Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 41

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 14 — Sheriff Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 10 — Health Professions Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. A. Dix

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

KidSport Richmond

L. Reid

B.C. Family Hearing Resource Society

J. Brar

Aboriginal learning in Sea to Sky school district

J. Sturdy

Indians Abroad for a Pluralist India and work of Sarwan Singh

Aujla

R. Kahlon

North Shore Women’s Centre

R. Sultan

Disability Alliance B.C.

J. Rice

Oral Questions

Review of scientific research by Agriculture Ministry

P. Milobar

Hon. L. Popham

I. Paton

Review of ride-sharing and taxi industries

A. Olsen

Hon. C. Trevena

Review of scientific research by Agriculture Ministry

M. Stilwell

Hon. L. Popham

Attendance of Citizens’ Services Minister at business opening

event

J. Johal

Hon. J. Sims

S. Cadieux

T. Redies

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, An Independent Audit of Grizzly Bear

Management , October 2017

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Constitution Amendment Act, 2017 (continued)

Hon. D. Eby

J. Rustad

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

T. Redies

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2017

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Chen: Yesterday we had an important milestone that was marked by my

colleague the Minister of State for Trade for his wedding anniversary. It

turns out that we also have an important milestone to celebrate today,

because it is a significant birthday for someone who is very special in this

chamber.

She has served as an MLA since 2005 — a hard worker, a dedicated

advocate for children and families in B.C., a proud grandmother of nine

beautiful grandchildren, four beautiful kids. She’s also a mentor and a

close friend to many of us. She is always energetic, positive and really fun

to work with. To me, as a new MLA, she’s like the mommy bear in this

Legislature.

Happy birthday to the Minister of Children and Family

Development.

L. Throness: Many of us in the Legislature today have our constituency assistants

in Victoria for meetings this week, and a couple of family members have

tagged along with Dagmar Lucak, my constituency assistant. I’d like to

welcome Bill Lucak and his son Emry, from Hope, to the Legislature today.

Would you welcome them.

Hon. D. Eby: I was just looking up at the gallery there, and I thought I saw Jane

Dyson of the Disability Alliance British Columbia. A great honour to have

her in the House today. A great advocate for people with disabilities across

the province. If the House would please join me in making her feel

welcome.

Hon. J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are four members of the Premier’s

correspondence unit. I have to tell you that we get a lot of mail. They go

through it diligently, and I get a report every week. I’m not going to

mention daylight-saving time in this, but I will say we have with us Jake

Rochon, Titas Uzdavinys, Ashley Hampson and Allegra Wolansky. Would the

House please make them welcome.

R. Singh: We have in the gallery Lynn Perrin, a dear friend and a community

activist from Abbotsford. Lynn was a very strong voice in the 2011 campaign

to keep water in public hands. Would the House join me in welcoming

Lynn.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — SHERIFF

AMENDMENT ACT,

D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled Sheriff Amendment Act, 2017.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce the Sheriff Act. This bill will address

an identified gap in legislation by providing clear authority for

sheriff services to conduct threat and risk assessments.

In British Columbia, sheriff services division is responsible for

the safety and security of the courts in our province. This

responsibility includes ensuring the safety of the judiciary, legal

counsel, court users, the public and government employees. Sheriffs are

also responsible for the safe and secure transportation of in-custody

persons to and from the court.

To fulfil their mandate, sheriffs assigned to the Integrated

Threat Assessment Unit conduct threat and risk assessments. These

assessments directly inform the security plans and staffing levels

required to ensure the safety and security of users of our justice

system.

This bill will address an identified gap in legislation by

providing clear authority for sheriff services to conduct these

essential threat and risk assessments. In addition, this bill will

provide sheriffs with the legislative authority required to continue to

maintain access to the Canadian Police Information Centre database for

the purpose of conducting their threat and risk assessments.

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

Motion approved.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Sheriff Amendment Act, 2017, 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.

BILL 10 — HEALTH PROFESSIONS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. A. Dix presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Professions Amendment Act,

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the Health Professions Amendment Act be introduced and

read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: There are three changes proposed here to the Health Professions

Act. The first allows any of B.C.’s health professional colleges to

amalgamate. Currently — this is interesting — we can add new health

colleges, but we cannot amalgamate current colleges. It’s a move

prompted by a request from three professional nursing colleges: the

College of Registered Psychiatric Nurses of B.C., the College of

Licensed Practical Nurses of B.C. and the College of Registered Nurses

of B.C.

Second, the amendments allow for the appointment of an

administrator for a health professional college in the unlikely event

the college board is seen to not be acting in the public interest. The

act states that it’s the duty of a college board to protect and serve

the public at all times.

Third, patient safety will also be further supported, as

amendments will ensure that infection control breaches can be reported

to public health officials in a timely manner. For example, if poor

sterilization practices are observed, the amendments will ensure that

this can be reported immediately. While any breaches can currently be

reported, they first go through college investigation processes instead

of directly to public health in a timely manner.

I move the introduction of the Health Professions Amendment Act

and that it be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, Health Professions Amendment Act, 2017, 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)

KIDSPORT RICHMOND

L. Reid: I rise today to pay tribute to KidSport Richmond. They believe

that no child should be left behind, left on the sidelines, and all

should be given the opportunity to experience the positive benefits of

organized sport.

KidSport provides support to children in order to remove financial

barriers that prevent them from playing on organized teams. KidSport

Richmond is a

chapter of the non-profit organization KidSport British

Columbia, which is an affiliate of Sport B.C. Funds raised in Richmond

are spent in Richmond. These funds are used to cover the registration

fees for a season of sport for financially challenged

families.

Sport and physical activity provide opportunities for kids to

learn teamwork, fair play, dedication and commitment. Kids learn how to

set goals and achieve them, all the while having fun as they acquire

important lifelong social and fundamental physical skills. As a result,

kids increase their sense of self-confidence and live healthier

lives.

They are proud to assist children from Richmond families access

sport each year. So far this year they have raised $76,000 for 231 kids.

KidSport Richmond believes in the values and benefits of kids playing

organized sport. They know that sport will provide them with the

opportunity to stay physically active over their life course.

I want to pay special tribute to Alexa Loo, our Olympian, who

continues to do stellar work for this organization. Their funding is

raised through a combination of community events, corporate

sponsorships, support from foundations, organizations and

individuals.

The premiere fundraising gala, Creating Community Champions, is an

annual event in the spring each year. It is a remarkable evening spent

amongst champion athletes working together to help all children have

access to the positive experience of sport and physical activity. In

2018, the gala will be on February 16. See you there.

B.C. FAMILY HEARING RESOURCE SOCIETY

J. Brar: Good news for deaf babies. Every year almost 45,000 babies are

born in B.C. On average, 115 of those children are deaf and

hard-of-hearing children, and their families look for help.

I’m very pleased to inform this House that there is a place for

those children in Surrey-Fleetwood. The B.C. Family Hearing Resource

Society, based in Surrey-Fleetwood, is the largest, only non-profit

organization in B.C. that offers a wide range of services to deaf

children from birth to school age.

[10:15 a.m.]

The society offers a variety of communication choices that include

spoken language, sign-supported speech and American Sign Language. The

mission of the organization is to help each child reach their fullest

communication potential through family-centred and early intervention

programs. In other words, the key goal of this organization is to make

those children school-ready by teaching them spoken or sign language.

With their support, those children become school-ready, and they walk

into their first classroom like any other student.

My sincere thanks to the executive director, Noreen Simmons, staff

members, board members and founders, Elks and Royal Purple of Canada,

for delivering this exceptional program for our children for the last 35

years.

ABORIGINAL LEARNING IN

SEA TO SKY SCHOOL

DISTRICT

J. Sturdy: Today I am pleased to rise to acknowledge the collaborative work

that has taken place in the Sea to Sky school district to enhance

Aboriginal learner engagement and outcomes. Talking circles, potlatches,

drumming events and cedar harvesting are just a few of the activities

incorporated into the curriculum of school district 48, a district that

encompasses the communities of Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton and

D’Arcy.

Through an Aboriginal engagement agreement, the Sea to Sky school

district is committed to engaging all students with flexible, relevant

learning with the aim to better enhance understanding, respect and

engagement in Aboriginal language, culture and history. SD 48 aspires to

create strong and respectful relationships between schools and all

Aboriginal communities, and their approach has resulted in improved

outcomes for learners.

The curriculum focuses on enhancing a sense of belonging and

responsibility in the learning environment and community, enhancing

academic skills and achievement for greater success in school, the

community and life. Evidence of Aboriginal culture and territorial

language is now demonstrated in all Sea to Sky schools, from daily PA

announcements to a range of cultural activities. The Aboriginal

enhancement agreement includes parents, Aboriginal communities, elders

and schools, and all partners are accountable for providing

support.

Even while significant strides have been made, graduation rates

for B.C.’s Aboriginal students have lagged behind non-Aboriginal

students. However, in the Sea to Sky school district, this is no longer

true. Essentially, there is no difference between graduation rates

across the whole student population. Clearly, this is great news and a

tribute to the good work of families, students, teachers, administrators

and the board of education for the Sea to Sky school district. While

there is always more work to do, I hope the House can congratulate them

all on this important milestone.

INDIANS ABROAD FOR A PLURALIST INDIA

AND WORK OF SARWAN

SINGH AUJLA

R. Kahlon: A Lower Mainland–based group, Indians Abroad for a Pluralist

India, also known as IAPI, honoured retired school principal Sarwan

Singh Aujla in Surrey on October 12. It was fascinating for me to learn

about the work of Mr. Aujla. IAPI honoured him in recognition of his

contribution to strengthening cross-cultural bonding and human

relationships beyond religious and national boundaries.

Mr. Aujla was instrumental in the renaming of a school in Punjab

after Rehmat Ali Wajidke. Rehmat Ali was a Muslim freedom fighter and a

member of the Ghadar movement. He was executed by the British in 1915

for organizing against British rule of India. Mr. Aujla has been

instrumental in sharing Rehmat Ali’s sacrifices and ensuring that his

history lives on.

After the renaming of the school, he continued his work, traced

Mr. Ali’s descendants and, through his research, located them in

Pakistan. Rehmat Ali’s family originated in what is known today as

Punjab. His family was forced to relocate, after the partition, to

Pakistan. Mr. Aujla organized for the family to visit India, where they

were honoured by the Punjab government.

IAPI is a human rights organization which was recently formed to

raise a voice against growing attacks on religious minorities in India.

Particularly, Muslims are increasingly being targeted and seen with an

eye of suspicion.

[10:20 a.m.]

IAPI is a cross-sectional movement started by people of Indian

origin in Vancouver who are concerned over a continued onslaught on the

diversity and pluralism of Indian society and growing hostilities

between two neighbouring communities. Seventy years have passed since

India and Pakistan were separated, yet relations between the two sides

remain strained.

As part of the initiatives in recent months, IAPI has chosen to

honour Mr. Aujla for standing up for secularism and universal

brotherhood. I want to congratulate IAPI on their commitment to building

a tolerant and inclusive society, both here and abroad.

NORTH SHORE WOMEN’S CENTRE

R. Sultan: For 16 years, I’ve done my best to help the North Shore Women’s

Centre, a drop-in centre helping women from Deep Cove to Horseshoe Bay.

Michelle Dodds and her volunteers do a lot with a little. They are

grassroots and not very pushy. They don’t have much glitz and operate on

a tiny budget. They try to help everybody who walks through the door.

Those who do tend to be victims of poverty, violence, relationship

breakdown, unaffordable housing, unemployment, discrimination, school

dropout, and the list goes on.

You may think we don’t have people like that on the affluent North

Shore, but we do — many of them, in fact. So if you’re hungry and

dishevelled, they will give you food and toiletries. If you’re homeless,

you can use their washer and dryer, telephone or copier. If you can’t

use a computer, they’ll teach you how. They will counsel you and

organize summer camp for your kids. You can sign up for workshops on

yoga, nutrition, finance and parenting. If you’re fleeing domestic

abuse, they’ll find female family lawyers to help you pro

bono.

It’s rare to find a low-profile and compassionate social boutique.

By way of contrast, I have become, over the years, somewhat more

skeptical of the large ratio-driven conglomerates. It’s a social

services bargain. Thank you, Michelle Dodds.

DISABILITY ALLIANCE B.C.

J. Rice: Since 1977, Disability Alliance British Columbia has been

dedicated to ensuring that all people with disabilities in this province

are able to live with dignity, independence and as equal participants in

our communities. They offer direct services, community partnerships,

advocacy and have contributed to numerous research projects and

publications.

Most recently Disability Alliance B.C. has been advocating for the

need to establish functional needs frameworks for our communities in

order to integrate the needs of persons living with disabilities into

local emergency plans. In this way, they are working hard to ensure that

large-scale emergencies will not disproportionately affect persons with

disabilities, people who have a higher level of disaster vulnerability.

They also have worked to provide training for local authorities in

support of the province’s commitment to the emergency preparedness

This has dramatically increased the capacity for local communities

around B.C. to respond to the needs of people with disabilities in

emergency and disaster scenarios. Disability Alliance, in partnership

with PreparedB.C., also helped create the resources for people with

disabilities guide, which provides vital information for those with

unique preparedness considerations, and has provided recommendations to

local communities on how to identity people’s actual needs during

emergency events.

I want to thank Disability Alliance for their dedication to

providing essential services for people in this province living with

disabilities. I look forward to meeting with the alliance later today,

as we continue to work together in improving all British Columbians’

level of emergency and disaster preparedness.

Oral Questions

REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

BY AGRICULTURE

MINISTRY

P. Milobar: Yesterday, the minister of intimidation shared some startling

information with this House.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, that statement is out of order. There is no

minister of intimidation in this House.

Member, if you could please rephrase your question without a

reference to a….

[10:25 a.m.]

P. Milobar: I apologize for mistaking the Minister of Agriculture for the

minister of intimidation. I withdraw that.

Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture shared some startling

information with this House. This after she sent a coercive letter to a

law-abiding company, a letter most would consider unbecoming a minister

of the Crown, a letter even the Georgia Strait Alliance characterized as

“an eviction notice–like letter.”

Earlier she told the Vancouver Sun that she was

investigating one of the top scientists in the Ministry of Agriculture.

His sin? Producing research that doesn’t work for the minister and her

friends. But then, in the chamber, the minister said that it wasn’t just

Dr. Marty under her eye, but an entire lab was being

reviewed.

So to the minister: which is it? Is it Dr. Marty who she’s trying

to intimidate or the entire lab?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. I’ll be clear with the member. There

is no investigation, formally, and nobody is being fired. But we are

focused on ensuring that there is integrity in our lab. With the

cooperation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we’re reviewing

the results of previous samples to make sure there is integrity in our

results.

As I’ve said, we’re in the initial preliminary assessment phase,

reviewing the overall fish health audit program from front to back,

which is welcome in the scientific community. This will involve looking

at our policies and practices of the lab and examining them for

scientific rigour, and I don’t understand why the members across the way

would have any problem with that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a

supplemental.

P. Milobar: It is a little hard to take the minister seriously. She says that

there’s not an investigation, and two sentences later she says

“investigation.”

She told the Vancouver Sun : “There were some very strong

allegations that were made, and that’s very concerning, so we are

looking into that currently.”

In the space of the weekend, she went from investigating Dr. Marty

to now reviewing all of the work done by the ministry’s lab. Now, that

doesn’t fit with what the minister said yesterday in this House. She

said the review was being undertaken because the Department of Fisheries

and Oceans asked for it.

Can the minister table, in this Legislature, exactly what form her

investigation has taken?

Hon. L. Popham: I’m very happy to answer this question, because when it comes to

integrity, you will find that our government makes sure that that’s a

priority.

Our priority, for the member’s information, is ensuring that the

public can trust the information that government produces so that we can

work together to protect B.C.’s wild salmon and the nearly 10,000 jobs

that depend on it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a second

supplemental.

P. Milobar: Let’s be clear for the minister. She has accused a respected

scientist, a respected public servant, of lacking integrity. She has

told someone who is serving the people of British Columbia that she

doesn’t believe his work because it doesn’t match her world

view.

Interjections.

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

P. Milobar: And she seems unable to give anyone a hint of evidence about his

alleged wrongdoings.

She said it was because First Nations and others don’t agree with

him, in the Vancouver Sun , but then she said, in this House,

that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has raised serious concerns

— talk about shooting first.

[10:30 a.m.]

To the minister: was Dr. Marty given the decency of an official

warning that the minister he reports to was going to publicly accuse him

of lacking integrity?

Hon. L. Popham: As I said at the beginning of question period, there is no

official investigation happening on any individual, and nobody is being

fired. The only people in this chamber that are mentioning individuals

are the official opposition.

Our lab in Abbotsford is very well known to do excellent work, but

when allegations are made, we take them seriously. We want to make sure,

on the world stage, that we have the respect from other scientists

around the world. It’s very important to the work we do. I would imagine

that the members on the other side of the House would also want our lab

to be held up at the highest esteem on the world stage.

I. Paton: Let’s recap this rather disturbing situation. The Agriculture

Minister has written the Agricultural Land Commission previously to

intimidate them into making a quick decision. She has also written to a

law-abiding business in British Columbia, threatening the livelihood of

all who work there because it doesn’t fit with her view. Now we find the

minister is going after a scientist because she doesn’t agree with his

research.

The minister keeps talking about how she wants integrity in the

system. Well, here’s the minister’s chance. Yesterday she said Dr.

Marty’s job was on the line, so she must know why.

Can she tell us what Dr. Marty has done — aside from disagree with

her — that would imperil his job?

Hon. L. Popham: Let’s be clear. I’ve never said that anybody’s job was on the

line.

I. Paton: The Minister of Agriculture, a minister of the Crown, is

threatening the reputation of a respected public servant. She has taken

the whole lab and thrown them under the bus. She seemingly has no basis

for this at all. All we have is a continued pattern of intimidation by

this minister of anyone who tends to disagree with her.

The minister has the opportunity to make this right. She has the

opportunity to try and salvage any shred of dignity she has left. Will

the minister do the right thing — admit she has made a mistake and clear

Dr. Marty’s name — instead of dragging his name through the mud to make

her friends happy?

Hon. L. Popham: As I’ve said many times already, we are in the preliminary stages

of an assessment phase of our lab. We’re going to be reviewing the

overall fish health audit program from front to back. This will involve

looking at policies and practices of our lab and examining them for

scientific rigour. I think that’s the right thing to do.

REVIEW OF RIDE-SHARING

AND TAXI

INDUSTRIES

A. Olsen: Last week my colleague asked the Minister of Transportation why

we’re updating legislation for the taxi industry without engaging

ride-sharing companies. What we are deeply concerned about is a

two-stage process where a new taxi-only status quo is created before

considering ride-sharing at some later date. What we need is a parallel

process that considers both simultaneously.

In response to our question, the Minister of Transportation

suggested that the government is in fact engaging with ride-sharing

companies. However, the government’s terms of reference for the

modernizing of passenger-directed vehicle services has a list of 19

different stakeholder groups that are to be consulted, and ride-sharing

companies are not among them.

[10:35 a.m.]

To the Minister of Transportation, how does the minister explain

this inconsistency between what is being said and what the documents are

telling us is happening?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to thank the member for the opportunity to share how we

are looking at bringing in a new way of doing business in B.C. and

finding a made-in-B.C. solution.

Yes, we are looking at the taxi industry. There’s no question

about that. Yes, we are talking to ride-share companies, and yes, we are

engaging with stakeholders. We listed some of the stakeholders on the

terms of reference. Obviously, we didn’t list every single one. It would

have taken pages and pages and pages to include them.

We are involving people. We are talking with people. We are

accepting comments from people. We want to make sure we get this right

and that this is the proper made-in-B.C. solution. I look forward to the

involvement from the opposition members to be part of this.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: To be clear, this is not an issue of time for us, necessarily. I

think that everyone understands that public policy that’s debated and

developed in this House needs to be done right, and reviewing taxi

legislation is part of the solution.

However, what makes no sense to us is that a process is set up for

updating this industry while pretending we can ignore the biggest change

of it, which is what we see in the process that’s been set up. This is

actually a change in the business model. Disruptive tech businesses are

changing the business model. We need to be looking for fairness, not a

level playing field.

To the Minister of Transportation, will the minister commit to

providing an updated terms of reference that includes a more inclusive

list of the people that are being consulted on this and that Mr. Hara

will not simply engage ride-sharing companies but ensure that the report

produced will include considerations for a regulatory regime in which

ride-sharing companies can operate in this province?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I mentioned in answer to the previous question, we are talking

to ride-share companies. We’re talking to a wide range of organizations,

both international ride-share companies as well as local ride-share

companies. We’re talking to stakeholders from across the province and

beyond.

As people know, we have had Dr. Dan Hara, who I think perhaps said

it best — and if I might quote him: “Whenever there’s a new technology

that offers potential benefits and improvements, it’s always possible to

allocate those benefits so there’s a win-win-win” — so that users win,

customers win and providers win.

That’s what we’re wanting to do to make sure that, in B.C.,

everybody wins, that we get a solution that works for people. We will be

bringing that on, and I look forward to engaging the member for Saanich

North and the Islands in this discussion as we move forward.

REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

BY AGRICULTURE

MINISTRY

M. Stilwell: Last week the Minister of Agriculture refused to stand up for her

employee — a respected scientist, a respected public servant. Instead

she announced that she was investigating him for what she called very

concerning and very strong allegations. Yet yesterday, when asked if

this could lead to Dr. Marty being fired, the minister had this to say:

“I’m not going to answer that right now.” Talk about intimidation. Not

content with just going after one scientist, the minister has actually

cast into doubt the reputation of the entire lab.

The minister has already smeared the reputation of Dr. Marty

without any due process. Will there be a full, fair, independent hearing

into the allegations against all those who work at the Animal Health

Centre?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. First of all, I want to emphasize that it

was the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who called some of our data

into question. We would take that very seriously because these are the

partners that we work with as we look at fish pathology.

[10:40 a.m.]

I can tell you right now, and I’ve said it many times before

today, that we have the cooperation of the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans as we try and review previous samples and results.

We are in the initial stages of examining all of our results for

scientific rigour. If the members know anything about science and how

the scientific community works, peer-reviewing information is part of

the process. So I would imagine that they would feel much more confident

if we could come out after a review saying that our results are fine and

that we’re confident in our lab.

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

M. Stilwell: Apparently, it’s the federal government who has made the

allegations. It’s the federal government’s fault. I’m asking the

minister if she will table the documents that she refers to — if this

is, in fact, what the basis of the case is based on.

Hon. L. Popham: I’m not sure the member understands what I’m saying, so I’ll try

and explain it again. There is no investigation into any individual, and

nobody is getting fired. But what this is about — and the members should

be glad about this — is ensuring integrity of the science that we’re

using.

ATTENDANCE OF CITIZENS’ SERVICES

MINISTER AT BUSINESS

OPENING EVENT

J. Johal: The Minister of Citizens’ Services, possibly in the spirit of

government outreach, attended a grand opening of a new business in

Surrey a little over a week ago. The minister had her picture taken with

some friends at the opening of a local sweet shop. She’s smiling,

enjoying the sunshine and showing no signs of discomfort or

coercion.

Included among those friends is one Jawahar Padda, a man we’ve

talked about in this House before. The minister knows he’s the man

facing significant criminal charges involving firearms, uttering

threats, forcible confinement without lawful authority, assault.

Unfortunately, the list, sadly, goes on. The location where this photo

was taken was at a business opening. The business being opened belonged

to Mr. Padda. It was his event.

Members want to know: can the minister explain why her outreach

activities took her to a business owned by a man facing serious criminal

charges?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank the member for raising that question.

I was at a business in Surrey that opened over the weekend. I was

there with…. People from all different political parties were

represented there. I was invited by a very close friend of mine whose

husband is a partner in the business. I was in a photograph with many

different people.

I can assure him that there were people there from the Liberal

Party federally. There were other elected officials there. I am sure

that members across the way have gone to public events, to businesses in

their communities, because after all, they support the development of

businesses and growing good-paying jobs. That’s what I was there to

do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: That’s the minister’s response: they’re not elected officials. She

is. That’s the difference.

I’m trying to understand why a minister of the Crown would attend

such an event at the sweet shop. Perhaps the minister had a sweet, or

perhaps the minister wanted to buy some samosas for her next fundraiser

at the O.K. Corral.

[10:45 a.m.]

The Minister of Citizens’ Services was asked in this House last

month about associating with an individual charged with gun-related

charges. A week ago Sunday she attended the opening of his latest

business and took a picture standing right next to him. It turns out

that the business isn’t even located in the riding of Surrey-Panorama.

Perhaps the Minister of Labour invited her to the business opening in

his riding.

To the minister, this speaks to the judgment of a minister of the

Crown. She has stood in this House on more than one occasion and claimed

to abhor violence. British Columbians want to know: why did she attend

the event of an individual she claims to abhor?

Hon. J. Sims: It actually gives me great pleasure to answer a question from my

colleague across the way. I would really ask him if he has ever attended

functions. Can he really say that every function he attends, he knows

everyone who was there, especially when they are public? My colleagues

should listen to the answer right now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please. We shall hear the response.

Hon. J. Sims: We have a well-known business in our community, and it expanded.

It’s not owned by one person. It’s owned by a number of

families.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, could we please hear the response.

Hon. J. Sims: Let me assure my colleagues across the way that if they search

through the photographs, there were other federal elected people there.

There was even….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, if you may be seated for a moment.

Minister, please proceed.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s a bit rich coming from the crowd across the way when there

are photos of them not just being with those who may have allegations

against them but with people who have been convicted.

I really want to say that I went to a community event, an opening

of a business that is expanding, adding jobs in Surrey. I was invited by

a very close friend who is a partner in the business, and I went. I make

no apologies for that.

S. Cadieux: Let’s be clear on this. This is not the first time we’ve seen this

minister with Mr. Padda and their cozy relationship. Last month the two

were at the same NDP fundraiser, the one where the minister took her

boss along. It doesn’t end there, though. Mr. Padda was at her election

office opening as well. And now, she’s at an event hosted by, invited by

that same individual, an individual the minister suggested before she

didn’t know was going to be at this event.

But the Minister of Citizens’ Services was asked about the first

event on September 12 and again on September 14. When asked, she

dissembled and said that she didn’t know all of the people and that she

abhorred violence. I’d like to believe that, but she’s been caught front

and centre again at an event hosted and organized by Mr. Padda himself,

and that’s a fact.

She can no longer try to hide that it was someone else’s event

that she chose to attend. She chose to attend, as a minister of the

Crown, an event organized by someone she knows is facing gun-related

charges. For someone who claims to abhor violence and should have

learned from her mistakes, why did the minister again allow herself to

be photographed with this man?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: I want to say to my colleague across the way that she and I have

attended many, many events together in Surrey, where many of these

people she’s now questioning have been. Let me say that we still live in

a country where you are innocent until you are proven guilty.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.

S. Cadieux: Is that the minister’s explanation — that she thinks it’s okay to

associate with those charged with violent crimes as opposed to those

convicted of violent crimes? Then again, she did that too.

Perhaps that’s the advice she had received from the Attorney

General, but this is a serious matter. It’s about appearances. The

minister can continue to claim that she’s appalled. She can claim that

she didn’t know. She can declare that she abhors violence. But we have a

minister of the Crown repeatedly associating with and having her picture

taken with a man who is charged with serious gun offences. This speaks

to the judgment — rather, the appalling lack of judgment — of the

minister.

Could the Minister of Citizens’ Services please explain to this

House, to the citizens of Surrey-Panorama and to any British Columbian

who has been affected by gun violence how this does not constitute

conduct unbecoming of a minister?

Hon. J. Sims: Being a teacher, a mother, a grandmother and, proudly, a

great-grandmother, I can tell you that I abhor violence of all types. I

have answered this question.

T. Redies: What keeps occurring here is a serious matter that the minister

has to answer to. Mr. Padda was there, standing behind her while she

spoke at her campaign office opening. He was there at a

private….

Interjections.

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

T. Redies: He was there at a private fundraising event that she brought the

Premier to. Just over a week ago, the minister travelled outside her

riding to attend his event.

It’s clear that the minister knows Mr. Padda very well. Can she

explain why this man has such an active involvement in her political

life?

Hon. J. Sims: Let me say again that I attended an opening of a business that is

owned by a number of people. There were other elected officials there —

federal, even leadership candidates for the other side, as well as other

elected officials.

You know what? All of us on both sides of the House attend public

events and openings for businesses, because you know what? We want to

grow businesses. To link that to say that I support violence is just

stretching it to the absolute limit. I categorically abhor all kinds of

violence. Those who do a crime should get convicted in the courts. I am

not going to be judge and jury.

T. Redies: There’s just so much surprising about what the minister is

saying.

A minister of the Crown is expected to uphold a standard of

conduct. This is not about other federal ministers. This is about the

minister herself. The minister’s lack of judgment really casts serious

doubt on her suitability for cabinet. She is repeatedly associating with

Mr. Padda, an individual charged with uttering threats, pointing a

firearm, assault, using a firearm to commit an indictable offence. This

falls well short of that standard of conduct. This is very, very

disturbing.

We’ve asked this question in the House before, but it’s worth

repeating. How should people have any confidence whatsoever in the

minister’s judgment when she engages in behaviour that is hypocritical

in the extreme and that falls dramatically short of any standard of

conduct that people are entitled to expect of a minister of the

Crown?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: I attended an event, a business opening in my community that is

growing jobs. It’s a business that is well used by the community. I did

not go to any individual’s house for their business opening.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report of the Auditor

General, An Independent Audit of Grizzly Bear

Management .

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the little House, I call estimates of the Ministry of Finance. In this

chamber, I call continued committee stage, Bill 5.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5; R. Chouhan

in the chair.

The committee met at 10:59 p.m.

section 3 (continued) .

Hon. D. Eby: I’m joined again by Nancy Carter, executive director, and Renee

Mulligan, legal counsel for the civil policy and legislation office,

justice services branch, Ministry of Attorney General.

[11:00 a.m.]

Just before we get into my colleagues’ questions, there were a

series of questions yesterday related to Saturday dates and why October

was chosen.

It’s been drawn to my attention by staff that in 2010, there was a

report tabled in the Legislature from the former CEO at Elections B.C.,

Harry Neufeld. Mr. Neufeld, in this report — and I’d be glad to provide

copies to members, if they wish — discussed the timing of elections. He

wrote to this House:

“Legislators may wish to consider amending the Constitution Act to

establish that general elections shall be held in the fall. It would be

preferable that the date be selected with consideration given to the

timing of local government elections, fixed-date federal elections and

statutory holidays. Due to weather concerns, concluding voting before

the end of October would be preferred.”

Then with respect to Saturdays:

“The Constitution Act establishes that general elections are to be

held on the second Tuesday in May. Establishing Saturday as general

voting day would resolve a number of issues, such as the security

concerns associated with using schools as voting places while students

are present.

“A Saturday election would make more people available to work as

election officials or scrutineers and would ensure sufficient time

between the end of advance voting and general voting day to mark the

voters lists used for general voting to indicate which voters attended

advance voting.

“It is also possible that having a general voting day on a Saturday

would increase turnout. Legislators may wish to consider changing

general voting day to a Saturday for all provincial general elections

and by-elections.”

One note on that. Since the time of this report, Elections B.C.

did make changes to pre-marked voters lists, so that particular concern

about Saturdays has been addressed, but the rest stands.

I hope that helps members that raised questions about those issues

yesterday.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that information from 2010 — seven years

ago.

I’m curious. In a response earlier in this discussion around the

Saturday, the minister made mention that he had engaged with Elections

B.C., and they’d provided him with some feedback. I think what he had

said was he’d mentioned that the feedback was around Elections B.C.

having the ability to be able to track staff and locations.

I’m wondering what other feedback Elections B.C. gave the minister

this time around when the minister asked about moving to the election

date on a Saturday in October?

Hon. D. Eby: I think it might help the member to know that we engaged with

Elections B.C. on the content of the 2010 report that I just read from,

and, in particular, that Elections B.C. continues to support the

recommendations of the 2010 report — even now, as the member notes, some

considerable time later.

J. Rustad: I want to go back to asking, one more time, around the advance

polling dates, particularly on the long weekend and the holiday weekend.

I am concerned about that, obviously, with that particular

weekend.

Just for clarity right now, can the member say what days the

advance polling dates will be for the next upcoming election?

Hon. D. Eby: Mr. Chair, this will just take a second while staff look it up.

Thank you.

[11:05 a.m.]

Thanks for the member’s patience as we work through the calendar

here. The bill provides that October 15 through 20 would be advance

voting days. That’s Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and

Wednesday. The general voting day in 2021 will be October 23.

Thanksgiving that year is October 11, which is the second

Monday.

J. Rustad: Maybe I need to ask one other question. I haven’t actually paid

too much attention to when these advance polling dates were, actually,

during the campaign.

I thought in previous years that the advance polling had been done

over two weekends. Clearly the block of the 15th to the 20th would be

just over one period of time. I’m wondering why that shift has been

made.

Hon. D. Eby: There are two reasons. The member is right that this is a change

from existing practise. There are two reasons for that.

One is that to have the last advance voting day on a Saturday

would leave a week before the general voting day election. Elections

B.C. was concerned about a lack of momentum in terms of staffing and

public awareness around the election, that a week was a long period of

time in terms of a gap.

The second is that this act does not change the fact that

by-elections can be held on any day of the week. The concern of

Elections B.C. about having advance voting days on a Saturday, and

permitting by-elections any day of the week, is that it didn’t give them

enough time between the end of advance voting on a Saturday and, if the

by-election was to be held on a Monday, for them to retool for the

general election because they use a lot of the same staff between

advance voting and the general voting day.

[11:10 a.m.]

So there were two somewhat technical reasons for the preferred

model that’s put forward in this bill, which is a block of five days of

advance voting and then the general voting day occurring. The member

will note it occurs…. The last day of advance voting is the 20th, and

then the general voting day is the 23rd, to give Elections B.C. that

time to prepare.

J. Rustad: I’m curious about this. I’ve got to explore this more, because I

can see how this could potentially be a flaw in the election date. The

reason why I’m saying that is that it may work for 2021. However, in

future years, being the third Saturday, you could end up having

Thanksgiving fall on that weekend before the general

election.

It is a potential challenge in terms of picking this date and the

pattern that falls before it — in terms of the election and the advance

polling on that weekend. That then would mean, unless Elections B.C. is

planning to hold advance polling days on a long weekend…. It could

create a problem with when the availability of election dates is and not

having a weekend available for an advance vote.

I’m wondering if the minister has looked at this potential problem

and whether he considers it to be a significant issue.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. He’s right. There is a

scenario where advance voting days could fall in an overlap with the

Thanksgiving weekend. It’s important to note that the general voting day

and the majority of the advance voting days would still not fall within

that weekend.

But also to note, off the top of my head, there were six or seven

holidays — I went through them yesterday — that different cultural

groups have during October. Our goal was to avoid as many of them as

possible — any kind of overlap — while attempting to achieve some of the

recommendations that I outlined to the member around the benefits of a

fall voting date and a Saturday voting date.

It left staff certainly constrained in terms of the options. The

option we’re presenting in the bill here is — certainly, in my opinion

and the opinion of staff and in consultation with Elections B.C. — a

date that works and a format for advance voting that works for

them.

I think that’s the extent of what I’ve got for that member’s

question.

J. Rustad: I just want to read the section. This is

section 3. It says:

“Subject to subsection (1), a general voting day must occur on the third

Saturday in October in the fourth calendar year….” I’m assuming the

fourth calendar year you’re talking about is 2021 in terms of election,

right? — in terms of that. The 23rd, the date mentioned, is actually the

fourth Saturday. I’m wondering if the minister can clarify whether or

not he misspoke about the election date, or whether or not there is an

error in the piece of legislation that is being brought

forward.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member is absolutely right. This will teach us to do math on

the fly. We didn’t bring in the calendar with us, and we should have, of

future years’ dates. We can provide that to the member.

The correct answer, to the member, is that October 16 is the

general voting day. Advance voting would be the eighth through the 13th.

The tenth is Thanksgiving that year, and Thanksgiving falls within the

advance voting block. The days outside of the Thanksgiving weekend for

advance voting are the eighth, the 12th and the 13th. It’s not a

dissimilar situation from the current advance voting in the campaign

period, which often falls within the Easter weekend.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that. Once again, I’m quite disturbed about the

discussion we’re having, given that there is not advance voting over two

weekends in advance — and if that one weekend, if people are unavailable

to vote, happens to fall on the long weekend of October. In the case of

general elections in the spring, that has never been the case that I

know of — when the advance polling, particularly the weekend before, was

not available because of a holiday.

I think this poses an important problem. I’m wondering if

Elections B.C. has provided you with any guidance about this problem

that has been created by having the only advance polling dates available

the weekend of a long weekend prior to a general election. I do

recognize that there are dates outside of the weekend, but I also

recognize that people who work are not entitled to time off to go and

vote during the advance polls. If I am correct about that, they’re only

allowed time off on general election day, which means there are no

weekends available for people to be able to vote, other than the general

election day on a Saturday, because of the potential holiday challenge

that has created.

If you want people to be voting on a holiday, I suppose that’s

what government wants to do, but it does create a challenge that we have

not had in the province before.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his question. It’s a very interesting

discussion we’re having over here on this important issue of making sure

that people are able to vote in advance.

In the 2009 election, there were four days of advance voting, one

of which was a Saturday, and the same in 2013. That was expanded for the

May 2017 election, to give six days of advance voting and two

Saturdays.

The federal elections process currently has four days, including a

Saturday, but times, it’s important to note, are only half-day for

advance polls. So British Columbia, even under these amendments and even

if people aren’t able to vote on the holiday, provides significantly

more opportunities for advance voting than our federal colleagues. I

can’t speak to other provinces.

I definitely take the member’s concern about the difficulty that

some people will have voting on the holiday weekend. The good news is

that there will be a number of additional days other than the holiday

weekend. By my count, it’s four additional days over two weeks for them

to vote. If that’s a problem, there is, of course, mail-in voting, and

people can vote at any time at an Elections B.C. office.

J. Rustad: By my count, there’s the Friday, Tuesday and Wednesday that you’ve

noted. Assuming I take the week off from the 15th to the 20th — which

you originally provided, which would be the eighth to the 13th — there

are only three days outside of that, a Friday.

Many people like to take the advantage of the three-day weekend to

take an extra day and take a holiday, which means they may come back on

that Monday night. That would leave them only the Tuesday and Wednesday

prior to the election in terms of advance voting dates.

The minister mentioned, I think, at the onset of the debate on

this bill, that the bill was going to be able to provide more advance

voting opportunities, be able to engage more people and bring more

people out. One of the rationales for moving it to the Saturday was

being able to provide those additional days. Clearly, with it being the

holiday weekend, it would actually provide the opposite.

Just for the minister’s note, I look forward to the 2025 election.

It has the exact same problem of the holiday weekend happening the week,

the Monday prior to general election day.

Given this information on the challenges, I’m wondering if the

minister is prepared to either consider a different day for holding a

general election or whether or not the minister will direct Elections

B.C. to consider different opportunities for advance voting so that it

doesn’t overlap with a holiday weekend.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question and suggestion. If he has an

amendment to propose, I’d be glad to hear it.

The reason, though, for choosing this date and this formula was

that there are a number of different holidays and religious and cultural

observances in the fall that we were trying to avoid. They include

Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day and Remembrance Day — as well, Elections

B.C. cautioned to avoid November — and religious and cultural

observances in the fall: Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Shemini

Atzeret and Diwali, as well as the first Sunday of Advent, which is in

November.

We were working with a constrained calendar. The dates that we’re

putting forward are the dates that we feel work well with this and

provide advance voting opportunities. Also, as I noted, we consulted

with various religious groups that have Saturday observances on this

proposal, and they were okay with it.

J. Rustad: I received that answer yesterday in the discussion. I want to

thank the minister again for that answer. It still creates the challenge

that I don’t think has been brought forward or been thought through,

which is this challenge of the weekend.

Both bills that have been brought forward previously, private

members’ bills, have suggested the first Tuesday in October as a

potential date, because then it would avoid the Labour Day long weekend,

the official Canadian holiday, as well as the Thanksgiving date, which

is also an official holiday.

Once again, I’ll ask why the minister has decided to go with this

Saturday, with the clear challenges of a holiday weekend, rather than

with what the minister’s party had suggested in previous bills that had

been put forward into this Legislature.

Hon. D. Eby: I can provide the member with some additional information. Federal

elections are held on the third Monday in October. They have a similar

challenge with advance voting dates, as we do, and have successfully

grappled with it. The reason why it’s reasonable to believe that they

chose this third Monday in October — and we chose the third Saturday —

is they looked at the calendar and saw the same challenges with

statutory and religious observances and came to the same conclusion. I

also note that we rely on the recommendations of the chief election

officer at Elections B.C. around Saturday voting and fall voting and

avoiding November.

I note that there are a number of people up in the gallery. We

don’t tend to have a lot of people in the gallery for these kinds of

processes. Just so they know, we’re currently in committee stage on a

bill that proposes to change the fixed election date in British Columbia

from when it takes place right now in the spring on a Tuesday to the

fall, to October on a Saturday. The member opposite me, the member of

the opposition, is asking questions about the bill so that he can

understand it better and communicate to people the concerns that he has

about it. I’m explaining to him as best I can the rationale behind

changing the date.

J. Rustad: It’s good to clarify that, especially for the many watchers of

Hansard across the province.

It’s worth noting, actually, as the minister said, that the

federal election is on the third Monday. That puts it a week beyond the

Thanksgiving Day weekend, the statutory holiday within Canada. It also

means that the weekend prior is potentially available for advance

polling without overlapping with a holiday weekend.

[11:30 a.m.]

One of the bills that had been moved forward in the previous years

by the members, when they were in opposition, actually called for the

second Tuesday, which would be a definite problem. Would the minister

consider moving it to either the week before Remembrance Day or moving

it into that third Monday or Tuesday in October so that it would not

overlap with the Thanksgiving Day weekend for advance polling

opportunities?

Hon. D. Eby: One of the cautions that we received from Elections B.C., both in

2010 and then again in 2017, was the challenge in many rural parts of

the province, as you get later into the season.

I respect the member’s policy recommendation that we consider

looking at November. We’ll be taking the recommendation of the Chief

Electoral Officer to stay out of November and that an October fall

election on a Saturday is preferable.

J. Rustad: If I’m hearing that correctly…. First of all, I need to be clear.

I do not suggest that we move the date into November. Certainly, coming

from a rural area — an area that experiences sometimes some rather cold

weather temperatures in even October, for that matter — the later you

go, the more challenges you will have, certainly for some of the people

in the rural areas of the province.

I’m not suggesting the idea of going to November at all, but to

avoid the Thanksgiving weekend, particularly as that advance polling….

That would mean putting it on a weekday, after the member has suggested

— putting it into that third week in October, on a weekday, or holding

it on a weekday prior — or even, for that matter, the Saturday prior —

to the Thanksgiving Day weekend.

That’s what I’m questioning — whether the minister would consider

keeping it in October but trying to avoid having that holiday weekend

wrapped up in advance polling, when the only block of time for advance

polling will be immediately before and after and during that long

weekend.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member, and I can provide him with some additional

policy rationales for the later in October date.

The policy reasons that were identified to go later in October

rather than early in October was that when you look before the election,

the things that need to happen before, you’re talking about enumeration

and the movement of students around the province in September. So

enumeration is challenging during summer when people tend to be away or

are on vacation and then September…. And in August, students are moving

into places for September.

If you have it in later October, enumeration can move back as

well. Hopefully, you can have more time to catch those students in their

new locations and people when they move for the fall.

The second is when you look at what happens after an election.

Election financing reports are due 90 days after the general voting day.

If you have a general voting day in late September, the filing deadline

gets very close to Christmas and New Year’s, which is not ideal for many

financial agents and candidates and parties, given the fact that it’s a

very busy time of year for them as well.

There were a number of different policy considerations, including

the challenge of the earlier you get, arranging voting places with

schools during the summer months to make arrangements for September

voting dates. There were a lot of considerations that went into choosing

this timeline.

[11:35 a.m.]

J. Rustad: The minister mentioned something that I’m curious about, and it’s

piqued my interest, particularly around location of students. How long

does an individual in British Columbia need to be in a residence before

it’s considered that is their riding with regards to voting?

Hon. D. Eby: In terms of moving into the province, it’s not in this bill, but

my understanding is the rule is six months in the province before you

can vote in British Columbia. The other rule, for students, is that

Elections B.C. has a policy that students can either vote in the

constituency where they’re going to school — where they live for going

to school — or they can vote, typically, in their parents’ home

constituency. It’s up to them, but they’re not permitted to vote in

both.

J. Rustad: Thankfully, that is the case. So there is no time requirement for

students to live in a particular area. They’re allowed to vote. That’s

what I’m hearing from the minister. Okay, that’s good to

know.

Whether it’s the first week in October or a weekday in the third

week of October would make no difference for students and the ability

for students to be able to vote in the area that they currently are

living or attending school. It wouldn’t make any difference in terms of

people moving from out of province or any of those kinds of

components.

It still begs the question, then…. The reason why I keep going on

about this, particularly on Thanksgiving weekend, is that for myself

and, I’m sure, many people…. When there is a long weekend, people like

to often utilize holiday time — take four days and allow them to be able

take weekend to weekend off on a holiday, whether that be out of

province, in province or wherever it may be.

It’s only four days off to be able to connect those two as opposed

to five days off. It extends the number of days people have on holidays.

So in essence, what you’re saying to people who do that is that you have

to work on Friday and somehow get home and vote prior to taking off for

a holiday trip. Many people actually leave on the Friday evening on that

week of holiday that they’ll go. Which means, according to the dates

that you have provided, they would have no opportunity, for anybody that

takes that holiday, to actually be able to vote in advance polls or on

the general election.

Given that, once again I’ll ask: will the minister consider a

discussion here that would consider moving that date outside so that the

holiday weekend is not a factor in the upcoming elections?

Hon. D. Eby: Depending on the length of vacation that somebody is taking, if

they’re just away for the weekend, they’ll still be able to vote on the

12th, the 13th or the 16th, the general voting day. They’ll be able to

vote at any Elections B.C. office anywhere in the province. If they’re

visiting someone somewhere else in the province, they can vote at any

Elections B.C. office. In an absentee ballot process, they could get a

mail-in ballot from Elections B.C. There are a lot of different ways for

people to vote in British Columbia, and we certainly support

that.

J. Rustad: So for people that live in the province of British Columbia that

want to take one week out of an election campaign and go away on a

holiday break, what the minister is suggesting is that their only

opportunity would be a mail-in ballot. In all the previous elections,

there have been opportunities to increase the voter turnout by providing

advance polling dates, advance polling opportunities for people over a

number of weeks and a number of weekends, two weekends in particular,

because of these various types of scenarios that come up, to allow

people to be able to participate.

As the minister has said in the past, we have seen an increased

number of people participating in those advance polls. What we’re seeing

here is actually a potential decrease in those voting availability dates

and times for people that might take advantage of advance

polling.

If the minister is not prepared to have the discussion around

moving a date for the election, is the minister prepared to work with

Elections B.C. to expand the number of days available for advance

polling?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I definitely hear that the member is concerned about this issue. I

note that in 2015, the federal election did have advance voting over the

long weekend, and voting turnout was up for that election. I do hear his

concern about this. We put these dates forward in consultation with

Elections B.C. They are based on a report from 2010 from Elections B.C.

that Elections B.C. has re-endorsed, which recommended a Saturday in

October. Looking at all the different factors, these are the dates that

the government is putting forward in the bill.

J. Rustad: What I’m hearing is that there seems to be no flexibility in terms

of potential date or flexibility in terms of expanding opportunities for

advance polling outside of a holiday weekend. It’s unfortunate, but that

will be, I’m sure, factored into what people are thinking when it comes

time for voting, down the road.

I do want to ask one more thing around Saturday and the Saturday

dates. The member, earlier in comments yesterday, talked about,

particularly, that workers who may participate as volunteers during

elections would be considered an in-kind contribution, whether it’s from

private sector companies or from unions associated with this. There’s

another bill on the floor that will be debated — and passed, I’m

assuming — which talks about banning corporate and union

donations.

Would the fact that certain workforces would not be available on

working a particular election day, because of the changes to the other

acts around union in-kind type of donations and corporate in-kind

donations, factor into moving the election date to a

Saturday?

Hon. D. Eby: The report from Elections B.C. that recommended a Saturday in

October predated any discussion about banning union or corporate

donations, in this Legislature, from the government. There were

certainly discussions on the opposition side, but it predated that, and

as far as I know, there is absolutely no relationship there.

I do apologize to the member if I misspoke. That is correct. It is

the bill, which has not yet gone to committee stage, that would make

such donations of workers’ time, while they’re being paid by an employer

or by a union, to go and work on a campaign…. People have to do that on

vacation time now, if that bill passes. But that’s not currently the

law. I’d have to get advice in terms of outlining specifically what the

current state of play is, for the member, in terms of those kinds of

donations.

J. Rustad: In my understanding, the current situation is that if people are

paid to work on a campaign, whether it be from corporate or union, that

of course would have to be considered as an in-kind donation to various

campaigns and be accounted for accordingly.

What the minister had said yesterday was: “Members and those who

wish to become members will be more reliant on volunteers, and Saturday

may provide an additional opportunity for more people to be able to

participate in the election process as volunteers” in the election. He

made that specifically with regard to “including donations of in-kind

staff to participate as volunteers in an election,” which will be

banned, of course, assuming that piece of legislation passes.

The reason why I’m still struggling with the Saturday-or-Sunday,

or Saturday-or-weekday, type of approach, in terms of it…. I know the

member has made reference to the Elections B.C. report from 2010 and

some conversations he’s had more recently, obviously, which still

support that. But I find it curious. Being a veteran of many campaigns

now myself, a number of campaigns, I did notice, in particular, that

many of the volunteers for members opposite that were working in

campaigns that I’ve run, of course, were people that were basically paid

by the union — they weren’t paid by the employer of the union, obviously

— to work on those campaigns.

[11:45 a.m.]

Given that there is this potential change, in terms of how those

are considered, and banning the potential for that kind of in-kind,

paid-for volunteers — or “voluntolds,” as some people like to refer to

them — is that a part of the rationale, as the member had referenced

before, for why they’re choosing a Saturday as opposed to a

weekday?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, the member rightly notes that I think it’s a benefit. I

think it’s a benefit that more people are going to be able to volunteer

and participate in a general voting day on a Saturday.

I’m not the only person who thinks that. The former Chief

Electoral Officer, in his 2010 report, was quite clear: “A Saturday

election would make more people available to work as election officials

or scrutineers.” It’s clear that he believed, as well, in his report,

which has been endorsed again in 2017, that more people would be

available to participate in the election. I think it’s a benefit of a

Saturday voting day, and it’s why I hope the member supports

it.

J. Rustad: Thanks for the clarification on that component.

Moving from the date, the Saturday, through to “the fourth

calendar year,” I’m just curious why the minister chose those words, in

particular, the fourth calendar year, as opposed to the fourth year

following an election.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that this is a drafting convention in British

Columbia. The previous fixed election date had to be amended to add the

word “calendar” in, and this is consistent with that act.

J. Rustad: Can I get the minister’s

interpretation, then? The date coming up

to 2021 — as opposed to ’17, ’18, ’19, ’20 — is the fourth calendar

year? Essentially, what this seems to do is suggest that the election

date will actually be held in the fifth year of a mandate as opposed to

the fourth year. So I’m just wondering how the minister takes it out to

the fall of 2021.

Hon. D. Eby: The general voting day for the last election was May 2017. The

provision says that the “general voting day must occur on the third

Saturday in October in the fourth calendar year following the general

voting day.” So if the election date was in May 2017, the first calendar

year is January 2018 to December 2018. The second calendar year is

January 2019 to December 2019. The third calendar year is January 2020

to December 2020. The fourth calendar year is 2021, and October is

mandated by the section. So October 2021 is when the fixed election date

would take place.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that explanation from the minister. The reason, of

course, why I ask him that is there’s an amendment that we’ll be moving

with regards to that.

[11:50 a.m.]

All fixed election dates going forward since 2001 have always been

four-year mandates. I seem to remember a lively discussion at one point

in the past term about moving to the fall and whether it would be the

fall before or the fall after — with some very interesting discussion

from members opposite, the governing members, about their preference

with regards to whether it would be the fall before or the fall

after.

That’s why I asked for the clarification with regards to the

calendar year. This will actually create, in a situation where we have a

minority government with a partner that is not in a coalition, a

situation to extend this, potentially, six months beyond the election

date — beyond what would have been the election date in a spring

election, that is.

I’m just curious as to the rationale from the minister with

regards to why the election date for the fall of 2021 was selected, as

opposed to going for the fall of 2020 and, based on the record of the

government of the day, why they wouldn’t be looking for a full mandate

to be able to go forward, as opposed to carrying it on long after what

normally would have been a four-year mandate.

Hon. D. Eby: We are not the first province to move from a fixed spring election

to a fixed fall election date. I’m advised by more experienced members

of the House…. He recalls that members, when they were on this side of

the House and this was raised, regularly talked about the fall, four

years following the introduction of legislation, as the effective

date.

In any event, putting House wisdom aside, Saskatchewan moved from

a fixed spring election to a fixed fall election. That term they did

that was four years and three months. Manitoba did the same. That term

they made that move, the term of government was four years and five

months. Quebec has introduced legislation but hasn’t yet had a fall

election. Assuming that the government doesn’t fall, the fixed election

legislation that they’ve introduced will have a four-year-and-six-month

term between the previous election and the scheduled 2018 fall

election.

So it’s quite common that when this type of legislation is

introduced, there is an extended term. I don’t blame the member one bit

for wanting to have an amendment that would call an election sooner. I

know the feeling when I was opposition, wanting to call elections as

soon as possible. But this is not out of the ordinary in this type of

situation.

Noting the hour, Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise to report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 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. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 11 a.m.

On Vote 24: ministry operations, $170,312,000.

The Chair: Minister, did you have an opening statement?

Hon. C. James: I’ll keep the opening remarks brief. I know we want to give the

members an opportunity to be able to have a good discussion on the

Ministry of Finance, on the building of the budget. I know they have a

number of questions.

As I have said previously to the members across, I certainly see

estimates as an opportunity to have that good discussion and dialogue. I

think this is a great opportunity for issues to be raised. The Ministry

of Finance and the budget are here for British Columbians, not just here

for us and not just here for me as Minister of Finance. I think this is

an opportunity to engage in that kind of discussion.

I have a number of staff with me. I’ll just do some quick

introductions. I have Dave Riley, Sadaf Mirza, Chris Skillings, Steve

Klak, David Galbraith, Tara Richards and Lori Wanamaker. I want to just

begin by saying how much I appreciate the staff of the Ministry of

Finance.

It has been an extraordinary year for a Minister of Finance and

for the Ministry of Finance, to go through a public accounts, a budget

and another budget coming up in February, so I know the work that has

had to be put in, in this unusual time of transition. I’ll just express

my appreciation for the work that happens, ongoing regardless of who’s

in government, by the staff in the Ministry of Finance.

With that, I’ll turn it over to the members.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for her opening remarks. We certainly

agree with the fact that this is an opportunity for us to ask questions

on behalf of British Columbians.

We’re going to start, obviously, this morning. We’re going to

spend some time together for the rest of the day and probably tomorrow

as well, so maybe just a little bit of a road map. I know that we have

provided the minister with an outline of our anticipated order of

questions. We have discovered that when MLAs have issues, they will

appear, so we expect it to be later this afternoon, probably around

three o’clock, but we don’t know when they’ll wander in for

sure.

There will be a number of MLAs that will bring a variety of

questions. Much of it is around tax policy, as the minister can imagine,

so we’re going to try to group that together to make it easier to manage

the staff. I think both the minister and I have been through this

process a number of times, and we don’t intend for this to be the

Inquisition. This is actually a chance for us to have some thoughtful

dialogue about how we get to where we are and what British Columbians

can expect over the next number of months and years.

I also want to express, on behalf of my colleague, our thanks to

the minister — she was very cooperative in setting up briefings for us —

and the staff. We certainly appreciate the work that they did in

bringing that information to us. It was very collegial and cooperative,

and we appreciate that.

With that, we’re going to begin generally, with the responsibility

changes that have occurred. When any government takes office, there’s

always an adjustment in responsibilities as new ministers are named and

things are added, things are changed. If the minister could, in essence,

walk through what the ministry changes would have been, through the

transition: new departments that were added, new areas of responsibility

or things that have moved out of the ministry.

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question. Yes, as the member mentioned, there

are adjustments that happen when a transition occurs with government.

Some programs are moved to other ministries or moved in. So the program

transfers out of the Ministry of Finance were the gaming policy and

enforcement branch, which moved over to the Attorney General; corporate

information and records management office. And then there was one

transfer into the ministry — I expect that might be the next question

that’s coming from the member — which was government communications and

public engagement.

S. Bond: Thank you for that. We are going to get, obviously, to the

government communications piece, and it’ll probably be later today. But

in terms of overall staffing, could the minister walk through,

basically, the puts and takes in terms of the overall size of the

ministry under the previous government and what it looks like now, and

perhaps a bit of a breakdown between, exactly, the minister’s office

staff and the ministry, more broadly?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you for your patience while we make sure we were looking at

the numbers. So 1,733 staff before the changes, before the transfer

occurred; 1,380 staff, post-transfer. Those are the restated numbers

after the gaming was moved and after the corporate information and

records management were moved. GCPE is on top of that, so GCPE is 329. I

know we’ll get into the specifics around GCPE as we get to those

discussions. And the minister’s office is six, which is unchanged from

previous.

S. Bond: In terms of the numbers, it’s 1,380 post, so how many…? Just to

confirm, then, that was gaming that was actually moved out, and other

staff. And then, on top of that, we have government communications

staff. In the minister’s office, there are six. Can the

minister…?

First, let me ask this question. Is the minister’s office

generally fully staffed now? Does the minister anticipate further

hiring?

Hon. C. James: We have a complement of six. We currently have five staff, so I

only anticipate filling the position that isn’t filled at the

moment.

S. Bond: Could the minister walk through…? I think it’s probably common

now, across ministries, but it would be good to understand the

utilization of staff in the minister’s office. Are all of those staff

located in Victoria?

Hon. C. James: Yes.

S. Bond: Well, in the minister’s case, that’s because she lives in

Victoria. So that was very clever. But let’s walk through that a little

bit. If the minister happened to live in Smithers, for

example….

Let’s walk through the general placement of staff and perhaps a

bit of the rationale around the deployment of…. And I certainly

recognize, having been a minister for a very long period of time, staffs

are never…. I don’t consider them overly large. There is a very big job

that they do, particularly constituency files and caring for British

Columbians.

It’s an interesting choice to deploy staff outside of Victoria,

where typically EAs, MAs and other ministers’ staff work. If the

minister could let us know: is it now a practice across government to

place minister staff in their ridings — other than her own, which is in

her riding but not outside of Victoria — and also, are there cost

implications to that decision?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: The one position that is being looked at in ministries for work

out of the constituency offices is the executive assistant position.

That’s one position.

Whether there are travel costs, I think, again, would depend…. I

think you’d have to ask each individual ministry, until the numbers come

in. I expect, if it’s a position that is based in a constituency office,

you probably have a member from that constituency who has been

hired.

I would expect there wouldn’t be travel costs, because it could be

an individual…. For example, the member used the example of Smithers. I

expect that it may be someone who lives in Smithers who has been hired

who works out of the constituency office for the minister. But there

wouldn’t be travel costs, because they’re based in Smithers.

That’s what I would expect, but the details, again, will come out

in each ministry when we do public accounts. But I expect that that’s

the case.

S. Bond: I just want to clarify, then, that the placement in constituency

offices will be part of the minister’s responsibility out of their

budgets, so the minister doesn’t expect additional costs to government.

They simply will have to adjust whatever it is they do within their

minister’s offices to cover that external placement.

Hon. C. James: That’s correct.

T. Redies: I’d also like to add my thanks to the staff for their support

through this process — so thank you.

Just a question to the minister. I’m just curious why GCPE was

brought into the Finance department.

Hon. C. James: I think the decision was made by the Premier’s office. That’s who

makes the decision around the structure of government, so it’s a

question you could certainly ask the Premier’s office. I think, as they

look at restructuring government, they make a determination around which

ministry areas responsibility will go to. So more a question for the

Premier.

T. Redies: Could the minister not ask the Premier why she was getting this

particular department?

Hon. C. James: As a person who was appointed minister, I was happy to take any

and all responsibilities that the Premier offered to my office and to

me.

T. Redies: We’re going to turn now to the budget and the fiscal plan, if we

can. I want to specifically ask the minister about balanced budgets and

the intent of this government going forward. Are the minister and the

rest of her colleagues committed to balancing the budget beyond this

year? British Columbians, as you know, have come to expect balanced

budgets. They’ve had five consecutive ones. I guess my question is: is

there going to be a sixth, seventh and eighth?

Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member for the question. Yes, as the member knows,

balancing the budget was in my mandate letter. It’s a mandate not only

for me as Finance Minister but also for the government. The Premier

included it in my mandate letter.

I have often been asked by people: “Never say never. Is that part

of the issue when it comes to deficits?” I think it’s important to

recognize that, just as the previous government did, when there was a

downturn in the economy and they weren’t able to balance the budget,

they looked at the legislation. They made a temporary decision because

of the fiscal situation of the province. But as the member knows from

the three-year budget, the plan is to balance the budget over the three

years. That’s my commitment, and that’s our government’s

commitment.

T. Redies: That’s good to have that commitment on record. One of the reasons

why we ask is that the minister’s mandate letter only requires her to

ensure that the 2017-18 budget reports are balanced.

The other challenge, I guess, that we’re having is that there have

been some conflicting statements around balanced budgets in the NDP

platform. So I guess what we want to do is just confirm that it is the

intention…. And also, is the plan to hold ministers responsible for

ensuring that there is a balanced budget?

Hon. C. James: As the member knows, there’s been no change to the balanced-budget

legislation, which requires that ministers be held to account. And yes,

the plan — as the member knows, from the three years — is to balance the

budget.

T. Redies: There are no plans to change the balanced-budget

legislation?

Hon. C. James: No.

[11:20 a.m.]

T. Redies: Recently, the minister stated…. She said, “I don’t think anyone

could ever say never,” in regard to deficits. You referenced the 2008

economic crash as a period of time when the government felt it was

important to carry a deficit. Could the minister explain…? Is this the

minimum level of crisis that she considers acceptable circumstances to

enter a deficit? If not, when does she believe deficits become

acceptable?

Hon. C. James: I think the kinds of examples that I would certainly point to

would be external shocks. The member mentioned 2008. I think that would

be classified as an external shock to the province, to the country, to

the global economy. It’s something that would occur that would not give

time for planning. The wildfires would be another example — if we had

another wildfire season.

I think it’s part of the reason — I know the member has heard me

say this often — you build prudence into the budgets. It’s part of the

reason that we have the contingency allowance, the forecast allowance.

It’s part of why growth projections are below the Economic Forecast

Council — to ensure that those things are built in. As much as possible,

those contingencies are built into the budget.

Those would be the examples — something that doesn’t give the

opportunity to plan, like a wildfire, and external shocks that may hit

the province.

T. Redies: That’s helpful. Thank you. There have been, as I mentioned, a few

conflicting statements. That’s why we’re spending a bit of time on

this.

I think the Premier mentioned in December ’14 that he felt that,

largely, balanced-budget legislation is a gimmick. And the minister

herself, in ’08, said: “I don’t agree with deficits. I think a balanced

budget is critical.” That seems to be her response. I guess what we’re

trying to clarify is: is the commitment to balance budgets widespread

throughout cabinet, in the Premier’s office and throughout this

government?

Hon. C. James: I’ll speak for myself as Minister of Finance and the direction

that I’ve been given by the cabinet, by the Premier and by government,

which is to balance the budget. The member has the three-year plan and

sees that it’s there.

S. Bond: I just want to pursue that a bit further, because we talked about

the threshold for a deficit and what that might be. I think all of us

recognize that external shock is something you can’t plan or prepare

for.

This is an important issue, because one of the reasons that

British Columbia…. I have appreciated the minister’s willingness to talk

about the strength of the economy in British Columbia. Frankly, it’s a

fact. One of the reasons that we’re in the position we are today is

because of a very, very disciplined fiscal approach. This is really

about discipline and trying to balance all the needs of British

Columbians.

In the commentary leading up to the election, there was a lot of

conversation, and certainly, British Columbians spoke. They believed

that the previous government hadn’t spent perhaps as much as it should

have, when it came to caring for families and children.

One of the words used in the discussion by the minister and her

party prior to the election was: “We will aim to balance the budget in

every year…but not at the expense of children, seniors, families and the

most vulnerable.” Notionally, we all want to believe that we are caring

for the most vulnerable in our province.

[11:25 a.m.]

How will the minister grapple with the issue of balancing a

budget, while at the same time having stated the principle that we won’t

do that at the expense of vulnerable British Columbians? How does she

intend to grapple with that issue?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. I think this really is a

question of government’s responsibility and choices when it comes to

priorities. As the member knows — and I’ll just put them on the record

again — our government has three priority areas. As I introduced the

budget in September, the budget update, the member will know that I

talked about the key investments we made in those three priority

areas.

We are not going to be able to do everything. I’ve done my

investors tours. I’ve talked to the bond-rating agencies and talked

about priorities. I think one of the biggest challenges after a change

in government after 16 years…. And this isn’t a political statement; I

think it would happen with any government change. After 16 years, there

is a pent-up demand for supports, for programs and services that perhaps

weren’t priorities previously, and a need to be able to look at

those.

I have been very upfront about the fact that you can’t do

everything overnight. It’s not going to be possible, so we have three

priority areas, the first one being affordability and addressing

affordability for families and individuals in our province. The second

priority is improving services and supports. And the third priority area

is building a long-term, sustainable, strong economy for British

Columbia.

The member will know, in looking at the September budget, that we

made some very key investments in those particular areas as the

resources were available. I think one of the other important pieces to

note is that a large number of programs and services are investments

over time. If I look at the child care program, for example. That’s a

ten-year program. Our housing investment is a ten-year plan. These are

programs that are invested as the resources are available.

I know I don’t need to tell the member — I know she knows this

well — that that’s what government is about, making those choices. And

those are choices that we’ll be making as well.

T. Redies: Again, just pursuing this a little bit further, which priority is

more important to the minister: balancing the budget or keeping election

promises?

Hon. C. James: I think that’s a very good example of a different philosophy than

the previous government, when it comes to picking and choosing programs

and services. I think part of the challenge and part of the message, as

the previous member said, received by the past government was that that

balance wasn’t there. The balance of ensuring that the economy is strong

and ensuring that the public sees the benefit of that strong economy was

not there with the previous government.

That’s what we intend to do: to look at that balance where we have

a strong economy, and the people who help build that strong economy

benefit from the economy. It isn’t either-or. It’s making sure that the

budget and the strong economy are there for the public of British

Columbia.

T. Redies: With no disrespect, Minister, I don’t know if you answered my

question. If there is a situation where you have to make a choice

between a balanced budget or keeping the NDP’s election promises, what

are you going to do?

The Chair: I would remind the member to go through the Chair.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I appreciate the member’s question, but you could imagine every

hypothetical situation that could come forward. I mentioned earlier the

issue of external factors coming into play, the forest fires being a

good example. Those are resources that went to fight fires that are not

resources that are in the budget. Therefore, choices have to be made.

That’s what government is all about.

We will have to, as every government has done, take a look at the

budget, take a look at the options that are there and the choices that

are there, what’s available, and make a determination. That may mean

looking at implementation. As I mentioned, child care is a good example.

If there were federal dollars coming in on the child care program, we’re

able to implement that program in a different kind of way. Those are the

kinds of decisions that you make.

S. Bond: Thank you, Minister. I think all of us recognize that, first of

all, getting to a balanced budget is about tough choices. I think what’s

most important here and part of what we’re trying to at least lay out is

that promises are important too. It needs to be a transparent process

for British Columbians.

There are very expensive promises that are not reflected,

obviously, in the budget update, and we understand that. That process is

a short-term process. But the fact of the matter is there were promises

made which, at least from our perspective, would be very difficult to

manage — without, as the minister suggests, longer implementation times

and all of those kinds of things — within a balanced budget.

I think it is important that there be a transparent process. Does

the minister intend to lay out for British Columbians, for example, that

expanded timeline? If it’s a ten-year daycare program, exactly how

that’s going to — obviously not today but over time…. It is important.

Promises were made. British Columbians made choices, as well, based on

the promises.

It is going to be very difficult, looking at this from a purely

fiscal perspective, much less political, to cover all of the promises

that have been made and maintain a balanced budget. So if the minister

could identify for us how she intends to keep British Columbians

informed about how those promises will be kept over time.

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question. As the member knows, and as all

members in the Legislature know, the budget process is transparent. The

budget is released on the third Tuesday of February. We’ll be back in

the regular cycle. This is an unusual year because of the election and

the change of government and doing a budget update in September. As the

member knows, that budget came forward with many of the same programs

and services that were in place, with some additional key investments

that we put in there.

The budget will be transparent. People will see, on the third

Tuesday in February, the programs and services — what is able to be

funded. That will be a transparent document for all British

Columbians.

It’s a three-year plan. I think that’s the other important piece,

that it’s a three-year plan. That, again, gives the ability for the

public to see where priorities have been decided on and what’s been

built into the budget for what year.

Then I think the other piece, just to layer on top of that, of

course, is the budget consultation going on right now. I think the

member’s a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and

Government Services. That process is occurring as well. That again will

inform choices that a government makes, when that report is received, to

see the priorities and the areas that the public has also recommended

that government take a look at.

[11:35 a.m.]

S. Bond: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. I want to go back to the

legislation about how we maintain discipline and how the minister

intends to maintain discipline around individual ministries and

ministers in terms of their own budget expectations.

As the minister well knows, and I certainly faced it for a lot of

my career, if you didn’t balance a budget, there was going to be a

penalty for that. I can tell you, it was not just because we wanted to

be fiscally prudent, but there was a great deal of personal pressure

about not wanting to be the first person who did not meet their

expectations.

Will the requirements related to individual ministers balancing

their budgets remain in place? And will there continue to be a penalty,

so to speak, should the minister and the ministry not balance their

individual budgets?

Hon. C. James: As I mentioned earlier, there is no plan to change the

legislation. The existing legislation is in place as it was

previously.

S. Bond: Thank you for that. I wish them all well. I remember how that

impacted the work that ministers do.

There is another key part of that legislation, which I am, I

think, very interested in knowing. I heard the minister say no changes,

but I do want to check on this piece, in particular. With a focus on

balanced budgets, and obviously, there are modest surpluses projected in

terms of the budget update — we’ll wait to see what February says — will

the government continue to use surplus to pay down the debt?

Hon. C. James: No change. There is no change in that

section of the

legislation.

T. Redies: Just turning now to economic growth and the assumptions around

that, I’d like to ask a few questions about the growth rates, if I may.

I want to understand what the process was and how the growth rates were

determined for the plan, particularly after 2017-2018. Is the minister

confident in those growth rates given, perhaps, a rising tide of

uncertainty in the economy?

Hon. C. James: I just wanted to make sure I had some detail for the member. The

first question was: do we feel optimistic and positive about the

forecast? Yes, we do. I think that’s because of the process that is used

by the Ministry of Finance. I think it’s important to note that this is

the same process that has been used for approximately 20 years in the

Ministry of Finance. That has not changed. It’s a macroeconomic model

which contains over 300 equations with a variety of areas that are in

the formulas.

I won’t run through all of them, but just to give the member some

ideas, there are economic indicators in that formula for Canada, U.S.,

Japan, China and Europe. We take a look at interest rates. The

Canadian-U.S. exchange rate, for example, is one of those factors that

is built in. We look at commodity prices and utilize that when we take a

look, again, at our forecasting. Population and migration — that’s an

important factor that’s taken into account. And then fiscal policy of

the government.

[11:40 a.m.]

As the member knows, our forecast for growth — we take a number

below the Economic Forecast Council, which is the independent group that

comes together to put together a growth estimate. We have put our

estimate below that — again, to build in prudence.

The members may be interested. It was something…. It wasn’t a hot

ticket, I have to say, in opposition, but I attended for the years I was

critic. The Economic Forecast Council meeting is open. That’s on

December 1 of this year. That’s going to be here in Victoria. The

members are certainly more than welcome to attend. It’s an interesting

process. It’s interesting watching the debates around the table, around

why they gave the growth numbers that they did. It gives very good

insight, from my perspective, around the kinds of numbers that come up

in our growth and in our estimates.

T. Redies: Thank you for that comprehensive response, Minister. As the

minister knows, I like numbers. I’m also very interested in economics

and forecasts and what’s behind them, so it’s very helpful to understand

some of that process.

Again, I like numbers. I just wonder if the minister or staff can

explain. If growth rates rise by 0.1 percent, what’s the impact to the

budget? If growth rates fall by the same amount, what is the

impact?

Hon. C. James: I should have also let the member know, since she enjoys numbers,

that she can actually take a look at the entire model. The macroeconomic

model is on the Ministry of Finance website. That’s, again, just another

detailed piece that, if she’s interested in following up, she can take a

look at.

In case the member wants to go into more detail, there is a

sensitivity table in the budget table, 1.23 on page 46 in the budget

document, just in case there’s follow-up that the member wants to do

later. But a 1 percent change in nominal GDP is $150 million to $250

million.

T. Redies: Again, just going into the forecast. I think I mentioned that

there are a lot of uncertainties out there. I think the minister has

expressed a number of those in various meetings she’s had on the budget

update.

I just want to understand…. We are going to be talking about

taxation a little bit later. Has the government factored in the impact

of increased carbon and corporate taxes into their forecast after this

year in terms of their impact on GDP growth, corporate spending, retail

spending and the impact, by osmosis, on government revenue?

[11:45 a.m.]

The Chair: Minister of Finance — and also, note the hour.

Hon. C. James: Have we got time to answer the question first?

The Chair: We sure do.

Hon. C. James: Thank you very much, Chair. Then we’ll come back, I’m sure, to

this discussion.

Standard practice — and again, this is no change from 20 years of

practice when it comes to economic forecasting — is that tax changes are

not built into economic forecasting until the decisions are made. The

examples that we take a look at for this coming budget would be that the

decisions made in the February budget that were carried forward were

built into the economic forecasting.

For example, the 50 percent cut in MSP for incomes $120,000 and

below was built in because that was a decision made in the February

budget. The small business tax break and the tobacco tax increase were

built in. But, for example, doing all of MSP was not built in, again

because that wasn’t a decision that was made while the forecasting work

was being done.

The PST on electricity, the corporate income tax and the

high-income earners change, and corporate income tax by a percentage

point as well — those were changes that occurred after. So those will be

built in, obviously, in the forecast for the February budget, and you’ll

see those in the three-year budget plan.

Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada