Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, July 27, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 348

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

Tributes

George Jones

Hon. S. Simpson

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Salmon enhancement in Mill Hill Regional Park

area

M. Dean

Richmond Sunset Rotary Club

J. Yap

Tri-Cities Local Immigration Partnership and racism

awareness

R. Glumac

Events and volunteer activities in

Cariboo-Chilcotin area

D. Barnett

Snuneymuxw First Nation hosting of Tribal Journeys

events

S. Malcolmson

South Okanagan irrigation canal system

L. Larson

Oral Questions

Government purchase of hotels for supportive

housing and impact on businesses

T. Stone

Hon. J. Horgan

Tent cities and services at supportive housing

facilities

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. S. Robinson

COVID-19 response and mental health

services

S. Furstenau

Hon. J. Darcy

COVID-19 deaths and response to opioid

crisis

S. Furstenau

Hon. J. Darcy

Liaison positions with Wet’suwet’en Hereditary

Chiefs

J. Johal

Hon. J. Horgan

Blue River encampment and community engagement in

area

P. Milobar

Hon. M. Farnworth

Hon. S. Fraser

Wet’suwet’en Nation representation and negotiation

of agreements

M. de Jong

Hon. S. Fraser

M. Polak

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2020

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating

(No. 4) Amendment Act, 2020

Hon. S. Robinson

L. Throness

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 24 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating

(No. 4) Amendment Act, 2020

L. Throness

Hon. S. Robinson

Reporting of Bills

Bill 24 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating

(No. 4) Amendment Act, 2020

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 4 — Budget Measures Implementation Act,

M. de Jong

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

S. Cadieux

Reporting of Bills

Bill 4 — Budget Measures Implementation Act,

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2020 (continued)

MONDAY, JULY 27, 2020

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: It’s my pleasure to introduce Michael A. Pickup to the House. Michael

begins an eight-year term as Auditor General of British Columbia today. He

was unanimously recommended for this position by the Special Committee to

Appoint an Auditor General. On March 23, the Legislative Assembly adopted a

resolution for his appointment.

As Chair of that special committee, I did not have the opportunity to

personally present the committee’s report to the Legislative Assembly in the

March 23 special sitting, so I am particularly happy to do so today. Before

doing so, I would like to thank my Deputy Chair, the member for

Richmond-Steveston; as well as the member for Prince George–Valemount; the

member for Burnaby North; and the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for their

collaborative approach to our work on the appointment process.

The members of the special committee recognized that British Columbia

will be well served by Michael Pickup. He served as Nova Scotia’s Auditor

General since 2014 and was with the Office of the Auditor General of Canada

for 25 years before that. He brings a strong commitment to accountability,

public service and supporting Indigenous reconciliation.

I have to say as the Chair that we were so impressed by the efficiency

of the shop that Mr. Pickup ran in Nova Scotia, as well as his overriding

commitment to public service. It was with unanimity and confidence that the

committee has recommended Mr. Pickup, but also a desire that British

Columbians be aware of the excellence of the people in public service that

we are so fortunate to enjoy.

Tributes

GEORGE JONES

Hon. S. Simpson: Thank you for the opportunity to speak a little bit about my

father-in-law, George Jones. George passed away on May 25 at the age of

First, I really want to express our thanks to the wonderful staff

at the Cridge and Kiwanis for the outstanding care that they provided to

him over his illness.

Family was always George’s foundation: seven children, eight

grandchildren, two great-grandkids, and of course, his soulmate and the

love of his life, Linda. George Jones, QC, had a distinguished 50-year

law career, establishing one of Victoria’s largest firms and being

recognized as one of Canada’s leading tax lawyers.

Even more important, though, for George was his belief in people,

in community and in giving back. His commitment to the Victoria

community was unwavering and widespread, very often reflected in his

work with amateur sports. George founded the Velox rugby club in

Victoria, supported the rights of men and women rugby players across

Canada and established the Canadian Rugby Foundation, which today

presents a scholarship in his name. Add endless hours coaching and

managing youth soccer, baseball and rugby teams, and this led to George

being inducted into the Victoria Sports Hall of Fame in 2012.

He came from privilege. His father led the Canadian Navy during

the Second World War, and his grandfather was the Lieutenant-Governor of

British Columbia. George understood that privilege, and throughout his

adult life embraced social justice, challenged economic disparity and

inequity and worked to ensure that everyone was supported and

represented. This was reflected in his commitment to pro bono work as an

attorney and as a mentor to many young people.

I remember George for his positive attitude, his smile, the

sparkle in his eye, the impish character that often drove his family a

little bit crazy. But I know for the literally thousands of people whose

lives he’s touched, he will be remembered and loved for his belief in

humanity, in community and his tireless efforts to lift people up and

give them a chance to realize their dreams and to succeed.

A life well lived, George Jones.

[1:40 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

M. Stilwell: Today joining us in the House are some special guests on a special

day. My husband Mark and my son Kai are here today celebrating their dual

birthdays. Mark is at the age where he probably doesn’t want to talk about

his age. Kai, on the other side, is turning 19 today, so he’s screaming it

from the rooftops, because today he’s officially legal to vote. Hopefully,

my vote count will go up in the next election. He can enter a binding

contract. He could get married without my permission. He can buy lottery

tickets. He can gamble. He can even buy liquor and get a credit card. So my

world is about to change now that I officially have a 19-year-old in my

house.

Would the House please make them both feel very welcome and wish them

a happy birthday.

J. Yap: I’d like to, first of all, add my words of welcome to the new Auditor

General for British Columbia, Michael Pickup. I appreciated the welcome from

the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, who chaired the selection committee,

and I had the privilege of being the Deputy Chair. We’re delighted that

Michael Pickup has now taken on the mantle of Office of the Auditor General,

and we all look forward to working with him.

I’d also like to welcome to the Legislature three constituents who are

following proceedings today remotely. They are Magdalen Leung, Michael Chiu

and Peter Botti. Would the House please extend a warm welcome to these

virtual guests.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SALMON ENHANCEMENT IN

MILL HILL REGIONAL PARK

AREA

M. Dean: I recently had the pleasure of visiting Mill Hill Regional Park to

see a new project in development to create an ambitious fish ladder and

provide access to coho salmon to more than seven kilometres of

additional habitat. As a result, we hope that 3,000 more fish will

return to the stream to spawn annually.

This would not have been possible without all the work of the

Goldstream Volunteer Salmonid Enhancement Association. In partnership

with local governments like the town of View Royal and the city of

Colwood, they have spent over 20 years and thousands of volunteer hours

improving fish access upstream from tidewater to Atkins Road. This

included overcoming five barriers to upstream migration, providing 2016

returns of 700-plus coho salmon adults. But at the Atkins Road

section

of Millstream Creek, there was a four-metre-high perched and

inaccessible culvert.

Now, here is the science bit. The engineering design is clearly

based on expert knowledge of fish needs and behaviour. The culvert was

filled with concrete and velocity baffles so that the fish have resting

places and back eddies to make their way up. Leading to the entrance of

the culvert, they’re building a fish ladder, a curving, stepping-up

waterway.

Environmental monitoring is being undertaken by professional

biologists of the Peninsula Streams Society. The province of B.C. is

supporting the project through a $250,000 community gaming capital

project grant.

Thank you to everybody who is working so hard to get this done —

the Pacific Salmon Foundation, the contractors and the many, many, many

volunteers from across Esquimalt-Metchosin and the region that have come

together to make this fishway a reality.

RICHMOND SUNSET ROTARY CLUB

J. Yap: I rise to talk about the extraordinary work of the Richmond Sunset

Rotary Club. Since 1998 this club of community-minded and altruistic

volunteers have worked to make a difference around the world and closer

to home. Over the years, Richmond Sunset Rotarians have assisted people

needing help in Africa, South Asia and in southeast Asia.

The club’s signature multi-year project has been the Refilwe

community in Lanseria near Johannesburg, South Africa, which serves

people in poverty, providing education, skills training, child care and

an orphanage.

[1:45 p.m.]

The club has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, and

Rotarians have travelled to Africa to assist with specific projects,

bringing along Richmond high school students who gain unique

international volunteer experiences. The club has also supported

humanitarian projects such as cleft lip, plastic and life-saving heart

surgeries in rural communities in China.

Striving to uphold the Rotary motto “Service above self,” members

have raised funds for many local causes, including Richmond Hospital

Foundation, Rick Hansen Foundation, Richmond Christmas fund, Richmond

Community Foundation, Gateway Theatre and Richmond school district

scholarships. Recently the club donated surgical masks to support B.C.

health care workers amidst the pandemic.

Every December the Rotarians help decorate the atrium of the

Richmond city hall with festive Christmas trees for the annual Winter

Wonderland, featuring local musical performances to celebrate the

holiday season and bring the community together.

I’d like to commend the club president David Ip, members Joanna

Ko, Magdalen Leung, Michael Chiu, Jackie Lau, Kirby Graeme, Drew

Antrobus, Judy Smith and others for their remarkable volunteer

service.

I ask all members of this Legislature to join me in recognizing

and thanking the Richmond Sunset Rotary Club.

TRI-CITIES LOCAL IMMIGRATION

PARTNERSHIP AND RACISM

AWARENESS

R. Glumac: It’s our job as people, as parents, as residents of B.C. and for

all Canadians to combat racist behaviours and discriminatory practices

wherever we can. This is from the Joint Statement on the Impact of

COVID-19 on Vulnerable Groups, written by the Tri-Cities Local

Immigration Partnership and signed by multiple cities and

organizations.

COVID-19 has shown us the importance of coming together, but at

the same time, it’s also brought out fear-based racist responses against

our Chinese and Iranian neighbours as well as worsening inequities and

racial tensions that many of our Black, Indigenous and people of colour

experience on a daily basis.

The concept of racism is often misunderstood. It’s actually much

more pervasive than we think it is. That’s why the work of the

Tri-Cities Local Immigration Partnership is so important. They’ve been

hosting webinars to explore topics such as: what does racism look like,

why does racism still exist and how do we address racism in our

community? This powerful series gives a voice to those that have

experienced racism and the opportunity to discuss lessons and to

brainstorm concrete actions that we can all take.

The Tri-Cities Local Immigration Partnership are unsung heroes

working with many others in our community to address racism in all its

forms. I would like to acknowledge and thank them for their compassion

and dedication.

EVENTS AND VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES

IN CARIBOO-CHILCOTIN

AREA

D. Barnett: In the Cariboo-Chilcotin, we are blessed to have a number of

volunteer organizations at the heart of every community in my riding. We

are even more blessed to have such highly dedicated people who work

quietly behind the scenes to make life better. They spend a great deal

of precious time organizing festivals, sporting events, art displays

and, of course, rodeos, just to mention a few. These volunteers and

their organizations pour a great deal of effort into defining a

lifestyle that local residents and visitors alike can enjoy, come

winter, spring, summer and fall.

For a region that also depends on tourism, these organizations not

only provide social opportunities but strong economic ties too. Tourists

come from far and wide to partake in our famous Williams Lake Stampede.

Youth take

part in Junior A and B hockey, and even a few old-timers take

to the ice once in a while. There are ball tournaments, soccer

tournaments, seniors indoor bowling, fall fairs, car shows, mountain

biking, hiking, camping, fishing — just a few more — and even garlic

festivals.

There is a lifestyle. Cariboo-Chilcotin can accommodate anyone.

Unfortunately, the COVID pandemic spares no community, and many annual

events have had to be cancelled. This is disappointing to the public.

Volunteer organizations have been hard.

[1:50 p.m.]

However, the people of the Cariboo-Chilcotin face everything from

wildfires to flooding, and they know how to display resolve in the face

of adversity. Many are highly innovative, like Williams Lake stampede

and rodeo association. They put on a drive-through breakfast on Canada

Day, donations only.

This weekend, August 3, to celebrate B.C. Day, the 100 Mile

Wranglers hockey team will be holding a drive-through barbecue, all

served in style, by donation. There are lots of ways we can help our

volunteer organizations.

SNUNEYMUXW FIRST NATION

HOSTING OF TRIBAL JOURNEYS

EVENTS

S. Malcolmson: Today was supposed to be Snuneymuxw’s 2020 Tribal Journeys

landing, right here in Nanaimo, with a theme of honouring the salmon. I

woke up and saw a message from Emmy Manson on Facebook that said: “I’m

missing Journeys and how important this annual event has played into my

healing journey for myself and many of my family members. It truly is a

healing journey.”

I can imagine it. Tribal canoes from Alaska, from Washington

state, from all over the B.C. coast all coming together. This year it

was Snuneymuxw who had the honour of being invited to host — first time

in 30 years.

You can imagine what happened with, especially, family coming from

both sides of the border. Chief Wyse said: “Our community, with heavy

hearts, had to postpone. We did not want to take any risks during this

critical time during COVID. We look into the future to propose a new

date to host in Snuneymuxw.”

But because it isn’t happening, I want to give everybody across

B.C. a picture of what this hot summer day might’ve been like if we

weren’t in the pandemic still. Here’s Fran Tait’s description: “When you

hear the drums and you see the dancing, it’s just another awakening,

because a lot of us have not had a chance to live with our peoples. So

this is community for us.”

Adam Manson said: “When you’re on Tribal Journeys and I watch my

little nephew walk around and everyone taking care of each other and

everyone being safe and following the teachings of being drug- and

alcohol-free, it’s the closest it can bring me to all the stories I’ve

heard in my Elders’ times.”

Chris Beaton, from Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre, said: “With the

passing of every day, you can witness youth growing connection to their

own culture, their songs, their dances. It’s a day with the best energy

to paddle for hours each day and then share culture into the early hours

each morning.”

We’re so proud of Chief Wyse and Snuneymuxw for being willing to

host and all of the partners they organized to work with them, and we

look forward to having the canoes land here on Nanaimo’s beaches in

another time, in a better year.

SOUTH OKANAGAN

IRRIGATION CANAL

SYSTEM

L. Larson: The town of Oliver recently unveiled a plaque, recognizing the

100-year anniversary of the South Okanagan irrigation system.

In 1919, the Premier of B.C., John Oliver, created the soldiers’

settlement project to provide work for returning World War I veterans

and supply them with viable settlement lands. The project would begin

with the building of a dam at the south end of Vaseux Lake to divert

water from the Okanagan River. The first water improvement district in

the province of B.C. was established to manage the system.

One hundred and fifty men would work on this project for seven

years, completing 40 kilometres of canal stretching from Vaseux Lake to

the U.S. border. Eight thousand acres of desert land became productive

agricultural land.

Today the system is just under 20 kilometres in length, providing

more than 600 irrigation water services for approximately 5,200 acres.

The South Okanagan has seen incredible growth as a result of this canal

system. Oliver was once the cantaloupe capital of Canada and now,

rightly, takes its place as the wine capital, with wines that have

gained recognition on the world stage.

But everything that happens in the South Okanagan depends on a

reliable source of water. In recent years, a rockslide did extensive

damage to this canal system. The previous Liberal government committed

funds to the repairs, and the current government has honoured that

commitment.

While the province did set aside funds to help with the repairs,

access to capital from other sources was impossible. Water systems for

agriculture do not qualify for capital infrastructure or appear to be

part of any minister’s responsibility across the country. This system

and other agricultural water systems contribute millions of dollars to

the economy of B.C. and Canada and are vital for food

security.

[1:55 p.m.]

Congratulations and thank you to all the people of Oli­ver

and the regional district, who, for the past 100 years, have managed,

maintained and financially supported this incredible water

system.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF HOTELS

FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

AND IMPACT ON BUSINESSES

T. Stone: This morning the Premier said that the city of Victoria should

“step up” in reference to the tent city in Beacon Hill Park.

Byron Loucks, who owns West Coast Appliances here in Victoria,

believes that the Premier should step up and stop blaming others. Byron

had this to say: “The changes have been so extreme. This was a very

quiet neighbourhood. Now, 24-7, we have a highway of people who walk

from the Comfort Inn through our parking lot at all levels of

intoxication, clothing optional, often screaming profanities at the

customers and staff. Just recently my truck was broken into at 2 p.m.,

and someone stole my wedding ring.”

To the Premier, the decision to warehouse vulnerable and at-risk

people without the needed on-site mental health, addiction and recovery

supports is clearly not working for the people who need that help the

most. It’s also failing small businesses and people like Byron. Will the

Premier step up and help Byron?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for Kamloops–​South Thompson for the

question. These are extremely challenging issues. I don’t think that’s a

surprise to any member of this House or any British Columbian. We have

had a serious public health emergency for half a decade when it comes to

opioids and the impact they have on people with mental health and

addictions challenges. That leads to encampments and has led to

significant challenges for cities and the province over the past decade,

quite frankly.

We’ve been doing our level best to meet that demand in the time of

a global pandemic by asking people to all work a little bit harder to

find new ways to be a little bit more patient with those that are

vulnerable, those that have significant health issues. We do have

wraparound services available to the individuals that we rehoused from

Pandora and from Topaz Avenue in Victoria, as well as those that were in

Oppenheimer Park in Vancouver.

That does not for a minute dismiss the impact on neighbourhoods.

That does not for a minute dismiss the challenge we have going forward.

But I ask all members of the House and all members of the public that

are participating today: we all need to recognize that the most

vulnerable among us need a hand up. We need to do that together,

cooperatively, to the best of our ability.

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: Sadly, by failing to provide these supports that are needed by the

vulnerable and highly at-risk group here in British Columbia, the

Premier’s decision, his government’s decision, is putting many other

people at risk. Byron’s employees are at risk. His customers are at

risk. Byron himself and the entire surrounding neighbourhood are also at

risk.

While the Premier is busy surrendering parks and failing to

provide the needed supports that this vulnerable and at-risk population

needs, he also said this morning: “There needs to be some leadership at

the municipal level.” Well, people like Byron would like to see some

leadership from this Premier and from this government.

Byron also had this to say: “Last week our store was broken into

when a large steel bollard was thrown through our front door. I now have

to confront intoxicated, screaming individuals. My entire life is tied

to this business. I now fear that because of our location, we may be

forced to close for good.”

If Byron was here with us today, this is the question that he

would ask the Premier himself directly: “We didn’t bring the problem to

the area, Mr. Premier. Why should we be the ones forced to suffer from

your government’s decision, and how will you make this

right?”

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I appreciate the member of the Liberal caucus bringing this

issue to the floor of the Legislature so that we can have a discussion

and a dialogue about how best for all of us…. Regardless of where we sit

on the political spectrum, regardless of who we are in a community, how

do we all work together to address a fundamental crisis in our

communities?

I know the member from Kamloops can talk about his community

equally passionately as he’s just done of Victoria, my community. This

is not something that we dismiss lightly. I know the member is genuine

in bringing it forward.

[2:00 p.m.]

But you need to be genuine, also, in reaching out to Byron and

others and saying: “Yeah, this is a problem for right now. How do we

collectively work together on solutions?”

One way would be for municipal governments to be more rapid in

their turnaround on things like ensuring that we can build the houses

that are appropriate for hard-to-house individuals. That speaks to every

municipal council across the province. These are challenges for those

municipalities, but we need to work together in tandem to come up with

solutions. To say “it’s not my problem” is not a solution. That’s what

the Liberals did for a long, long period of time. We’re not prepared to

do that.

TENT CITIES AND SERVICES

AT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

FACILITIES

J. Thornthwaite: No, that’s incorrect, Mr. Premier. The government’s lack of a

mental health and addictions plan is a complete failure.

There are new tent cities and homeless camps throughout the

province, from Vancouver’s Strathcona Park to Langley city to Parksville

to Campbell River to Victoria’s Beacon Hill Park. What’s the Premier’s

response? “Not my problem.” A petition with over 21,000 signatures wants

the Premier to step up and show some leadership when it comes to tent

cities, warehousing the homeless and the impacts on local

neighbourhoods.

Again, to the Premier, what is the plan to address the Beacon Hill

tent city?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. Of course, we have, from day

one…. In 2017, we started a rapid response to homelessness. Do you know

why, Mr. Speaker? It’s because the previous government ignored it. They

had no plan. So we brought in thousands and thousands of units. Over

2,000 people have been housed to date — more than 2,000. Another 900

homes, with supports, are being provided in the coming

months.

You can’t fix 16 years of bad in just a couple of years. But we’re

well on the road, and I look forward to continuing to house people and

bring the supports that they need.

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

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: Well, if that was true, then we wouldn’t be having these problems

right now after three years of a separate Ministry of Mental Health and

Addictions.

The government’s lack of supportive housing with on-site supports

for our most vulnerable citizens is now putting everybody at risk. Don’t

just take my word for it. Dr. Bill MacEwan, who’s a psychiatrist who has

worked in the Downtown Eastside for years, says: “It is not helpful to

pretend that the needs of this population can be met by simply providing

them a room in social housing.”

Again to the Premier, will he admit his approach is failing and

provide the vulnerable people in our society with 24-7 wraparound

supports that they desperately need?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, you know, I find it absolutely fascinating, because the B.C.

Liberals’ preferred model is to ignore the problem, which is what they

did. They left people to be homeless, without supports, and we’re

saying: “Come on inside. Let’s provide you with supports. Let’s provide

you with a roof over your head.” Let me provide an example.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor. Thank you.

Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just read into the record what one operator from Turning

Points Collaborative Society in Vernon had to say. The site manager said

this: “Honestly, the successes we have experienced here…. They exceed

what my expectations were or what I was thinking was going to

happen.”

A year after this program started, this is what she had to say:

“The importance of having a roof over their head, where they’re not in

survival mode and they’re not worried about staying dry and keeping warm

or having food in their belly, gives them the opportunity to address

other areas of their life where they haven’t had the space or the time

to address it.”

She provides examples of people who are now getting medical

attention, who are getting psychiatric attention, who are going for

counselling because they now have the supports. They now have access to

the services. They now have food in their belly. They now have the peace

of mind that comes with having housing.

I think our approach to housing people, to provide them with

supports, is a far better approach than the approach that the B.C.

Liberals had, which was to leave people on the streets with

nothing.

[2:05 p.m.]

COVID-19 RESPONSE AND

MENTAL HEALTH

SERVICES

S. Furstenau: To the conversation that’s just happened, I do want to say that in

Cowichan, we have really appreciated the collaborative efforts of B.C.

Housing and the minister on addressing the very serious needs of people

without homes in our region.

Here in B.C., we have been lauded for our tremendous response to

the COVID-19 pandemic. By working together, using current research and

fast, active and effective communication, we’ve largely been able to

keep the virus in check. Unfortunately, citing emerging data, the United

Nations recently declared that a mental health crisis is looming and

will be the pandemic that nations will have to confront.

Indeed, for many British Columbians, this pandemic is already

taking a huge toll on their mental health and well-being. Data from the

B.C. Psychological Association — where over 200 registered psychologists

have been donating their time to provide care during this health

emergency — reported that two-thirds of their 800 callers are

experiencing either moderate or severe levels of distress. These

findings are also consistent with government’s recently released data

that indicates 47 percent of the nearly 400,000 people surveyed say that

their mental health is currently worsening.

My question is to the Minister of Health. I expect that the

minister agrees that health is not just the absence of disease but,

rather, includes physical, social and emotional well-being. Given this,

what immediate steps are being taken to incorporate this definition,

which includes mental health, into our health care delivery?

Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you to the House Leader of the Third Party for her question.

There is absolutely no doubt that COVID-19 has affected the mental

health of the entire province, of the country, of the world. It has been

very, very traumatic, especially for people who are already struggling

with mental health and addictions issues. Those issues have become

exacerbated as a result of this crisis.

That’s why, within three weeks of the pandemic being declared, we

had worked with our partners, with CMHA B.C., with community counselling

agencies and very closely with the B.C. Psychological Association in

order to stand up access to virtual services. I take my hat off to the

B.C. Psychological Association because they stepped up with 200

psychologists offering free counselling to people across the province.

They’ve done incredible work, and it has made a difference.

We know — as with natural disasters like floods or fires and this

pandemic — we’re not out of it yet. We know that people are still

struggling with mental health issues. We know that substance use and use

of alcohol are going up. We know that we can expect what is referred to

by the experts as an echo pandemic. That’s why, literally as we speak,

in our ministry and working across government, we are working to put in

place plans about what further supports we need for people struggling

with mental health issues as a result of COVID-19 going

forward.

Some of the supports that we put in place are available for the

entire population, families struggling with kids at home, but also with

a specific focus on health care workers because they, as we all know,

have been doing absolutely yeoman’s duty and taking a lot of the stress,

tension and anxiety onto themselves. We’ve stood up some particular

programs that are about support for health care workers. We will

continue to support them and make sure that we have programs in place

going forward to support British Columbians.

I’m happy to hear the member’s ideas about what that looks

like.

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

COVID-19 DEATHS AND

RESPONSE TO OPIOID

CRISIS

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the minister’s response. We will be coming forward

with ideas over the course of the week.

Since the first COVID-19 case was diagnosed, 16.5 million people

around the world have contracted the virus, and tragically, 650,000 have

died. Even in the time since we drafted this question on Friday, that

number went up by two million cases. The trajectory on COVID-19 is a

very distressing one.

Worryingly, new modelling in the United States estimates that an

additional 75,000 deaths will occur due to substance abuse and suicide

as part of the COVID-19 fallout. This is already a reality in our

province, with June setting a horrific record of 175 deaths from toxic

drug poisoning. How we’ve dealt with the COVID-19 global pandemic

juxtaposes our treatment of the opioid pandemic that is ravaging our

province. So far in 2020, 728 people have died from toxic drug poisoning

— mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, friends and neighbours.

[2:10 p.m.]

My question is to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

Can the minister identify the areas that lacked the support to help

avoid this tragedy and what immediate steps government is taking to

ensure that the coming months don’t set any more unwanted

records?

Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you again to the member for the question. I think the member

is very well aware that the coroner has been really clear that the

primary cause of the spike in deaths is as a result of a toxic drug

supply, more toxic than ever before — lethal combinations of drugs. We

know that we were making progress. Dr. Bonnie Henry has certainly

acknowledged that we were moving in the right direction as far as the

supports that we were providing people, and the BCCDC estimated that

6,000 deaths were averted as a result of the interventions of this

government and of the thousands of people on the front lines.

When it was clear that the threat was there of the numbers going

back up, again we moved very, very quickly, as the member knows. We

brought in risk mitigation guidance so that we could improve access to a

safe supply of prescription alternatives to the poisoned drug supply. It

was critically important to separate people from that poisoned drug

supply on the street.

At the same time, we are working on building a better continuum of

care. We’ve just announced new treatment beds. We’ve announced substance

use integrated teams, because what we’ve learned, also, from the

coroner, is that in the past year, often before people died of overdose,

four out of five of them had been in contact with the health care system

— four out of five. We need to connect with those people. We need to

stay connected with those people. Substance use integrated teams, which

will be in place across the province, are going to do exactly

that.

Later this week we’ll be making some more significant

announcements. I don’t want to make the announcement before we make it,

but we’ve been working really hard with the First Nations Health

Authority on new treatment facilities, a Chilliwack youth centre.

There’s much more to come.

We know we need to strengthen the continuum of care, which,

frankly, was left in very, very bad shape by the previous government, at

the same time as we respond to this overdose crisis. We are not taking

our foot off the gas, and we won’t until we turn the tide on this

terrible crisis.

LIAISON POSITIONS WITH

WET’SUWET’EN HEREDITARY

CHIEFS

J. Johal: On May 30, 2019, the Premier stood in this House and said that he

has asked Murray Rankin, at no cost — he’s working pro bono, because he

is a Member of Parliament currently — to be our Wet’suwet’en emissary.

Last week we found out that taxpayers have paid the former NDP

politician over $122,000 in fees and nearly $6,600 in

expenses.

A question to the Premier. Can he explain why he led everyone to

believe that his Wet’suwet’en emissary was at no cost to the

public?

Hon. J. Horgan: At the time I made the statement, Murray Rankin was a Member of

Parliament, as you said in your

preamble. He said: “I will not need any

compensation while I’m a member of the House of Commons.” He’s now not a

member of the House of Commons. He’s a member of the bar, not unlike the

tested Leader of the Official Opposition. He’s doing this work on behalf

of us, and we’re paying him compensation for that.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: It’s rather obvious that with this NDP government, friends and

insiders are riding the gravy train here — it’s pretty obvious — and

they’re going first class. This government is spending nearly a quarter

million for two former NDP politicians to hold talks with the

Wet’suwet’en. NDP insider Nathan Cullen is being paid $250 an hour. He

has been paid more than $87,000 in fees plus $2,600 in expenses for what

works out to two months of work — good work if you can get

it.

Now put that in context. The average British Columbian makes

$50,000 a year, yet this minister calls this, “a reasonable average.”

Does the Premier agree this taxpayer-funded quarter-of-a-million-dollar

payout to NDP insiders is reasonable?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, Nathan Cullen was the Member of Parliament for the area

where the Wet’suwet’en are. Nathan Cullen was acceptable to the

Wet’suwet’en to come to a resolution to an intractable problem that had

existed for 25 years. But that’s not my point. It’s not that he was

wildly qualified and accepted by all parties.

[2:15 p.m.]

I harken back to the swearing in of a B.C. Liberal government back

in 2001. What did that government do? They picked the president of the

B.C. Liberal Party to be a deputy minister. Without merit, they just

appointed him. As luck would have it, he’s sitting right

there.

BLUE RIVER ENCAMPMENT AND

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN

AREA

P. Milobar: It’s interesting listening to the Premier try to talk about 2001.

The residents of Blue River and the North Thompson Valley are worried

about the here and the now. They’re not worried about 2001.

What they’ve watched over the last two years is an encampment set

up in the middle of their town, falling on deaf ears from this

government to provide any help, on a pipeline route that this government

has vowed to use every tool in the toolbox to stop. At the same time

that they’re spending $250,000 on NDP insiders to hold discussions up

with the Wet’suwet’en, they have sat on their hands for two years, using

the residents of Blue River as if they are the last tool in the

Premier’s empty toolkit.

To the Premier, why is there not any proper engagement,

discussions, resources — any of that — being put to the residents of

Blue River, the Simpcw First Nation and the protestors to try to get rid

of the problems and the headaches that are being experienced in Blue

River when you have nothing but money to spend on NDP insiders on a

pipeline you want to see move forward?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to thank the member for his question. We are aware of the

situation that is taking place up in Blue River. As the member knows —

we have spoken about this issue on a number of occasions — we have

attempted to and are working with the community to deal with this

particular situation.

Previous efforts have required…. The RCMP have increased resources

in there that have helped in dealing with that situation and in trying

to get it resolved. In fact, I believe this Friday the Minister of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is engaged in meetings with

First Nations in the area to try and come up with a solution to what is,

as the member will acknowledge, a very complex problem between the First

Nation whose territory it’s in and a group that is at odds with

them.

We are going to continue to work with them to find a solution. As

the member knows, the RCMP also have the ability to take action if they

deem it necessary.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: It’s unfortunate the Premier doesn’t want to answer. The Premier

is the one who has been getting the letters. The Premier got the letter

from the Chief of the Simpcw last week.

Actually, on January 20 of this year, they informed the Premier

and the Indigenous Relations Minister that they wanted the government to

take action. When I asked the minister on July 17, the minister said:

“The request for formal engagement has only been received recently….” I

guess seven or eight months is what this government considers

recent.

Here’s another gem from the Premier, to quote out of the Chief’s

letter. “In response to a reporter’s question last Thursday, July 9, you

stated that people here could call the cops. Were you not advised that

there is no RCMP detachment in Blue River?” The Chief also says: “It is

vitally important that you understand the smaller communities that you

serve. We all have a voice.”

Again, to the Premier, why has this government sat on their hands

for two years, pitted three different communities against each other,

while dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars on NDP insiders over the

last few months on a pipeline they want to see move forward and using

the residents of the North Thompson Valley as the last tool in their

toolkit to try to stop Kinder Morgan construction?

Hon. S. Fraser: We understand and share the very significant concerns that have

come in from Kúkpi7 Loring and Kúkpi7 Casimir from the Simpcw and the

Kamloops First Nation. We received the letter within the last

week.

[2:20 p.m.]

My office is currently working to

schedule a meeting with them as

soon as possible to discuss the situation and to determine if there are

maybe ways that we can work together to address their concerns. That

work is underway.

WET’SUWET’EN NATION REPRESENTATION

AND NEGOTIATION OF

AGREEMENTS

M. de Jong: My question is also to the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation.

Who represents the Wet’suwet’en First Nation? Specifically, who

has the legal authority to negotiate and enter into an agreement with

the government of British Columbia on behalf of the people of the

Wet’suwet’en?

Hon. S. Fraser: As the members all know, I think, including the member that just

asked the question, there’s significant discrepancy within Wet’suwet’en

about governance. In the MOU that we were able to achieve with the

Hereditary Chiefs earlier in the year, we were able to put into the MOU,

collectively, the governance work that needs to happen and the work that

needs to happen around bringing together the communities, so that there

is a voice of governance that is consistent and represented.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: I may have just asked the minister the easiest question ever asked

in a question period, but he couldn’t give the answer. The answer is:

the duly elected chief and council of the people of the Wet’suwet’en

First Nation.

The minister can’t give that answer because he and his government

are in the midst of negotiating a jurisdictional agreement that covers

all of the traditional territories of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation. In

fact, they are telling us that they will announce the results of that

negotiation in just over two weeks. They have, remarkably, embarked upon

that path by excluding the very people who the Wet’suwet’en elect to

represent them.

The elected leaders of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation made their

opposition to this process clear back in May. They have done so again,

as recently as June 24, where they said this: “Regarding the MOU

negotiations, we have repeatedly and forcefully advised Canada, British

Columbia, the Office of the Wet’suwet’en that we had been excluded from

those negotiations, have not been consulted in any way whatsoever about

their impacts on our interest and have given no mandate to anyone to

negotiate the matters contemplated in the MOU on our behalf.”

To the minister, what gives him and the government of British

Columbia the right to unilaterally decide that the duly elected leaders

of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation are no longer entitled to speak on

behalf of the people of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation?

Hon. S. Fraser: The member should know that I am in conversations with the elected

chiefs also. The member seems to have a relatively short memory of where

we have come to and why we’ve come to where we have. But that

notwithstanding, the memorandum of understanding is a first step towards

resolving the difficult and complicated issues around Wet’suwet’en

rights and title. These issues, the member should know, remain

unresolved for over the last 25 years, since the 1997

Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa decision.

It is important to remember, I think, that this is the start of a

negotiating process, and we have a great deal of work to do. As I’ve

mentioned, reunification with the Wet’suwet’en Nation is essential for

this work, if it’s going to move forward successfully. That is why that

has been built right into the memorandum of understanding — that the

reunification work and governance work needs to occur.

M. Polak: Not only has the Wet’suwet’en First Nation leadership advised in

the letter that they have been completely excluded from all of these

negotiations, but they point out something else, and maybe the minister

needs a reminder.

[2:25 p.m.]

They point out this: “We must also remind you that your ministry

has previously acknowledged, in writing, the strength of claim of

Wet’suwet’en First Nation to Aboriginal rights and title in our

territory.”

How does this government possibly reconcile their written

acknowledgment of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation government as the

leadership, as the duly elected negotiators on behalf of their people,

with their continued exclusion from the MOU process?

Hon. S. Fraser: I have always recognized the important and significant role that

the elected chiefs and councillors, the Wet’suwet’en elected band

council, play. The negotiations that we have with them are continuing,

whether it’s with forest agreements or whatever. What we have now is

engaged a memorandum of understanding, which is the very first part of a

step in trying to address the incomplete work, really, that we were left

with from 25 years ago with the Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa

decision.

Of course, as I said already, that needs to be an inclusive

process, in the sense that we have built into the memorandum of

understanding the necessity to address the governance issues and

controversy that exists within the Wet’suwet’en people and the

governance structures that need to reflect that. That work is underway.

I’m hopeful that that is the right direction.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading, Bill 14, Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes

Amendment Act.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND

HOUSING STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2020

Hon. S. Robinson: I move third reading.

Mr. Speaker: Division has been called pursuant to sessional order adopted on

June 22, 2020. This division will be deferred until 30 minutes prior to

the sitting day.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading on Bill 24, Municipalities Enabling and

Validating (No. 4) Amendment Act.w

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING

(N o . 4)

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

[2:30 p.m.]

The proposed amendments to the Municipalities Enabling and

Validating Act (No. 4) seek to validate and enable certain parcel taxes

that were established by the Fraser Valley regional district with a

procedural error. These amendments were requested by the Fraser Valley

regional district.

Since 2017, the regional district has applied parcel taxes on

approximately 700 properties to fund local water and sewage services.

The regional district will have collected approximately $1.4 million in

parcel taxes from these properties by the end of the 2020 tax year.

These taxes were used to deliver water and sewer services that are

available to these same properties. While the regional district has the

statutory authority to impose the taxes, through an oversight, it didn’t

establish a parcel tax review panel as required under the Community

Charter. This review panel provides an opportunity for property owners

to dispute the applicability of the tax to their properties and must

authenticate the parcel tax roll.

In addition to this oversight, one of these bylaws did not comply

with the Community Charter requirement to identify the parcel tax roll

in the bylaw. The proposed validating amendments will address the

procedural error by validating the taxes imposed from 2017 to 2020

without having established the parcel tax review panel.

The bill will require the regional district to establish a parcel

tax review panel retroactively, so that property owners subject to the

parcel taxes have the same opportunity to dispute taxes as if the parcel

tax review panel had been established at the outset. Additionally, one

of the bylaws is validated to address the error of not identifying the

parcel tax roll in the bylaw.

The bill also enables the regional district to establish the

parcel tax review panel for future years to allow for the continuation

of parcel taxes supporting the water and sewer services to these

properties. This validation of the existing bylaws and the requirement

of the establishment of a parcel tax review panel in respect of past and

future years will afford the property owners paying these taxes their

statutory opportunity to dispute the inclusion of their properties on

the tax roll in accordance with the Community Charter

requirements.

The enabling amendments allow the regional district to establish

the parcel tax review panel for future years. The parcel taxes support a

local water and sewer service for specific properties to which the

service is available. Regional districts fund services locally, and this

parcel tax allows for the funding of the specific service now and in

future years.

The Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, or MEVA, is

intended to validate and enable local government actions and authorities

in unique circumstances or where the local government has no own-source

tools to address the issue. MEVA has previously been used to validate

similar procedural errors. The proposed validating and enabling

amendments will ensure that past services are funded and that the

regional district can continue to impose the taxes, supporting the

essential water and sewage services to the recipient

properties.

I hope that everyone here joins me in support of Bill 24, the

Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment Act, 2020. With

that, I move second reading.

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure to speak to Bill 24 today, the Municipalities

Enabling and Validating Amendment Act. I’ll be the only speaker on our

side to this bill. I’m just going to take a few minutes to speak in

favour of the legislation so that any of my constituents who may be

wondering about it will understand what it’s all about.

In basic terms, this bill corrects an injustice to property owners

living in Cultus Lake and Popkum, in my riding, which occurred over a

period of several years since 2017. The correction was requested by the

Fraser Valley regional district, and I have communicated with both of

the relevant regional district area directors about this, namely Bill

Dickey and Taryn Dixon, both great people who serve their communities

well. They’re in agreement with this legislation. I know that the

regional district staff have been communicating with ministry staff

about this for some time now, and I’d like to convey their thanks to the

ministry and to the minister for the cooperation they’ve

enjoyed.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

The regional district passes bylaws called parcel taxes that allow

for the taxation of property owners for things like water and wastewater

services. In this case, these bills amount to about $200 per year per

property. The amounts levied were equal on all the properties, and they

fell on properties in the area of Popkum, Cultus Lake and also Lake

Errock, which is in the riding of my colleague the member for

Abbotsford-Mission. These taxes were imposed from 2017 on.

Over the period 2017 to 2020, there were a total of six bylaws

passed related to sewer and water, directing that these funds be

collected from about 700 property owners in total. As the minister said,

those property owners duly paid out a total of $1.4 million in taxes

over the period. But the Community Charter directs that there be a local

parcel tax roll review panel established for these types of

taxes.

[2:35 p.m.]

In an oversight, the review panel was never established, so the

legal validity of the bylaws themselves is put into question. It also

means that amounts in taxes that the regional district has already

collected from them are also in question. This is a sizeable liability

for the district, even though the services were long ago

delivered.

Furthermore, if a property owner at the time disagreed with the

amount or even whether the tax should have been levied at all, he or she

would have had nowhere to turn, because there was no review panel

available. I suppose there’s a political appeal, but I never heard about

this issue in my office. Nevertheless, this represented a potential

injustice to those property owners.

What does Bill 24 do? Well, it does two main things. First, it

retroactively confirms that all six of the bylaws passed since 2017 are

valid and that the amounts collected from the parcel taxes have been

legally collected. That’s fine, but if it was left there, this bill

would still be vulnerable to a legal challenge. So to complete the

package, there’s just one more significant change, and that is to

establish a three-member parcel tax roll review panel for those prior

years as soon as practically possible.

Moreover, the bill requires that the regional district publish

that the panel has been struck and, further, notify all 700 property

owners by mail that the panel has been established. On appeal, the panel

has the power to direct that refunds be made by the regional district

where the tax was improperly levied. So if property owners today look

back in their records, realize that they should not have been charged

these taxes or were charged too much, they’ll be able to appeal them

retroactively, and that’s where the injustice is corrected.

Further, this bill also establishes a tax review panel for the

future so that the matter will be taken care of in the ’21 tax year and

into the future.

To me, this bill is not a controversial piece of legislation. We

should get it done and move on to more weighty matters about which we

could have a lively debate in this Legislature. I and my colleagues will

support this bill, and I want to thank the minister for bringing it

forward on behalf of the Fraser Valley regional district.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill

Deputy Speaker: Any further commentary on this?

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Notwithstanding Standing Order 81, I ask leave of the House to

permit Bill 24 to proceed to committee stage forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 24, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment

Act, 2020, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 24 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING

(N o . 4)

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 24;

S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

section 1.

[2:40 p.m.]

L. Throness: I do have a couple of general questions to the bill. Would it be

all right if I asked them now, and then we could go through the

sections?

The Chair: That’s correct. We are on committee stage.

L. Throness: My first question would be to the minister. Must the review panel

established for past issues be a different one than future issues, or

can just one parcel tax roll review panel with the same three members be

established for both past and future years?

Hon. S. Robinson: There is nothing here in the legislation that determines that

there needs to be two different for past or for future. It’s really up

to the regional district to make that determination.

L. Throness: I just have one more question. What is the mandate of the past

review panel in terms of time? Will property owners have a limited

period of time in which they’ll be able to appeal the taxes levied under

these six bylaws between 2017 and 2020? And what would be that deadline?

What would be that time period if there is a deadline?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Under normal circumstances, when a review panel is struck, a

notice is given. Typically, it’s a 14-day notice for when a property

owner can come before the panel to make their case. So this would be no

different. For historical, a panel will be struck, and a notice will be

given to the property owners so that they that can come before the panel

to make their case.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to take a moment to thank staff for their diligent

work on getting this done.

I move that the committee rise and report Bill 24 complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:48 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 24 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING

(N o . 4)

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 24, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment

Act, 2020, reported complete without amendment, to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage debate on Bill 4, Budget Measures

Implementation Act.

[2:50 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 4;

S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

section 1.

M. de Jong: The sequencing around when the Budget Measures Implementation Act

— in this case, Bill 4 — is being considered, relative to the budget, is

a little different this year than it has traditionally been. I wonder if

the minister can briefly explain the relationship between Bill 4, the

Budget Measures Implementation Act, and the budget itself.

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member. I look forward to committee stage. I

think, no question, this is a very different time than when the budget

was tabled and when these measures come forward basically implementing

the budget.

This isn’t new material. This is material that would have been

tabled for the budget. There are some changes, no question, and we’ll go

through those as we go through committee stage. Life has changed and,

therefore, some of the pieces of the budget, the timing of measures

coming in. But basically, this is the implementation of what we saw in

the budget that was tabled — with, as I said, the context of COVID, as

everything has now.

M. de Jong: To be clear, the budget that was tabled on, I think, February 18

of 2020, by the minister…. This would be the legislation that was

introduced almost immediately thereafter and would be the

operationalization of some of the decisions that the minister laid out

both in her budget speech and in the budgetary documents of February

Is it fair to say that the forecasts that are part of the budget…?

When I say the budget, I mean that document and collection of documents

that the minister tabled on February 18. The budget forecasts are

generally influenced or made with the assumption that the legislation in

the budget implementation bill is passed by the parliament.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Yes, I used the word “implementation.” It’s the implementation,

basically, the detail that was in the budget and the implementation, as

the member said, presuming those measures will go forward that were in

the budget. Yes, that’s correct. Certainly, yes, a budget is made with

the assumption that the measures that are in the so-called

implementation bills will go ahead. So yes, changes to that impact the

budget and impact what the first quarterly and other reports will be

over this coming year.

M. de Jong: Is it fair to say — for the purpose of this question, let’s leave

aside the rather dramatic change in landscape that has occurred as it

relates to COVID-19 — the accuracy of the forecasts included in the

minister’s budget would be compromised if the House opted not to endorse

and pass the budget implementation legislation — in this case, Bill

Hon. C. James: Yes, just as with every budget every year, the assumption is built

on the measures that are coming forward and built on the assumptions

that are put forward in February with the budget.

M. de Jong: The most expeditious way for me to do this is to offer up a

statement. If I describe the process incorrectly, then the minister will

correct any part of it that she deems necessary to correct.

When the Finance Minister and the government are considering

changes to taxation-related measures, my sense — some of it based on a

measure of experience, I suppose — is that the Finance Minister will

receive advice about the possible fiscal impacts of those changes. Maybe

she can explain to the committee how and when that generally

occurs.

I’m not speaking about any specific taxation measure now. I’m

speaking more about the general budgetary process — the confirmation

that she would receive, briefing-note material. When the decision is

made to change taxation amounts or rules, the minister does so armed

with advice about what the likely impact will be.

Sometimes that’s not an entirely precise exercise, but she would

at least have the benefit, from her able staff, of a range, depending on

the taxation instrument we’re talking about, of either increased

revenues or decreased revenues. She would have the benefit of advice

about what the likely impact of taxation changes would be. Is that a

fair statement?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: There is no question — the member knows this well, having gone

through it many years himself — that, of course, you get advice from

your able staff. We are very fortunate. I say this often. The people of

British Columbia are very fortunate to have able staff in the Ministry

of Finance who provide exactly that, who provide their advice. That

happens through the fall, as you go into building your

budget.

M. de Jong: Okay. Let’s, then, maybe move to something a little more specific.

The first

section of the bill we’re dealing with…. In fact, I think the

first five sections deal with the carbon tax. I say that, and I’m not

sure. It has been a while since we’ve had this kind of a

conversation.

The carbon tax, as we’ll discover here, accounts for a sizeable

amount of revenue. In general terms, what is the carbon tax? What does

it do?

Hon. C. James: I think, in a very brief overview of the carbon tax…. The member

will know this well, having been in government during this time period.

It sends a price signal. It sends a price signal to discourage

emission-intensive fuels — business, individuals, the

province.

M. de Jong: Is it a good tax?

Hon. C. James: Yes, it’s an effective tax.

M. de Jong: Why?

Hon. C. James: For exactly the reason that I mentioned, the reason that the tax

is there. It sends a price signal. It discourages people from using

emission-intensive fuels and provides an opportunity for people to look

at changing their behaviour, using carrots and sticks.

M. de Jong: My sense is that, therefore, the minister embraces the concept and

the construct. That wasn’t always the case. She knows that, and I know

that.

Has something changed about the tax that alters her opinion of it?

At one time, she was less enthusiastic. What has changed about the

carbon tax that renders it a more acceptable form of

taxation?

Hon. C. James: The member knows this isn’t related at all to any of the specifics

in the bill, but I’m happy to have this conversation with the member, if

he wishes to have this conversation.

I felt very strongly that the carbon tax needed to look at both

industry and individuals and that we should start with industry, as

other provinces have done. People have looked at different kinds of a

carbon tax — whether you look at industry, whether you look at

individuals, how you divide that. I felt there wasn’t enough of a

balance.

The election made it very clear. People felt that the carbon tax

was a positive, and here it is.

[3:05 p.m.]

M. de Jong: In the budget document…. I’ll refer to this a fair bit over the

next few moments. It’s the table, 1.3, on page 28. I don’t know if the

minister has…. I’m sure someone in her line of communication has access

to it. At the time she tabled the budget, am I correct, and am I reading

the documents correctly, that she and the government were anticipating

revenues of $1.954 billion from the carbon tax. Is that

correct?

Hon. C. James: Correct.

M. de Jong: Now, this next question is a technical question, and it may

require the minister to spend a little more time consulting with her

staff, in fairness.

How is that forecast arrived at? By the way, again, in fairness to

the minister, we will speak in a moment about some of the changes that

have taken place since the budget was tabled. But that original

forecast, which represented a roughly over $250 million increase from

the year previous…. How is that forecast arrived at? What is the

mechanism by which the minister and her team decided that the revenue

from the carbon tax would go from 2019-20, where it was estimated to be

$1.69 billion, to 2020-21, $1.954 billion?

Hon. C. James: Again, I’m sure the member knows this. There are economists, as he

knows well, in the Ministry of Finance that provide us with the

estimates for the numbers that are in the budget. And the estimate, of

course, for the carbon tax we based on the volume of fuels that have

been sold and the rate of the increase.

M. de Jong: It’s that last part that I think, happily, the minister has

verified early in the conversation. It is, essentially, a forecast that

takes the amount of the tax and multiplies it against the amount of

carbon emissions eligible to be taxed. Is that, essentially,

correct?

Hon. C. James: Yes, that’s, essentially, correct.

[3:10 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Bill 4 proposes some changes to the carbon tax. In the span of

sections 1 through 5, this might be the best time to pose the general

question to the minister. What is the nature of the changes Bill 4

proposed at the time she tabled it in the Legislative Assembly, either

on the day of or the day following the presentation of the

budget?

Hon. C. James: I think we can get into the aligning with the government rates

when we get to that section. It’s coming up. It’s one of the next

sections. I’m presuming the member is talking about that change, which

is one of the changes that was there on budget day, which is aligning

with the federal rates. That’s coming up, I think, in sections 2, 3, 4

or 5.

The other piece, of course, on budget day was our commitment that

we’ve already made around the $5-a-tonne increase.

M. de Jong: I think for the purpose of our conversation at the moment, again,

the minister has indicated there was an increase and that the details of

that are set out in subsequent sections.

In deciding to move forward with the increases that she has

alluded to and present themselves legislatively in subsequent sections,

and in keeping with the conversation we just had about the general

preparation of the budget, would it be correct for us to assume that the

minister was provided with an estimate of the impact those changes would

have on the revenue government collected from the carbon tax?

Hon. C. James: Yes.

M. de Jong: The amount set out in table 1.3 on page 28, the figure I referred

to, $1.954 billion…. Does that include any incremental revenue that

would have been collected as a result of the increases to the carbon

tax?

Hon. C. James: Just as we’ve already talked about, forecasts are based on the

volume of fuel sold and the rate increase. Of course, that includes

that.

[3:15 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I think the minister has answered yes, that any incremental

revenues attributable to the increase are captured by that

figure.

Maybe I’ll ask the same question a slightly different way. Without

the increases that are referred to in the subsequent sections of the

bill, would the figure in the budget document, table 1.3, be $1.954

billion minus the incremental revenues? I suppose, to save us all time,

I’ll just ask: what was the estimate of the incremental revenues derived

from the increases?

Hon. C. James: I can get the number for the member. It was, I know, part of the

report that was released by the Ministry of Environment, so I’d be happy

to get that information for the member.

M. de Jong: Fair to say that the figure would be less, that the tax…? The

calculation of the impact of the increases led to the anticipated

collection of more revenue, not less?

Hon. C. James: Yes.

M. de Jong: In tracking the impact of changes in taxation post budget, or

tracking the data related to the collection of a tax like the carbon

tax, what kind of data does the minister and the ministry have at its

disposal? How frequently does it receive data?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: As we talked about at the very start of these discussions in

committee stage, it feels like estimates. I almost called it estimates,

because that’s really the kind of discussion we’re having.

On the issue of data related to carbon tax, in a normal year, as

the former minister would know well, you would be looking at last year,

you would be looking at this year, you would be taking into account the

overall GDP, and you would be looking at the returns coming on carbon

tax being paid that would come in each month.

Obviously, some of that has shifted. The assumptions, as the

member will know from the update on the economy that I put out, will

have to be based on what we know now, the data we know now. Who knows

six months from now? Whether you’re talking to economists or others,

assumptions are simply that: assumptions.

We are getting some returns in, even though the carbon tax returns

and the payments don’t have to come in until September 30. There are a

number of people who are still putting those in, so we’re using some of

that data. We’re looking at, obviously, fuel sales and where the fuel

sales have gone in the last little while. Macro analysis, certainly, no

question, is the work we’re doing — what is the overall GDP growth? — to

be able to look at the assumptions that we use both in the work that we

did in the economic statement and also the work coming in the first

quarterly.

[3:25 p.m.]

M. de Jong: So as always, a combination of examining actual data with the

forecasts and estimates for how that might impact or be a trend

developing for the future. Does the minister today have…? We’re very

nearly in August. Is she in possession or is the department in

possession of actual data for the months of March, April, May and,

possibly, June at this stage?

Hon. C. James: Just to clarify: on the carbon tax, specifically, the member is

asking?

As I said, the usual process would be to look at the returns

coming in, to look at the carbon tax that’s paid and to be able to use

that to have an assumption about what we’re looking at for the rest of

the year. We are, as I’ve said, in a very unique time in our province,

in our world, when it comes to COVID. We are not seeing those returns

come in with the same kind of volume that you would expect if people

were required to.

At this point, the assumptions are simply being made on, as I

mentioned earlier, macro numbers, volume sales, GDP growth, etc.,

because there are less than half of the returns that have come in.

Again, depending on whether those will be large returns or small

returns, it wouldn’t give a good sense of what we’re looking at. So this

will be another one of those pieces, as I mentioned, in the July

statement as well as coming in Q1. We’ll be taking a look at the macro

data and be able to make assumptions based on that.

[3:30 p.m.]

As I’ve said, I think the motto for all of us — certainly, more

particularly, for people in the Ministry of Finance — will be “Subject

to change.” Whether, as I said, it’s a national economist, a local

economist, business folks or others, who are all trying to guess what

we’ll be seeing in economic growth in our province…. Everything will be

subject to change, depending on what happens with the second wave, or no

second wave.

How fast we see the economy returning — we’ve already seen that

employment data had a pickup — whether the pickup will continue or if we

see a shift in that, all of that data will need to be

considered.

M. de Jong: Are the returns in for March 2020 — that being the last month of

the last fiscal year? Just so the minister knows, to what degree can she

say whether or not the same uncertainty that is plaguing forecasts today

and going forward may have had an impact for fiscal year 2019-20, which

is referred to in the budget?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The anticipation was $1.69 billion in carbon tax reve­nue.

My recollection is that the ministry would be in possession of the data

now for the last month of the fiscal year and would know, with a fair

measure of certainty, whether that target was hit. Can the minister

advise the committee in that regard?

Hon. C. James: As the member knows, that will come out in the public accounts,

which will be out shortly.

M. de Jong: I’m going to press a little bit, since we are talking about the

budget implementation and budgetary…. I’m not asking for a specific

figure. But I think it is fair to ask the minister whether the pressures

that are making budgeting and forecasting complicated today and going

forward…. The circumstances that have given rise to that actually began

in February and March. Are those circumstances impacting in a negative

way on revenues for 2019-20?

Hon. C. James: Yes, there were impacts on the budget in ’19-20 and impacts that

happened in March. The details of that will be coming out in the public

accounts.

M. de Jong: Okay, I’m not going to dwell at length on that. I will ask, I

guess, an obvious follow-up question to the last answer, as it relates

to the budget as a whole and the impacts of the pandemic and the impact

that it has had on revenue. I’ll try to ask a fair question, or to ask

the question in a fair way.

[3:35 p.m.]

I’ll preface this: given where we are today and the magnitude of

the impact that the minister has begun to quantify in her update and

elsewhere, the order of magnitude may pale by comparison. Is the

minister concerned — because of the impacts of COVID, the pandemic, the

economic slowdown that began towards the end of February and into March

— that the budget may have slipped out of balance for ’19-20, in advance

of the present fiscal year?

Hon. C. James: I’ve been asked this question many times in the public and in the

realm, and those details will come out in the public

accounts.

M. de Jong: The numbers in the budget for anticipated carbon tax, for both

fiscal year ’19-20 and fiscal year ’20-21, are not correct, and the

minister has not tried to avoid that reality. Is she able to tell the

committee today what the figure would be for the 2019-20 fiscal

year?

For the budget estimate for 2021, for the moment, is it the best

thing we can do to take her information from her fiscal update of July

14 and subtract, from the figure in the budget, the number she disclosed

with respect to the carbon tax? When she talked about the carbon tax,

fuel and carbon taxes, she talked about a reduced figure of $353

million. I take it that it’s for more than just the carbon tax, so we

can’t just subtract that figure from the carbon tax. Is that

correct?

Hon. C. James: I know we’ll get back to committee stage eventually and on to the

direction that’s in front of us. But the ’19-20 numbers will come out in

the public accounts. As the member knows very well, those have to be

audited, and we have to go through that process. That number will come

out in the public accounts shortly.

On the number that was utilized in the assumptions that we put

together for July, the economic update, the number that the member

refers to is for both fuel and carbon tax.

M. de Jong: I hope the minister understands that this may well…. We’re dealing

with the budget implementation bill at a time when the budget has

changed dramatically, for reasons we are all familiar with. To the

extent that we spend a little bit of time on not just the numbers that

have changed dramatically, this is really the opportunity to do

that.

[3:40 p.m.]

Bill 4 purports to change the carbon tax, and I think it’s

entirely appropriate to canvass what the anticipated revenues from that

instrument of taxation would be. If the minister were tabling her budget

today, what would the number for carbon tax revenue be? It would not,

apparently, be $1.954 billion. What would it be?

Hon. C. James: The member knows well — I’ve had this discussion when we came out

with the statement in July — that at this stage, we are making the best

assumptions based on the information that we all have now.

To take a look at the year ahead, we will be coming out with the

Q1, which will have a little more information. We’ll have a little more

data, and we’ll be able to bring forward some of those numbers. Again,

everything is going to be subject to change. This is going to be one of

those years. I’m not going to guess today. As I said, we’re working on

Q1. We’ll be bringing out an additional assumption in Q1, and we’ll have

the opportunity for that discussion.

M. de Jong: When she did her fiscal update and just repeated that a moment

ago, the minister told the world that anticipated revenues from fuel and

carbon taxes will be $353 million less. All I’m asking for is the

portion of that figure that relates to carbon taxes. She has indicated

that it is an estimate. I think most people understand that; I certainly

do. But she has disclosed that there will be $353 million less from fuel

and carbon taxes. What portion of that is from the carbon

tax?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: We’ll have the information shortly, so I can get back to it, if

the member wants to go to on to another question.

M. de Jong: On a similar bent…. I’m just trying to make sure I understand the

manner in which I should be reading the information that the minister

provided at the fiscal update vis-à-vis the budget document that was

presented in February.

For example, still on table 1.3, when she held her press

conference on July14, the Finance Minister indicated that personal

income tax revenue was anticipated, estimated to decrease by $999

million, almost $1 billion. Does it follow, then, that today the best

estimate for personal income tax revenue is $11.771 billion minus $999

million?

Hon. C. James: Again, I can provide some information, but I would ask the member

their relevance to the bill that we’re debating currently. I understand

the carbon tax–related questions. Now we’re going into other data from

the July statement. I expect that there will be lots of those questions

through estimates, and we’ll have the opportunity. I’m just asking the

member the relevance to this issue.

The Chair: Member, from the Chair, just for clarification, it seems

like…. The Chair has been very generous to the member on

section 1.

But many of the questions seem like they’re not even in the bill.

Maybe the member can focus more so on the bill or

section

M. de Jong: Thank you, as always, hon. Chair. It’s why I had the brief

exchange with the minister at the very outset. The bill is the statutory

instrument by which the budget that was tabled in this House is brought

to life. The minister, in fairness, has made it clear that the numbers

in the budget…. This is very unusual, and this is not a deliberate

function of anything the minister has done. The numbers in the budget

that Bill 4 relate to are no longer accurate.

The minister is asking the House to endorse and pass Bill 4. In

the ordinary course of events, we would know that endorsing and passing

Bill 4 should give rise, if the minister is correct, to what is in the

budget she has just tabled. But to the minister’s own credit, she has

said that is not the case any longer. Circumstances have intervened so

that we cannot have confidence that passing Bill 4…. In fact, the one

thing we can be confident in is that notwithstanding the passage of Bill

4, these numbers are not correct.

So it is, I would submit, entirely legitimate, in advance of

asking members to vote on this legislation, to ask the minister to

disclose what she can about the accuracy of those numbers. It is the

essence of the budgetary process. This is the budget implementation

bill.

[3:50 p.m.]

The change is profound, and I’m going to ask the minister several

questions to put on the record here in this House — not in a press

theatre somewhere, but here in this House — the impact of what has taken

place over the last four months. I think it is very relevant. I think it

goes to the heart of the budgeting process.

The question was not meant to trick anyone. When the minister

spoke outside of this House, I thought what she was trying to convey was

that today, armed with the best information that she and the government

and the treasury branch have, they are anticipating, in the various

categories, reduced revenues of $6.3 billion. I want to make sure I’m

understanding that correctly. I hope the minister doesn’t think that is

somehow inappropriate in a debate about legislation that is all about

breathing life into the budget. She acknowledged that a few moments

ago.

I’ll ask the question again. Is the minister’s best guess today

that she will be collecting — as part of the budget, in the area of

personal income tax — essentially $1 billion less?

The Chair: Minister, I just want to say this. The comments the member has

made — the Chair respects that and appreciates it — it sounded like

they were more well-suited for the second reading of the bill. I

leave it up to the minister, if the minister wants to continue to

answer.

Hon. C. James: Thank you very much, Chair.

The member, more than probably many in this House, knows exactly

the process that occurs when we go through the budget process and when

we set budgets. He also recognized, at the start — as others have done

and as everyone knows in our province — the kinds of challenges we are

all facing with COVID-19, the kinds of difficulties, the unknown that’s

ahead of us.

The July statement that we made, as I made very clear to the

public, is a scenario of what could happen based on the current

information that we had then. It’s completely subject to change,

recognizing that the world could change again in another six months,

when it comes to health, when it comes to the economy, when it comes to

a second wave, when it comes to supports for individuals and

businesses.

Yes, July was a scenario of what could happen based on the

information. Based on that information, the member has those numbers. He

knows exactly the kinds of numbers that are there. Does that mean those

will be the numbers at the end of the year? It’s simply a scenario of

what could happen, based on the best information that the best people in

the Ministry of Finance are putting together now.

M. de Jong: I accept all of that. But I also make the proposition to the

minister that it is entirely fair, as part of the budget process, which

is what we’re in here…. Bill 4 is part of the budget process. We know

that. We established it, to our mutual satisfaction, as part of this

conversation.

Budgets are always about estimates and about forecasts. So was the

document that the minister tabled on February 18.

[3:55 p.m.]

Surely, in asking Members of the Legislative Assembly to vote in

favour of Bill 4, it is appropriate for Members of the Legislative

Assembly to prod the minister to disclose, as best she can, how the

numbers have changed in the intervening four months. Surely that is not

unfair. Surely that is our job. Surely we’re expected to do

that.

I can ask this basic question.

Section 1 and the changes to the

carbon tax were designed to assist in achieving what the minister and

the government then thought would be a balanced budget. That’s not going

to be the case anymore. The minister has not confirmed that on the

record in this chamber, yet she continues to ask for members to support

what is, in large measure, outdated legislation.

Again, what has happened is not the minister’s fault or the

government’s fault with respect to the pandemic. But surely it is

appropriate to at least ask the minister to share with this assembly, on

the record in here, what she believes the impact could be. I haven’t

asked for anything more than that.

There is a list of areas where revenue is expected to decline.

We’re dealing, in sections 1 through 5, with the carbon tax. The

minister and her staff, by now, will have that number. They’ve provided

to the minister a scenario and said: “In this scenario, we believe that

the number that was included in the budget tabled in February is no

longer accurate. We think it could be reduced by as much as X.” I expect

the minister’s staff now has that number.

Maybe I should take my seat, and hopefully, she’ll be able to

disclose that number.

Hon. C. James: The member knows full well — in fact, coming forward with an

economic statement — that the information is public, that we’ve had much

discussion and that there are many opportunities to continue that

discussion. We’ll have it, I’m sure, through this process, we’ll have it

through our next bill, and we’ll have it through estimates. I think

that’s important to note.

[4:00 p.m.]

Then just on the specifics that the member asked for, of the $353

million, $236 million is carbon tax, and $117 million is fuel sales.

That would be reduced volume, obviously. That does not take into account

the amount of the impact of not moving ahead with the increase in the

carbon tax. That’s in another part of that economic statement, and

that’s $146 million.

M. de Jong: I just want to make sure that I heard that correctly. Of that $353

million figure, $236 million would relate to the carbon tax. Is that

correct?

Hon. C. James: So $236 million for the carbon tax, $117 million for fuel sales,

comes to the $353 million; and then $146 million that was also not the

full moving ahead on the carbon tax increase on April 1.

M. de Jong: Okay. That’s helpful and likely saves us some time. If I went

through a similar exercise for personal income tax, corporate income

tax, employer health tax and took those estimates that the minister

released on July 14 and subtracted them from the numbers — the fiscal

year ’20-21 in table 1.3 of the budget — that would be the best guess

today for what anticipated revenues from those sources would be. Would

that be a fair statement?

Hon. C. James: I’m going to go back again, because I think it’s important to

emphasize that this is simply a scenario. As the member knows from the

document that was released, there are other scenarios that are possible

depending on what will occur. So the information that was in the

document in July is the scenario based on the assumptions of the best

information we have at that time.

M. de Jong: Thank you to the minister. In deciding whether or not to vote in

favour of the legislation that implements the budget, Bill 4 being the

budget implementation bill, is there anything other than that scenario

of July 14 that Members of the Legislative Assembly can look to, to

derive some notion of what the new numbers are?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Again, coming back to the July statement, the member will know

from this statement that was released that it’s very clear that this is,

again, the best assumption based on the information that we have at the

time. It is the most up-to-date information that we have at the time. We

will continue….

We said clearly in the statement that it is simply a scenario, not

a full fiscal statement, because there isn’t at this point the kind of

data that we need for a full fiscal statement. Q1 will come out, and

we’ll continue to make revisions. As the world changes, as the economy

continues to grow, as we continue to see those shifts, those will be

accounted for in the quarterly reports.

M. de Jong: Again, I’m not quarrelling with anything the minister has said,

and I recognize that in the ordinary course of events, Bill 4 would have

come and gone months ago. The minister would have tabled her budget.

Within a few days, we would have debated Bill 4, and it would have

related to a budget that the minister was still commending to the House,

that was still accurate. That is not the case this year. The minister

knows that. I know that. Most people know that.

The budget that Bill 4 originally referred to showed a modest

surplus. On the record in this chamber to the people who are asked to

vote for or against the legislation that implements the budget, can the

minister disclose what her expectations are about the final outcome of

the budget for fiscal year 2020-2021? It apparently will not be

balanced. Can she put on the record what her expectation is about the

budgetary deficit that members of the assembly should

anticipate?

Hon. C. James: Again, I’m going to emphasize, just as I did in the public

announcement that I made in July, on the assumptions and the scenario

based on the best information we have…. As the member knows full well in

that scenario, because it was made public, $12.5 billion was the

estimate based on that current scenario. That could shift.

We included, in fact, a number of risks in that document, risks

that could be positive or negative, depending on this situation,

depending on what happens with health, depending on what happens with

second waves, depending on what happens with economic growth. So the

July statement, as the member knows, the public statement, included

$12.5 billion.

M. de Jong: Has anything changed in the intervening two weeks that would lead

the minister to want to advise the members of the assembly of changes to

that estimate? With all of the caveats that she has attached to it, has

anything occurred or has she become aware of information between then

and now that would cause her to adjust that estimate?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Yes. As the member will know again, not only because it’s tabled

as supplementary estimates in this House but, in fact, will be debated

in estimates and also was announced publicly. The federal government has

put in place recovery dollars and an opportunity to be able to receive

funding from the federal government if it is matched at the province. So

supplementary estimates has included an additional $1 billion to that

number.

M. de Jong: To be clear, then, on the record, the potential deficit, with all

of the caveats that the minister has laid out, instead of $12.5 billion,

would now be $13.5 billion.

Hon. C. James: Again, it’s simply an assumption based on the information we have

currently. It’s simply a scenario put forward.

M. de Jong: I guess I’m curious because maybe I’m missing something. I think

that in advance of asking members to vote on budget implementation

legislation and sections that relate to taxation, it’s fair and

appropriate to have that information from the minister in this chamber.

I hope the minister agrees with me, but I sense she feels that I am

somehow being obstructionist in trying to draw that information out of

her in this forum.

Hon. C. James: I’m prepared for another question.

M. de Jong: In the update just prior to…. I’m not going to go through all of

the various areas of reduced revenue, because the minister has provided,

I think, a satisfactory blanket answer about how we take the numbers

from her update and apply them to the budget document. But I do note

that when you compare slide 12 with table 1.3 of the budget document,

there is an estimate of change for virtually every category — for

personal income tax, corporate income tax, employer health tax,

provincial sales tax, property transfer tax, carbon tax. The only one

that I didn’t see on slide 12 of the update related to the insurance

premium tax, which, in the budget, is anticipated to collect revenues of

$660 million.

Is there a reason that that particular source of revenue, $660

million, wasn’t included in the fiscal update on slide 12?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: There was no inclusion of the insurance premium tax, presuming at

this stage, based, again, as a scenario, on the information that was

available. Not good data on whether there would be a shift in people’s

behaviour when it came to buying health insurance or property insurance.

Again, information will come forward and will be adjusted as we continue

bringing forward Q reports and additional scenarios.

M. de Jong: Does that mean today, on July 26, the minister is standing by the

estimate for insurance premium tax revenues of $660 million?

Hon. C. James: Again, the July information was a scenario. It was based on the

information that was available at the time. The best information

available at the time. That’s the number that is built in. What will

happen in Q1 — and what will happen as we move along in the year — will

be adjusted if it needs to be. Both based on the information from public

accounts for ’19-20 as well as ’20-21.

M. de Jong: Well, the minister is intelligent enough to know why I would be

interested. We have seen, for the million-plus British Columbians living

in strata title condominium homes, a dramatic increase, and there is a

suspicion that that is translating into something of a small windfall on

the taxation front, where insurance premiums are going up 100 percent,

200 percent, 500 percent.

Has the minister, to this point, received any information, any

documentation, any data to indicate that the amount of revenue being

received by government from the insurance premium tax is increasing

significantly beyond the $660 million she anticipated when she tabled

the budget in February?

Hon. C. James: Again, I know the member knows this, but just to remind the member

that the insurance premium tax includes a broad range of insurance,

which includes auto insurance. No, there is not information — when the

July statement came out — right now, good data to be able to build into

a scenario.

[4:20 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I’ve got a few more questions, and then I think I have some

colleagues that will have some questions for the minister on this

section or perhaps some general questions. This does fall into the

category of a more general question, again, relating to the overall

state of the budget and the impact of

section 1 and the subsequent

sections in terms of the overall state of the budget.

When she made her announcement on July 14 — and I think everyone

was watching very closely — the minister commented, I thought, with a

measure of pride. In the slide directly before observing where the

losses of revenue were, slide 12, on her slide 11, she, I thought,

wanted to make the case about the overall strength of B.C. heading into

these challenges. She talked about Budget 2020 including a surplus, at

the time, of $227 million.

She also pointed, I thought, with a measure of pride to the

absence of operating debt. It struck me that, in the manner in which the

minister referred to that, she saw it as a good thing — the absence of

operating debt. But now is my chance to ask the minister

that.

Is that a good thing? And if it is a good thing, why is it a good

thing?

Hon. C. James: We are for certain outside the committee stage completely on any

of these questions. But since the member asked about the direction of

budgeting, I would be happy to talk a little bit about the direction

that we have taken as a government on preparing the budgets — the three

budgets that we have tabled since we became government.

We believe, in fact, in a balance. We believe that the economy is

there to provide support for the people of British Columbia, to ensure

that everyone has an opportunity to take

part in the economy. That means

critical investments that are not only social investments but, in fact,

economic investments. That’s a very different kind of approach than was

taken by the previous government.

We, in fact, have been providing support to make life more

affordable for families. We have, in fact, been providing support to

improve services that people rely on and supports that people rely on

that have not been there for many, many years. We have been doing the

work that needs to be done to be able to build a sustainable economy

that recognizes the importance of our responsibility to address climate

action, our responsibility to make sure that we look at adjusting that

in the economy and building a sustainable economy.

In doing so, in looking at those three priorities, we have, in

fact, made major investments in areas that, as I mentioned, are not

simply social investments but, in fact, are economic investments — child

care being one of those examples. The pandemic has certainly shown us

the critical nature of investing in child care when it comes to supports

that are needed for growing an economy. We have done that while

continuing to balance the budget, while continuing to bring forward the

importance of fiscal responsibility and eliminating the operating

debt.

The member will know, again, full well, as I said on budget day….

I know that this was a very important issue to the member when he was

Finance Minister, and I acknowledged that in my budget statement, that I

recognized that that was an important piece and that he played a role in

that. We continued with that role.

We are now in a very different situation, as the member knows full

well. where the critical nature right now of investments in people and

businesses to be able to grow our economy again is going to be very

important.

M. de Jong: When Bill 4 was tabled, it was tabled on a day when the minister

was touting a $227 million budgetary surplus. It is being debated now,

four months later, in circumstances where we are staring at a $13.5

bil­lion deficit.

[4:25 p.m.]

If this is not the moment for members and oppositions to at least

ask questions of the government’s Finance Minister about those

circumstances, then I don’t know when is. I’m troubled to hear the

minister say that this falls outside of the…. I’ll remind her again.

When we get to the end of this debate, which we surely will at some

point, you, Mr. Chair, will ask: “Shall the title pass?” We don’t really

think about that too much. The title is the budget implementation

bill.

The budget has changed in the span of four months to a larger

degree than ever in the history of the province. I get the sense that

the minister is bothered somehow that people would want to ask questions

about her views on how that is changing or what information she might

have. She’s the head of a large department of very skilled people and

will have data at her disposal that the rest of us don’t have. We’re

simply asking her to share as much information as she can about that

circumstance.

I’m not going to ask the minister in the context of this

discussion about when the operating debt…. Well, maybe I should verify

this. Based on the information that the minister has provided the House,

at the end of this fiscal year we will again have an operating debt. I

think most people understand that. They understand the necessity for it.

They accept it. But they also deserve to know that we will have an

operating debt of, our best estimate today, $13.5 billion. Is that

correct?

Hon. C. James: Yes. As I’ve already stated, $12.5 billion was the information

that came forward as part of the scenario that was tabled. An additional

$1 billion is to ensure that we receive support from the federal

government for recovery that will make a huge difference to people and

to businesses in British Columbia. Obviously, that means an operating

debt.

M. de Jong: I’m not going to ask the minister when. I’m not sure that’s a fair

question. But does the minister believe that that is a debt that needs

to be repaid?

I ask this because I have heard from commentators, economists who

now advocate that that’s not so. I am genuinely interested to know the

minister’s view and the government’s view on this. That estimate of

$13.5 billion will undoubtedly grow in subsequent years. The minister

has carved out three years’ worth of room for the government to address

some of these needs and, undoubtedly, add to that. But as a

philosophical question, does she believe that that amount will need to

be repaid one day?

Hon. C. James: I think I’ve described the difference in values that we have,

compared to the past government. We don’t believe in having a surplus

simply for the sake of a surplus, rather than investing in the services

and supports that people rely on in our province.

We have shown that over the last number of years in a balanced

approach, being fiscally responsible and investing in people and

businesses and in climate action that is needed in our province. And we

will continue to approach budgets from that perspective, looking at that

balanced approach that is needed for the people of British

Columbia.

M. de Jong: Well, I didn’t hear an answer. I thought it was a fair question,

and that is whether, philosophically, the minister saw eventually, when

circumstances allow for it, the reduction in the operating debt as a

positive thing. But she chose not to answer that.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Maybe I can ask her this, from the perspective of a Finance

Minister. If the day arrived where the government did choose and was

able to begin to reduce that now accumulating operating debt, what is

the mechanism for doing it? How do you do that when you’re

government?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’m not going to speculate on what we may see when we’re in the

middle of a pandemic and when the people of our province are focused on

the supports that are needed and the businesses of our province are

focused on the supports that are needed to be able to look at economic

recovery. There will be, no question, a need to spend, as we have done

since the day we became government, every dollar wisely. That is

critical. These are not the member’s dollars; these are not our dollars.

These belong to the people of British Columbia, and they expect their

government to spend every cent of those dollars wisely.

Will the budget need to continue to look at how we spend those

dollars wisely to ensure that we are supporting the people of British

Columbia, to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to be able to take

part in our economy, to ensure the supports and services that are needed

for equity in our province — that we deal with reconciliation and that

we address the issue of climate action? Yes, that is what the government

expects of us. That is the work we are going to continue to do,

Member.

M. de Jong: Again, I didn’t hear an answer, to the question, from the

minister. I’ll give her my version of the answer, and she can take issue

with it if she likes, if she chooses. The reason the minister was able

to boast of us heading into this incredible challenge of the pandemic

without being saddled by an operating debt is because governments that

preceded her own took surplus moneys and paid down that debt.

I have tried to reconcile in my mind the minister, on the one

hand, touting with pride the position B.C. has found itself in, going

into and through this very, very challenging circumstance — and, as

recently as two weeks ago, talking openly and referring to some of those

indicators — without wanting to acknowledge how we got there. To this

day, she doesn’t want to acknowledge how we got there.

The operating debt was finally paid down under the minister’s

watch, in this government. It was eliminated — a pretty remarkable thing

in this day and age. It was done on the strength of a budgetary surplus.

Now, the minister didn’t stand and say: “We’re hoarding it.” No. She

said: “Look, we’re actually positioning the province better.” It’s a

good thing they did, because here we are confronted by a $13.5 billion,

and growing, challenge.

In the questions that will follow, I expect the minister will be

asked repeatedly to share — to the extent that she can with British

Columbians, whose money this is, whose budget this is — the information

that she has at her disposal so that people are aware. That’s what they

ask. That’s what they’re entitled to: full disclosure.

We may have, and do have, concerns about the degree to which the

program we’re on is sustainable in the absence of a clear strategy to

restart and revitalize the economy. There’s no doubt that we have those

concerns, but this is a conversation about the actual state of the

budget.

I have no doubt that it has complicated measures in the extreme —

and that is an understatement — for the Finance Minister to be obliged

to debate and present a bill that was tabled in relation to a budget

that is no longer valid, the numbers of which are no longer relevant to

the conversation.

[4:35 p.m.]

No one is going to try and be unfair to the minister. There are a

lot of variables out there, many of which she has mentioned, and a lot

of downside risk. But I hope, going forward to some of the other

questions on some of the other sections that will follow, that the

minister will share, to the extent that she can, the information that

she has so that British Columbians and the opposition, in having to vote

on Bill 4, will be in the most informed position possible to do

so.

The minister may wish to reply or not.

Hon. C. James: I’m not going to take a lot of time, but I can’t let it pass

without adding a piece of history that the member conveniently has left

out, conveniently has not mentioned as part of the legacy that was left

us as a province, part of the legacy that was left to the people of

British Columbia by the past government.

The member asked how we got here. Well, I think we have to

remember, very clearly, the situation that many, many, many families

faced in our province over that time period. MSP premiums doubling.

Child poverty — highest rate in the country, right here in British

Columbia, and the last province left without a child poverty reduction

plan. Bus passes taken away from people with disabilities. Doubling of

tuition. Child labour laws that were scorned by the rest of the world. A

lack of child care. I could go on about the real legacy that seems to

have been left out when the member was talking about the importance of

fiscal responsibility.

I am very proud of the fact that we are not only fiscally

responsible as a government, but we also made sure that we balanced that

with the critical things that are needed for people in this province. So

I think it was important to put on the record just a very short synopsis

of some of the challenges that, as I said, the member conveniently left

out.

S. Bond: We have no further questions on this section. We can actually move

through to

section 8, please.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

S. Bond: Thank you for the opportunity to build on the argument and the

points that have been made so eloquently by my colleague, a former

Minister of Finance.

Ironically, I would just digress ever so briefly to remind the

Finance Minister that her comments just now…. We certainly agree with

something — that British Columbians are focused on a lot of things, and

they relate to the pandemic and taking care of their families. Perhaps

she’d like to comment, then, on why the Premier is considering an

opportunity for an election in the fall. I hardly think that fits in

with what the Minister of Finance has talked about.

[4:40 p.m.]

The minister talked a little bit about MSP premiums. I am

wondering if she can describe for me what else may be dealt with in this

particular bill related to the employer health tax.

We know this. The minister and her government are actually known

for double-dipping with the employer health tax. As the member previous

to me commented on, there are enormous gaps with the Budget

Implementation Act and where we actually find ourselves today. The

employer health tax has actually won an award, a red tape award, because

it forces employers to guess their payroll for the year and penalizes

them if they get it wrong.

Can the minister tell many British Columbians whether or not this

act, this bill, does anything to fix that problem?

Hon. C. James: This section, 8 — the member is quite right — deals with the

employer health tax. This is about delegating appeal decision-making

power. There are a number of different acts throughout this bill that

have this same kind of section. That’s the only relationship to the

Employer Health Tax Act that the member was asking about.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. As we look at the line of questioning

that was started earlier, I’m wondering if the minister could just, for

our benefit, indicate to us whether or not, since she made the fiscal

update…. We know that the employer health tax, for example, has been

deferred. I know that many business owners have found some relief there.

But with that deferral, comes the issue of repayment.

Again, because this is the Budget Measures Implementation Act, is

there anything that the minister can tell us that she is aware of, after

her most recent fiscal update to us, about the rate of return of those

deferred payments?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: We have received…. The member is quite right. As the member knows,

we have deferred the employers health tax payments. They don’t need to

be paid until October 1.

The numbers so far: 73 percent of returns have come in already on

those payments, and 75 percent of that 73 percent have included their

payments as well. So 73 percent of people have already done their

returns on their employers health tax, and 75 percent of that 73 percent

have already paid.

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the Finance Minister. I appreciate that

answer. I just want to confirm with the minister, then: looking at that

rate of ability to pay and those who have already paid, does she

anticipate there will be the need for material changes?

I know that she provided a scenario, and we’re going to deal with

that, obviously, in estimates. But just at this point in time, does she

anticipate that there will be a material gap between the expectations

that she laid out in the update? She was very clear that there would be

a lot of variability, but can she just confirm whether or not she thinks

there will be a material difference from the initial scenario she

presented?

Hon. C. James: I think it is an unknown. I know I’m repeating that often, but I

think it is the time we’re in with COVID-19. We’ve had a couple of

months’ worth of data, as the member will know. The member, when she was

minister in the area of jobs, of course, knows that often that

information varies so much month to month. It also is a couple of months

behind in some cases. Retail sales, for example, were a couple of months

behind. We’re a month behind in the employment data.

I don’t want to guess. I think there’s enough uncertainty for

people out there than to speculate. I think we built a scenario based on

the best data that we had, and a credit to the Finance staff and to our

economists and to our departments who worked hard to make sure that they

could put together the best scenario. But it is simply that. It is

simply a scenario.

Does that mean that we’re continuing to look at things like the

deferrals that are in place and look at whether there need to be

extensions or there need to be changes? Yes, we’re reviewing all of that

and, obviously, talking with business groups and talking with others

about what makes the best sense.

S. Bond: I’m ready to move on to the next section.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

section 10.

S. Bond: Chair, I appreciate you moving through these sections.

The Finance Minister can perhaps just clarify

section 10 for us.

Again, this is a

section that deals with delegation of powers, but it’s

related to the homeowner grant this time.

[4:50 p.m.]

We’ve certainly seen the empowerment of the minister to delegate

decision-making respecting appeals of decisions. Could the minister

outline for us: does this contemplate administrative changes, or is it

rectifying an error, and if so, how? Could the minister just give us

some clarity?

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question. I think this is an important piece,

and it’s actually an important piece for consumers. That’s really who

this change is about. It’s about making sure that people have the

opportunity to have appeals heard in a timely way and to move them

along. So we’re one of the rare jurisdictions that doesn’t have

delegated authority, beyond the existing act, which basically says that

appeals have to be heard by the deputy minister or the associate deputy

minister.

This provides an opportunity, with more straightforward appeals

that come forward that would already have case law, that’d already be

looked at, for the minister to be able to delegate further than those

two positions to be able to ensure that these appeals can be heard in a

timely manner.

This, really…. No change in policy. No change in direction from

that perspective. Simply an opportunity for the system not to get

clogged up, as people were coming forward with appeals because, in

fairness to people who’ve gone through that process, they need them to

be heard in a timely manner. This provides that opportunity, and as the

member mentioned, in a whole number of acts, it gets mirrored so we can

ensure that that occurs.

S. Cadieux: We can move on to

section

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

S. Cadieux: I understand that this

section brings into force the new income

tax bracket on incomes over $220,000 a year. What was the outcome of the

gender-based analysis done of this tax measure?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question. Again, this is a piece that we are now

starting to add to the budget as we look at doing more work around the

gender analysis. I think it’s important information for all of us and

for making decisions in the future, in particular, as we go

along.

This tax will hit approximately 1 percent of the population of our

province. Seventy percent of those impacted are men, and 75 percent of

all of the individuals who are impacted are married or in a common-law

relationship.

S. Cadieux: Well, given that the higher-income earners are usually male and

that government is looking to increase revenue through this measure, and

the minister is responsible for gender equity under her portfolio, why

hasn’t the minister brought forward pay equity legislation to bridge

that gap and balance out the proportion of earners in that tax

bracket?

Hon. C. James: No, we’re not debating pay equity and the pay equity legislation

at this point. There are a number of ways to reach pay equity, including

investments that we’ve made as government in our budgets, including

everything from minimum wage and the support for minimum wage to

investments in child care and the critical investments in child care to

wages for child care workers, as well, to the support that we provided

to our health care workers. There are a number of ways — including pay

equity as one of them — and abilities to be able to address pay

equity.

S. Cadieux: Yes, and I don’t disagree with the minister. But I do find it

interesting, given that this tax bracket is going to affect the top

earners of the province, and at least 107 of those people are government

employees.

Can the minister confirm that that is indeed the case, and can the

minister tell me what percentage of the government employees affected by

this tax are men, versus women?

Hon. C. James: I don’t have any numbers around, and we don’t make tax policy

based on how many government employees might or might not be impacted by

the tax policy. We make tax policy based on fairness, and that’s part of

my mandate as Finance Minister — a fair tax system, to create a fair tax

system in this province.

[5:00 p.m.]

We certainly felt, as government, that it was reasonable to ask

those who are making the most in our province to pay a little bit more

from the services and supports that we all benefit from. If we’re

talking about investments in affordable housing or child care, for

example, those are benefits to growth in the economy, which benefits not

only those making more than $220,000 but, in fact, benefits all British

Columbians.

One piece of information the member will probably remember from

the budget tabling is that we expect that half of the revenue that comes

from this increase will come from those making $1 million or

more.

S. Cadieux: Can the minister confirm for us, at this time, what they are

forecasting this tax will bring in, in this fiscal year?

Hon. C. James: The expected revenue, which was tabled in the budget in February,

was $216 million from this tax.

S. Cadieux: Is there an expectation that this income bracket will be affected

negatively by COVID-19?

Hon. C. James: We expect, as the member will know from the scenario that was

tabled, that, in fact, almost every area, when it comes to personal

income tax and corporate income tax, will be impacted, yes.

S. Cadieux: Then the minister is telling us that we expect that this tax

measure and the projected revenue of $216 million will not, in fact, be

the case and that there will be somewhat less revenue received this

year, but the minister is not prepared to tell us how much. Is that

correct?

Hon. C. James: I know members will get tired of hearing me say it over and over

again. This is simply a scenario. It is simply a scenario and an

estimate of where we’re at.

[5:05 p.m.]

For the July scenario, the expectation was that rather than $216

million for the year, we could be looking at $198 million. Again, simply

a scenario based on the best information we have and with all the risks

that are assessed already.

S. Cadieux: With that, Mr. Chair, we’ll move to

section 13.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

section 13.

S. Cadieux: In this section, we’re talking about charitable giving. Can the

minister explain how this

section impacts charitable donation tax

credits?

Hon. C. James: Two pieces that are important in this section. The first one is

that for anybody below the new tax bracket — so anyone who is below the

220 — nothing changes. They receive the same amount of charitable

donation that they have now, and nothing changes in that regard. For

anyone above that, they’ll receive a higher charitable