on providing that

necessary support so that they have that winning advantage — to help

support tech companies across B.C. so that they could better compete in

global marketplaces.

Hon. B. Ralston: The focus of the efforts of the council in the past and the new

agency, with its expanded mandate, is to focus on expanding the internal

capacity of the company to enter the market, whether it’s recruiting

talent, devising a business plan or seeking support and investment from

the various sources that I referenced in my previous answer, whether

those are public or private.

In addition to the sources that I mentioned, the province

established some time ago a fund called the Renaissance Fund. More

recently the province established a fund called the B.C. tech fund,

which is capitalized at $100 million.

The role of this agency is to build the capacity of that

particular company and that group of business leaders to have the

ability to put together a company that’s going to thrive and

prosper.

G. Kyllo: We’ve got a lot of focus on the tech sector, which I fully support

and applaud. But I’m wondering if part of the purpose, maybe, of this

expanded mandate and this refocused effort is to look at offsetting some

of the punishing taxes that have actually been placed on this sector,

both in mid-term Budget Update 2017 and the most recent

budget.

I’ve talked to a number of tech companies that have indicated that

the increase in corporate tax rate by 1 percent, a 2 percent increase in

tax rates for what I like to recall as B.C.’s brightest and most

productive workers, as well as the new employer health tax, are having

significant impacts on reducing the competitiveness of businesses that

are actively already competing in this sector. Is this repurpose focus

in response to the punishing taxes that are being placed squarely on

this sector?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate the member’s point of view. Really, I don’t think the

discussion of the legislation is the venue in which to discuss the

budget. There are lots of opportunities to discuss the budget or raise

questions in question period, but I’m focused on the benefits that this

agency will bring to the tech sector, to innovation and science policy

in the province. This agency will enhance that, and that’s what I’m

focused on.

G. Kyllo: The agency is going to be bringing forward a number of

recommendations, as the minister alluded to, that likely would also give

recommendations and consideration about taxation, and the impacts of

increased taxes, on how it reduces the competitiveness as a sector. The

expanded focus of the agency clearly is to support this sector — giving

clear direction for an expanded scope, looking for their expert advice

to come back to government for action.

The minister has shared with us that the advice that’s coming back

likely will not be made public, that it will be more for internal

review. I guess my concern is that if the agency truly is going to have

the expanded scope, the expanded mandate, to really truly look at the

heart of what makes tech companies in our province so successful and

what will enable them to continue to compete in an ever-increasing

global economy, I think it’s….

It’s also extremely important that we hear from the minister what

his perspective is on tax rates and the impact on competitiveness of

B.C. business. I think it’s extremely important that we have, at least,

the support of the minister to fully recognize those recommendations

that are coming forward from the new agency. I also feel that it would

be important that those recommendations are actually shared with the

people of British Columbia.

Hon. B. Ralston: Well, first, I would say that I would not want to presume in

advance what advice I might get or might come to me from the new

directors of this agency, nor through the chair. But I would say that in

my conversations with tech companies generally, the concerns that they

express….

One of the reasons why they are coming to British Columbia in such

number and why tech companies are thriving here is the talent. There’s a

recognition of the incredible talent of British Columbians in this

sector, and companies are coming literally from around the globe to

British Columbia in pursuit of the kind of talented people we offer and

who are part of the labour market.

The other concerns that I hear are access to capital. We also hear

concerns about affordability, particularly housing affordability, and

the government, in its budget, is attempting to address that. But the

sector is booming.

This sector is thriving. I think we have an opportunity in British

Columbia to take this sector from where it is now to a whole new level.

The opportunities, the potential of the technology sector, whether it’s

transforming traditional resource industries or whether it’s at the very

leading edge of science and technology, is immense. This agency will

have a contribution to make there, and that’s why I think it’s important

that we move forward and create it.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for his answer. I agree that one of the

biggest assets we have in British Columbia is the quality of the

workforce that we have here, the work ethic that British Columbians

employ, the amount of talent and education and training that’s available

in our province.

[11:55 a.m.]

For one last time, maybe the minister might be able to provide, I

guess, a bit more clarification or let us know what his position is with

respect to the impact of taxation and competitiveness on the success of

the tech sector.

Taxation is surely not the only indicator that actually would

predict the success of a company, but it certainly is one of the single

largest ones. I know, having a number of businesses myself, that

something that is extremely important when you have a look at competing

in an increasingly global economy is to ensure that we have the right

focus, the right balance of taxation and that we are providing

businesses across British Columbia with a level playing field and an

opportunity to compete in these international markets.

Hon. B. Ralston: As the member has noted, taxation is one policy aspect. But the

one that I hear about most frequently and the one that appears to be

driving many companies either to expand here or to move here and

establish new businesses is the talent.

We have recently committed to 2,900 tech spaces in the Lower

Mainland, in the Thompson Rivers University, in the University of

Northern British Columbia and College of New Caledonia in Prince George.

It’s the biggest expansion of tech seats in a decade at the very

least.

That’s one of the main concerns that companies express. They want

B.C. talent, and we are committed and have committed in the budget to

expand the training and the education for those people who will

participate in the future of this industry and of the economy of British

Columbia.

A. Weaver: I do note the hour here, and I’m wondering if we might

continue….

The Chair: Noting the hour, Member.

A. Weaver: Yes, I note the hour. I’d like to continue after lunch. I do move

that we adjourn at this time.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. C. Trevena moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

EDUCATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:20 a.m.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $6,302,620,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Good morning, Members. Happy International Women’s Day. We are

back for Ministry of Education estimates in Committee A, Committee

of Supply.

D. Davies: Welcome back. I’m going to continue on with capital. Talking about

capital will certainly take up the remainder of this morning. What I do

want to actually do right now, just in light of time…. I’m going to let

my colleague from Cariboo North have a question, as she has a prior

engagement this afternoon.

C. Oakes: It is a question on capital. First, I would like to acknowledge

and thank the minister for helping with an immediate concern that we

have. We have an elementary school that a report came out on, in the

summer — that structurally, it has some issues. The community, in March,

was to be moving the school. It has become a highly complex move, so it

is now delayed until the summer.

The challenge we have. We’ve had such an incredible snowpack this

year that the school district is having to make extra efforts to make

sure that the school is safe. One week it was $4,000 in shovelling, and

the next week it was $7,000 in shovelling the roof. The school district

doesn’t have the funds to continue with that. I don’t imagine winter is

ending anytime soon in the Cariboo. They do need some extra support. I

guess that would be my first question.

Then just a follow-up to that. A temporary solution, while it’s

great to get us through this year…. We do need a long-term solution for

Quesnel Junior School, a replacement school in the Cariboo. To the

minister, would that be in the capital budget?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you for the question. Maybe I’ll start with the first

question, because there was a two-in-one there. That is around the

snow-clearing expenses that the district has.

There are elements in the funding allocation currently that take

into effect geographic factors, winter conditions in districts like

hers, so it would be unusual for the ministry to take expenses for an

individual operational expense like that and cover it. I think she

mentioned some figures that may be a challenge. I would say, though,

that the school district has not communicated with the ministry directly

in this regard. I, and it may pique the interest of other board chairs

in northern school districts or others that are experiencing a winter

similar to the Cariboo.

She’s correct that there have been delays in immediately vacating

the school that she was referring to. The delays have not been on our

part, in the ministry. We provided, really, an emergency fund, if you

will, of $1.7 million to allow students to be moved to a safer option in

the community. For a variety of reasons, the local school board has not

been able to fulfil the plan that we had originally agreed to. The

funding is still there, to be certain, but it looks like it’ll either be

later this spring or even for the beginning of the next school year that

that relocation plan is actually completed.

I don’t know if the member is going to have some other questions.

Maybe I can just refer briefly to Quesnel middle school. Just to

mention, for her reference, that the school was in the ten-year capital

plan for many, many years — never any funding decisions attached to

that.

We’re working with the school district now. We’re working with the

mayor and other community members to look at that project. I have to say

that there have been some really, really good ideas coming forward. So

we’re quite pleased with the progress there, after really no word for

many, many years about it. There haven’t been any major capital projects

in the member’s district for 16 years, so I can understand her

frustration with that.

[11:30 a.m.]

The district is sharpening its pencils and building the case for

the secondary. It had always been, I think, its number one priority in

the five-year capital plan submissions to the ministry. But, as I said,

it never had any funding decisions attached to it. Those discussions

have begun, and I’m pleased to report they’re going very

well.

C. Oakes: I look forward to the announcement of the Quesnel middle school in

the future. With your confidence, I’m sure you’ll be able to deliver

that. It’ll be great for our community, for sure.

One of the things that was mentioned in the budget this year was

ensuring that all communities had fair access and that we’re looking at

rural communities as well.

I want to switch to a smaller rural school, Horsefly. Horsefly is

this fantastic smaller community. I’ve talked many times in this House

about the community. It serves a large area, and it’s a very important

rural school in our district. It currently doesn’t have fibre optics,

which makes it a challenge when delivering a lot of the new

curriculum.

What I would like to raise is the challenge that the school has

had. They’ve been without a principal since the fall, and one of the

challenges we do have in our small rural schools is, of course,

recruitment and retention.

A question around funding for rural schools around recruitment and

retention, and the challenge when you divide up what was currently in

the budget to support school districts with that. It’s such a small fee

that a lot of our rural districts are challenged with that. If the

member could advise on what is in the budget for recruitment and

retention for rural schools.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: The school that she referenced around broadband Internet access in

Horsefly. My understanding, my information, is that the next-generation

network does reach that school. So there is fibre there, at 50 megabytes

a second. It was upgraded as recently as August 22, so within a month of

the new government being sworn in, from 30 megabytes a second to 50

megabytes a second. So that service exists. I don’t know if there are

technology issues within the school, but it might be something for her

to look into and come back to us or discuss with the board chair

there.

On the recruitment and retention issues, just a couple of bits of

information that I can share with the member. School district 27

received $2.5 million in the SEAF fund to hire additional teachers. So

about 25 new teaching positions in that district, plus the overhead

costs, were funded by government recently. That hiring has occurred

within that envelope.

In terms of rural recruitment initiatives that were funded

specific to her district, about $30,000 in incentives, which includes

things like moving expenses and other eligible expenses to recruit new

teachers, have been accessed by district 27. There is some more funding

available for additional recruitment efforts by that district. That fund

is administered by BCPSEA, the Public School Employers Association. We

think that that’s going to support ongoing recruitment issues now and in

gearing up for the September school year.

I would also note that government moved rather quickly in October.

We had hired about 95 percent of the hiring that we intended to do under

the MOA, but we still had some gaps and some issues in certain

districts, not all but in certain districts, around diminishing the

teacher-on-call lists. We convened a task force of all of the major

stakeholders and education partners about what additional measures we

might undertake immediately and came up with an action plan.

That task force, who I would like to thank again on the record,

worked very hard and very quickly over six weeks to deliver a set of

recommendations that have led to some funding decisions that are in the

current budget that we’re discussing here today. That will include some

things that may benefit this member’s constituency.

One of the initiatives that is funded is around recruiting and

training more Indigenous teachers. We have some funding that has come

out of those task force recommendations for curriculum development,

which will create some pathways for Indigenous students to enter teacher

education programs. One of the partnerships is with the University of

B.C. There’s a pilot there that will feature community-based delivery of

all four years of its Indigenous teacher education program in the

Williams Lake–Quesnel area and that will specifically train

approximately 20 Indigenous teachers to then become the teachers of

tomorrow in the district where they currently live.

[11:40 a.m.]

D. Davies: The budget line shows that government is going to be spending $121

million less than what was projected on capital spending over February

2017. Can you explain the difference, why the difference is, despite the

claim of not allowing any capital slippage?

Hon. R. Fleming: I’m just trying to figure out a little bit about how this question

might differ from the one that was asked yesterday. We did cover this —

why the ’18-19 capital budget is at $483 million.

I explained yesterday to the member that the budget is expensed in

the year in which there is actual construction activity starting. As he

can appreciate, there was a transition in government. We expected to see

a lot more projects in the pipeline, quite frankly, where they could

break ground and be built in the ’17-18 capital year and into ’18-19.

There were not enough that were either close to construction or had gone

out to tendering or, quite frankly, had been approved in the planning

stage.

What we’ve done in this capital budget, which is the largest

school construction budget in B.C. history, over the next three years,

is we’ve shifted considerable resources so that we go from $483 million

in the next fiscal year of spending on capital and into the mid-$650

million range over the next two years. It gets even higher in year 3.

We’re building up momentum so that we can get to planning some of the

things that were never left to us, get to decision-making, business case

development with school districts and construction. We’re trying to

accelerate that in districts. It really ranges — I’m sure the member

knows this — between the time a project can be initiated and completed

in some districts compared to others.

We’re trying to get every district onto an acceleration curve,

because we want to get these projects built. We want portables to be

removed in overcrowded districts and help other districts, where we have

aging building stock or seismically unsafe buildings, get to approvals

and get to groundbreakings.

Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada