Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 20, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 77

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 4 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2021 (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. S. Robinson

Reporting of Bills

Bill 4 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2021

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

B. Bailey

G. Kyllo

S. Chandra Herbert

T. Halford

S. Chant

J. Rustad

M. Dykeman

D. Ashton

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. D. Eby

M. Morris

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 2 — Public Interest Disclosure Amendment Act, 2021

Bill 5 — InBC Investment Corp. Act

Bill 9 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021

Bill 13 — Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

J. Tegart

Hon. J. Whiteside

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 9 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021

M. Bernier

Hon. S. Robinson

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (continued)

Hon. B. Ralston

T. Shypitka

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction

Hon. N. Simons

D. Davies

S. Furstenau

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2021

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 9, Finance Statutes

Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call the continued estimates of the Ministry of

Education. If that were to finish, then I would call Committee of the Whole on

Bill 9, Finance Statutes Amendment Act.

In the Birch Room, I will be calling the estimates for the Ministry of

Energy and Mines. When that finishes, that will be followed by the estimates for

the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

M. Bernier: Chair, just if I may raise a point?

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

M. Bernier: I believe the House Leader just misspoke. He called Bill 9 in this House.

I believe he meant Bill 4.

Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader, make a correction, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, Member. I was looking at two things here, and I thought I’d got

a nod on 9. It is, in this chamber, Committee of the Whole on Bill 4.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 4;

N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

On clause 13 (continued) .

M. Bernier: I want to continue on a little bit where we left off. We were on

clause 13. We were talking about the increased employment incentive. Can

minister maybe give me a history lesson here? When was this incentive

announced?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked when it was an­nounced. It was back in the

fall.

M. Bernier: Can the minister…? Who actually qualifies, or who doesn’t qualify?

It’s not completely laid out here, directly. I’m just curious. When the

announcement was made back in the fall, and now that we’re trying to

enact it here in the changes in this bill…. Which companies qualify or

are disqualified?

Hon. S. Robinson: Those businesses that increased their remuneration during the last

quarter of 2020, with increased employment over the base quarter. So

it’s compared to the previous quarter.

While we’re talking about this, I thought I would share with the

House and with the member that it’s helped more than 1,000 businesses

and supported more than 1,900 new jobs — increases in hours and pay

increases as well. We’ve had over 1,000 applications that have been

approved, and about $4½ million in relief is flowing to eligible

businesses. That, of course, flows back into the economy.

M. Bernier: The minister just saved me from a few questions, which is

appreciated. I would have probably leaned to asking a little bit more of

that detail.

I’m curious, when the minister says, “increased over the previous

quarter,” that we chose the last quarter of…. I guess it wouldn’t be the

last fiscal quarter, but the last calendar quarter that was

chosen.

In reading through this

section and consequent sections related to

the increased employment incentive, I believe it says that a business

does not qualify if they’ve rehired back people that were laid off

because of COVID. If they were employed by a company and laid off, but

then a company thought: “Okay, well, there’s this 15 percent credit

incentive out there. I’m going to make some decisions as a business to

maybe call some people back earlier than expected, even though I might

not be able to financially afford everything, or try to plan ahead,

using this incentive….”

Am I reading some of these

definitions correctly — that if it was

existing staff prior to, I think it was June 20, in the bill, the

companies do not qualify then for that incentive?

[1:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member doesn’t have a correct

interpretation. It is, in fact,

that if someone did get laid off — the business had to shut down and now

was able to open and can rehire — they would qualify.

M. Bernier: I’m just curious, then. Sorry. I’m trying to find it in this deep

bill.

Under this clause, in 30.03, can the minister explain to me, then,

“eligible employee”? “An employee is not an eligible employee if…the

employee was not an employee of the employer on July 1, 2020.” That’s a

little bit contradictory to what I said.

Can the minister explain that, then? The person was not an

employee at that time, but then they’re hired. How does that work for

the incentive?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I’m really grateful for the folks who are speaking in my

ear. I’m happy to share, with the member, their sage advice.

This is a special anti-avoidance clause. The proposed subsection

provides a special role for employees that do not deal with the employer

at arm’s length, generally individuals who are related to the employer.

Non-arm’s-length employees must be on the employer’s payroll as of July

1 to be an eligible employee.

It’s intended…. An employer artificially increasing the amount of

their credit by adding family members to the payroll after the IEI was

announced….

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for that. I was trying to understand

that a little bit. That does make sense.

Under this incentive, is there a minimum amount? You hire one

employee, if it’s a small mom-and-pop business. Does that qualify? Is

there a maximum amount if it’s, let’s just say, a large restaurant that

had decided to hire back a whole bunch of people when they were allowed

to reopen, before they were closed again? Is there a min or a max around

the qualifications?

The minister did say — and I appreciated when she said it — that

$4.5 million of taxpayers’ money has gone out to help incentivize. But

just trying to wonder…. On the qualifications, are there min and max

criteria that are put in?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: There is no minimum, no maximum.

M. Bernier: Okay. Appreciate that. That’s the answer I was hoping for. So

thank you very much.

I’m curious, though. Why was this time period chosen? I know it

was an announcement in the fall. We were trying to incentivize. But it

seems like, when you talk about October 1 to December 31 of last year,

that quarter as being the time that we’re incentivizing…. When I look

at….

A budget has been rolled out, and now we’re trying to figure out

how to get the economy going again. We’ll be challenging the minister a

little bit later in estimates on some of that.

Why was that time period chosen and maybe not even continued, or

is it following through now, when we’re trying to continue to

incentivize people to help boost the economy?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member will recall, certainly, back last year when we were on,

I’ll say, high alert around the crisis, not quite sure how things were

going to play out. By the summer, we were starting to see what was

possible. We were starting to see businesses that were finding ways to

operate.

We recognized there were opportunities to spur some more activity

on with this incentive. As I read into the record earlier, we’ve seen

the impacts of that. Of course, our employment numbers, through the

subsequent number of months, have been pretty good. We were at more than

100 percent employment compared to when the crisis was announced in

March. It did what it was supposed to do.

Again, it was one of those opportunities where we saw that there

was certainly enough safety protocol built into our practices that would

allow for some transactions to happen in the business community. We also

knew that there were some people who hadn’t been called back to work

yet. We also saw there were other sectors that were really struggling,

like the tourism sector.

Stimulating existing businesses to increase their hires — to help

get people back on their feet and get the economy going — was the

intent. That was why it was considered for the third and fourth quarter,

as a way to stimulate.

M. Bernier: I do appreciate, I guess, some of the efforts that we’re trying to

do collectively to get the province back up and running.

The minister and the government like to say that we’re back to

pre-COVID numbers all the time, but we do know, through the reports,

that there are around 44,000 people in the private sector, though —

specifically private sector people — who have lost their jobs and who

are not back to work. So 44,000, approximately, people. Although this

was from last year that we’re talking about, it obviously didn’t help

those 44,000. It helped some, which is great.

The minister rattled off some of those specific numbers, which I

appreciate, for the record, that show there is some uptake in it. But

there are still a lot of people unemployed. A lot of businesses are

struggling in hiring people back. Before lunch, the minister was, I’ll

say, cautious but optimistic about us, in the near future, getting back

up and running.

[1:20 p.m.]

Is the minister, though, looking at maybe bringing this back in

some form or reiteration to help people in the next quarter, as we

rebuild, or is there another plan for a different tax credit to try to

get some of these 44,000 people back to work in the private

sector?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to point out that it’s really since the circuit breaker

public health measures were taken that we’ve really seen, again, some

more deep im­pacts in employment. That certainly has created a

problem, and that’s why we have a circuit breaker grant program. We

absolutely recognize that there are still some that are tremendously hit

hard, businesses that continue to be tremendously hit hard.

We’re all incredibly excited about the vaccine rollout. We all

know, and I know that all members of this House know, how important it

is to make sure that everybody gets vaccinated. We could do that as

quickly as possible. I’m looking around, and I’m making sure that

everybody has registered — nods would be good — for their vaccine. We

need to make sure that that happens. That’s really the answer to getting

the economy opened up and back rolling again.

Having said that, the member did ask about what’s coming. If I had

a crystal ball and could have predicted that we would be in this

crisis…. We would, perhaps, not even be there. But the reality is that

we don’t know what the future looks like.

What we have done as a government, though, I have to say, is put

together a pandemic and recovery contingency, I guess, fund in the

budget. We’ve set aside significant dollars so that we can be

responsive. That’s what we’ve been doing all along, as things change, to

have our programs and our response.

I am hopeful that we’ll have some good news on Tuesday with more

details coming about what reopening can look like, what the time frame

could look like. That would help us predict and help businesses predict

and plan for what comes next.

Again, we’re on alert, paying attention to what happens with COVID

and how the pandemic plays out. Our priority is to keep everyone safe.

We know that that’s an absolute priority for British Columbians. It’s

our priority as a government. I know it’s a priority for everybody here

in this House. We’re going to keep monitoring that, and we’re going to

continue to be there to support businesses and to support individuals to

get through this next piece.

As the member said, I am cautiously optimistic. I want my optimism

to rise and my caution to lower. I’m hopeful that that will happen over

time. I’m marrying the two together, because if this pandemic has taught

us anything, it’s that we need to be cautious and we need to be

prepared.

M. Bernier: Somewhat tongue in cheek, but the minister, in some ways, does

have a crystal ball, being the head of Treasury Board and the head of

the finances for the province. She can, actually, have a little bit of

leeway in some of these grants and programs and how it rolls out at the

cabinet table, which I’m well aware of.

That aside — I’m not expecting any kind of commentary on that — I

do want to ask the minister…. So $4.5 million has gone out. How much was

in the budget? Is there a cap associated? At some point, are businesses

going to be told: “Sorry, we’ve used up all the money”? There are no end

posts, from what I understand. I’m just looking for the minister to

maybe quantify what was in the budget, what they expect to go out if

more people do apply and if there is a cap on that.

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The estimated cost is $190 million. That is what we estimated. We

don’t have a cap, per se.

It is early days. Applications for this program opened March 30.

In terms of the annual calendar, corporations are just finishing up

their year-end tax returns. So we do expect to see, I guess, a bolus

come through.

I think this is an excellent program to support busines­ses,

to bring people back to work, to expand their payrolls. This is the kind

of program that I know businesses had asked for. When we were going

through the design work, this was one of the things that businesses said

would make a difference to them. It’s based on that that we have set

aside these funds to help them bring people back to work and make sure

that they can operate their businesses.

M. Bernier: Probably my last question on this section. Obviously, we want to

get everybody back to work as fast as possible, get the economy rolling.

Can the minister explain, though…?

I would asked earlier if there were any thresholds or criteria or

a maximum amount of employees. Is there any threshold or criteria based

on the size of the company? The reason why we want to look at that is….

Obviously, for the small business, especially in the tourism sector,

where so many people are being hit right now…. Many of those are the

smaller operations. So they qualify for different grants that the

government has put forward.

What about a large organization? I’ll use my experiences up where

I am. Maybe you have an oil and gas company that has thousands of

employees. You might have a company that’s working on Site C with

thousands of employees. Well, in that quarter, if they brought employees

on to ramp up their operations, do they qualify for this as well? Is

there a threshold around the size of the operation that’s

applying?

Hon. S. Robinson: The answer is no. The idea is to stimulate getting people to work.

So if a company of a large size would increase their payroll, that means

that there are more people working. That’s what we want. We want those

people working.

Clauses 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

On clause 16.

M. Bernier: I’m going to ask this question, and I might end up asking it a few

times during the course of the next couple of hours because it’s seen

quite a few times in this bill. I’m wondering if the minister can maybe,

in this specific case, explain a little bit more

holistically….

Under different acts, we’re removing the requirement to seek leave

from the British Columbia Court of Appeal to appeal decisions of the

Supreme Court of Canada. I’m just curious. That’s in quite a few

different acts that we’ll be looking at today. That wording seems to be

a continuation through most of those.

Can the minister explain why that is in there? Does that change

appeal processes? How is that change going to affect people that are

dealing with that situation?

Hon. S. Robinson: This amendment will allow parties to appeal to the B.C. Supreme

Court decision, without having to first obtain leave of a justice of the

Court of Appeal.

This will harmonize appeal procedures with the Court of Appeal

Act, which provides an automatic right of appeal of a lower court’s

decision. The requirement to apply for leave creates additional work. It

has additional costs for government and for taxpayers, irrespective of

which party wishes to appeal further, after a decision of the B.C.

Supreme Court.

[1:30 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I’m not sure if this is a fair question to the minister, but to

try to save some time…. Almost this exact same wording is taking place

throughout the course of this bill in many other acts. Is it fair to say

that the answer will be the same and the reason why it’s being done

everywhere else as well?

Hon. S. Robinson: What a wise critic I have over there, anticipating that the answer

would be the same, and it is for the same reason.

The Chair: The wise Peace River South.

M. Bernier: I’ll leave that one alone for now. Thank you, Chair and

Minister.

Who asked for these changes? Is this something that internally,

through staff, came forward as something that would help move a process

forward better, or was this brought from the sector, other people

themselves?

Hon. S. Robinson: This was brought forward by staff as a way to make the process

smoother as well as to reduce costs to both government and

taxpayers.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

M. Bernier: Again, this is another one of those situa­tions where

government is going to be using information gathered. This one here is

looking for opportunities to al­low for certain information to be

provided and used under the employer health tax.

I’m going to assume the minister is going to give me a similar

answer to this morning, that this is information the government already

has. I did ask, on one of the previous bills that we debated…. I’ll

probably bring it up again later in estimates next month. What kind of

information does the minister collect, access, and why?

Hon. S. Robinson: The reason for this amendment — I want to be really clear that the

member understands it — is actually to protect taxpayer information.

It’s about making sure that there’s no unintended disclosures, so that

taxpayers can continue to have confidence that their information is not

subject to unintended statutory overrides.

This is a protective clause, rather than what I think he might

think it is. I just want to make sure he understands that this is about

ensuring that other statutes cannot simply override the tax

confidentiality provisions of the Employer Health Tax Act without

considering the heightened confidentiality of taxpayer information.

Again, this is about making sure that sensitive information is well

protected.

M. Bernier: Is it fair to say, through that answer, that a privacy impact

assessment was done, then, before these changes?

Hon. S. Robinson: That is correct.

[1:35 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I’m just curious, then. What did that privacy impact assessment

conclude? Obviously, there would be some concerns here with more

information being gath­ered. What kind of recommendations or what

did it conclude through that assessment?

Hon. S. Robinson: Privacy, of course, is paramount to the tax system. We have a

complete privacy code to protect information, taxpayer information. It’s

very strict, and it’s integral to trust in making sure that taxpayers

understand that their information is well protected. The employer health

tax lists out exactly, very specifically, about what information is

collected and what can happen with that information.

In this amendment, what it does is it says that in order for any

other statute to access any of this information, it can only be done by

the minister through regulation, which is made public, so that taxpayers

understand that if there’s any change, it has to happen through

regulation and that that would be made public and that everyone

understands how information is being used.

M. Bernier: With that information that’s collected, then, has any part of the

information that’s already been collected been used for policy analysis

or changes to date? Or has nothing changed, and we’re using this

information on a go-forward basis, if this bill passes?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This is on a go-forward basis.

M. Bernier: I know that was an easy answer. Obviously, you had to get

clarification first before the minister an­swered that one, just

to confirm.

My last question on this clause would be: who asked for these

changes? Was this the public service, under a legislated authority that

they were looking for, or is this the minister’s prerogative? Who

brought these changes forward?

Hon. S. Robinson: It was identified by the public service, which does an annual

review of statutes and recognized that this would help to protect

information.

Clauses 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

On clause 20.

M. Bernier: On clause 20, we are now moving into another act, the Home Owner

Grant Act. As we all know, we had a bill here earlier — I guess it would

be in the last session — to change some of the aspects around the

homeowner’s grant. At that time, the minister said: “There’s…no change

in what we do with the information that we currently gather. This is all

the same. This goes into the same part of my administration that already

has all the information related to taxing.”

I’m curious. If I understand this

section here, the minister is

asking for authority to use and disclose the certain information again,

like we’ve seen quite a few times. Why is the minister introducing these

new powers if she already has and uses the information?

Hon. S. Robinson: I have the public service doing analyses, trying to understand how

to best support British Columbians or bring about a fiscal program or a

fiscal framework to identify how to best address affordability, for

example.

The analysts will be working, perhaps, with the Home Owner Grant

Act and the data there. Then they are dealing with another different tax

policy act of some kind. It’s almost like they are instructed to forget

whatever they know on one in order to do the other. We all know, and I

know that the member knows, that that’s not how good policy is ever

developed.

So making sure that there’s this ability to do a full analysis,

using the data, so that we can deliver for the people of British

Columbia — I think that’s what this amendment is about.

M. Bernier: You know, there’s no argument that, obviously, with some of this

information, it’ll help shape policy. One of the questions that we had

last time we debated the homeowner’s grant was: would the information

that government would now be getting through the homeowner’s grant

application process that maybe they didn’t have already…? Now the

information is going to be shared across different sectors. When I mean

that, I mean internal government offices to try to formulate.

[1:45 p.m.]

The minister was very, if I remember at the time, fairly bullish

in her commentary around the fact that this information would not be

used for creating any new taxes. This was just important information

that I believe, at the time, the minister said was to gather to avoid

fraud and other challenges that might be faced, but not to be used for

forming new taxes.

It now appears, though, when you read through a lot of these acts,

the government is able now to use all of this information and data that

they’re collecting for new policy and new taxes and opportunities in the

province for revenue generation internally. I’m trying to square the

circle, because it says…. That, to me, contradicts what the minister

said earlier. Is she willing to say that this information is not being

collected again for generating any kind of new tax policy, as I believe

she said earlier this year?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that the member appreciates the evaluation of data. It’s

how we develop any policy — whether it’s tax policy, housing policy — in

government. That is what we do. Having data is helpful.

So here we have a program where we are collecting information.

There are a number of different tax policy pieces that we have as well,

whether it’s the Income Tax Act, the Employer Health Tax Act, the

Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act.

We understand the interactive effects of this in­formation.

Information is helpful to understand what’s happening on the ground. So

being able to have staff take a look at this and to be able to recommend

policy, regardless of what happens with it, I think is very

helpful.

Whether it’s to tax or not to tax — let’s be really clear — this

information is helpful. The more information we have, the better our

understanding of what’s going on in communities on the ground around the

province, and it just allows us, I think, overall, to make better

policy.

M. Bernier: Just one more on this clause then. I do appreciate the minister’s

comments there. One of, I think, the frustrations that not only the

public has but, I would say, even a lot of us internally have is the

fact that government, right or wrong, works in silos. So any opportunity

to break down those barriers and share information across either

ministries or internal within different branches of a ministry,

obviously to avoid redundancy but to also share that

information….

I’m completely, personally in support of that, because if we can

save taxpayers money, and if we can share information internally that we

already have to make better policy to help people, obviously that’s

important as well. So I will agree with that portion of it.

My only comment, though, is then using that information to not be

nefarious by any means but to look at opportunities to go after other

additional revenue sources, if government uses that information to find

areas that they figure they could tax further, based on the information

they have of affordability, which I don’t think…. And I think the

minister would agree we’re not in a place right now to be able to add

any additional burden to people in British Columbia as we’re trying to

come out of this pandemic.

The only other question that I would really ask on this clause….

The minister, earlier, had mentioned, when we talked about the

homeowner’s grant, that there was no intention at that time at all to

have any changes to the homeowners’ grants, aside from some of these

technical aspects in this bill. Is that still the wording the minister

would use — that there are no changes planned for the homeowner’s grant,

as it still stands?

Hon. S. Robinson: No changes planned.

Clause 20 approved.

On clause 21.

M. Bernier: We’re now talking about the Hydro and Power Authority Act. We’re

moving through lots of different parts of this under Bill 4. We’re going

to get through a few more here very quickly, but I will move through

this one now.

[1:50 p.m.]

I want the minister just to explain this a little bit to me. Under

clause 21, this is applying the employer health tax now to B.C. Hydro,

from what I can see. Does that mean B.C. Hydro…? Were they paying the

employer health tax before? Were they not, and now this is just an

addition? What’s that process, please?

Hon. S. Robinson: As a result of an oversight during the design and drafting of the

Employer Health Tax Act, the Hydro and Power Authority Act was not

amended to ensure that the Employer Health Tax Act applies to B.C.

Hydro. There is no rationale for uniquely exempting B.C. Hydro from the

employer health tax. Other utilities, Crown corporations, authorities

and core government are subject to the employer tax health, so B.C.

Hydro has been operating on the understanding that it is subject to the

employer health tax.

M. Bernier: If they have been operating under that as­sumption,

understandably this will be retroactive, then? Is that the

case?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, it is.

M. Bernier: Well, if that’s the case and they have been operating that way,

what’s the cost, then, to ratepayers of B.C. Hydro, now that the

employer health tax will be added to that Crown corporation?

Hon. S. Robinson: If the member wants to check the B.C. Hydro financial statements,

he will see that they have been paying the tax, so there’s no change for

ratepayers.

M. Bernier: Can the minister quantify that or explain that, then, a little bit

for me? In a previous answer, I believe the minister said they weren’t

paying, but they were under the assumption that they had to be. So this

isn’t an additional cost to ratepayers, it sounds like, because they

were already building it in with their rate application, I

assume.

If they weren’t paying it, but now they were, does that mean they

were actually remitting that money to government already, all along, and

this is just a technical change to actually change the act to match up

to what was already taking place?

Hon. S. Robinson: This is just a technical change.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. Does that mean that I just take, then, that

B.C. Hydro has been remitting their share of the employers health tax

all along, even though it wasn’t incorporated in the change? The

minister said that they anticipated it. Does that mean the government

was receiving those funds?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: As Minister of Finance, I can’t share specific taxpayer

information. But I want to direct the member to take a look at the B.C.

Hydro financial statement. He will see that, according to their

financial statement, they have been remitting their employer health

tax.

Clause 21 approved.

On clause 22.

M. Bernier: This is another, I guess, technical change in a lot of ways around

the Income Tax Act. But just a quick question around this. If I

understand this

section here, it’s exempting the federal GST credit

boost from the Income Tax Act.

Maybe I’ll start here. To the minister’s knowledge, are any of the

COVID benefits taxable? Do they have to be claimed, or are they all

tax-free? Any benefits that have been announced through the circuit

breaker, through the COVID recovery benefit, any money going out to the

tourism sector, individuals who have applied for the COVID emergency

benefit — are any of those taxable, or is everything

tax-free?

Hon. S. Robinson: The worker benefit and the recovery benefit are tax-free. There’s

a whole list of benefits that I would be happy to compile for the member

and deliver to him so that he has that list available.

Clauses 22 and 23 approved.

On clause 24.

M. Bernier: On clause 24, it’s exempting the temporary wage subsidy from the

Income Tax Act, going through this. Can the minister confirm that that

means that the federal COVID benefits are also exempt from additional

income tax? Where does that fit in?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This is a technical amendment to pull out a federal benefit that

was inadvertently adopted. The federal government, of course, determines

what is taxable income. It was the CRA that requested that we make the

legislative change to clarify that there was no provincial equivalent of

the federal program.

Clauses 24 to 26 inclusive approved.

On clause 27.

M. Bernier: I’m probably just going to encompass the next five, six clauses

all into one question here, because it’s all basically the

same.

Clause 27 specifically is around the film and television tax

credit. But there are the other tax credits in a few other sections:

publishing tax credit, the books tax credit, scientific research and

experimental tax credit — quite a few. By looking at this, the

government’s wishing to extend the deadline for application. I will

argue, in a time like this, it’s probably a good thing, if we can

incentivize a lot of these opportunities.

Can the minister say…? Is this an initiative the government has

taken to do this, or did the minister hear from all the different

sectors that this extension was necessary?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We’re in regular contact, of course, with various economic

sectors, and are in that constant contact, particularly during COVID.

This has turned everything upside down. It has forced all of us to find

different ways of working, different ways of delivering service,

different ways of developing product, different ways of engaging with

each other….

It’s through those conversations that we took the initiative to

bring these extensions, recognizing, based on what we’ve heard from

these various sectors, what they were challenged with, and looking to

help them in a myriad of ways. This is just one additional way that we

were helping these various sectors.

Clauses 27 to 34 inclusive approved.

On clause 35.

M. Bernier: On clause 35, now we’re talking about the B.C. emergency benefit

for workers in this

section here. Can the minister explain this one to

me in the House, please, because in the explanatory notes, it talks

about the “eligibility for the emergency benefit for workers for

individuals who received an overpayment under

Part 14” — and who

otherwise were not eligible. Can the minister explain that in layman’s

terms, so people understand what that means?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member asking the question, because there was

some confusion about self-employed individuals’ eligibility for CERB. To

qualify for the CERB, individuals were required to have earned $5,000 of

net income over a one-year period prior to the pandemic. However, some

self-employed individuals applied for the CERB on the mistaken belief

that they were eligible if they had $5,000 of gross self-employment

income, but not $5,000 of net income. In many cases, these individuals

received the CERB despite not being eligible.

Since B.C. based its employer benefit eligibility requirements on

the CERB, these self-employed individuals may have also received the

EBW, even though they technically weren’t eligible for it. In February,

the federal government announced it would not be requiring these

self-employed individuals who received the CERB in error to repay the

money.

[2:05 p.m.]

In Budget 2021, B.C. announced it would parallel this federal

relief, since these individuals applied for the EBW in good

faith.

M. Bernier: I completely agree with that. I want to thank the minister,

because, I guess I’ll politely say, there’s been a lot of confusion, as

different levels of government are rolling out supports, trying to help

people — the confusion of who qualifies, who doesn’t, through the

application process. We’ve heard lots of different grants have been

problematic. As debated in this House, sometimes it’s left people,

through that confusion, not applying when they qualify, or on the other

side, people thinking they qualified when they actually

didn’t.

What I gathered from the minister is information that — in this

specific situation anyway — to mirror the federal, anybody who

accidentally, through no fault of their own, applied and qualified and

received the money will not be forced to repay that.

What kind of dollar amounts are we talking about? How many people,

through the research that was done, and how many companies or

individuals or groups, I guess, in this case, applied and received

funding when they actually shouldn’t have? What was the cost to

government? The caveat to that is I’m sure they applied because they

needed it, and we support that as well. I’m just more curious on where

the line in the sand was and what the cost was to government with

that.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for his question and staff for

frantically pulling up the number. Our best estimate is fewer than

10,000, because we’re just looking at the self-employed. We know it’s

not that high, because not everybody applied for it. But we know that

it’s fewer than that.

Clause 35 approved.

On clause 36.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move the amendment to clause 36 that is in the possession of the

Clerk.

[ CLAUSE 36, by adding the underlined text as

shown:

Section 219 (1) is amended by striking out

section 215 (1) , ” and

substituting “

section 215 (1) or

(1.1) , ”. ]

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m proposing this technical amendment to Bill 4, which adds a

comma, to clarify how clause 36 changes the Income Tax Act.

Clause 36 is intended to change a

section reference at the start

section 219.1 of the Income Tax Act to add a reference to a new

subsection. However,

section 219.1 of the Income Tax Act contains

multiple

section references. Without the comma, it may be unclear which

of these

section references the government intends to amend.

The Chair: Members, as not all members have received a copy of the

proposed amendment yet, I will propose we take a five-minute recess

— even though it’s just a comma, it could be very important — to

give everybody the chance to look at the comma appropriately, and

inquire and do all they need to do before we come back here to give

you the chance to ask questions.

We’ll be in a five-minute recess to ensure that all get a copy

of this amendment.

The committee recessed from 2:10 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

M. Bernier: I want to thank the minister and staff. I do have a copy of that

amendment. It was very technical in nature. I have reviewed that

amendment.

You know, obviously, when you’re moving a comma, it can completely

change the intent. Thankfully, there’s not enough time for me to

announce that I will be designated speaker and speak for two hours on

the removal and change of that comma. Instead, I’ll just say that I

think we’re in favour of the proposed amendment.

Amendment approved.

Clause 36 as amended approved.

Clauses 37 and 38 approved.

On clause 39.

M. Bernier: Again, I look forward to the time I’ll be back down there in the

Legislature — not doing this re­motely, trying to talk to a

screen, with a desk covered in papers. I’m looking forward to being

there, face to face with the minister. I think we get a lot more

accomplished, sometimes, doing it that way. But I’m thankful for the way

we’re doing it right now.

I also want to thank the minister’s staff for the work they’re

doing as well, especially catching a comma. That’s important.

section 39, on the recovery benefit. I don’t want to

necessarily rehash all of the pros and cons around the recovery benefit.

I think we canvassed that quite well last December — some of the

challenges that we saw, albeit in favour of the intent of all of the

different recovery benefits that were being rolled out by

government.

Can the minister maybe just give me a bit of an update, though?

How many people have applied, to date, for this? How many people have

actually been paid the benefit?

Hon. S. Robinson: I had staff working in my ear, trying to get the details, but I

already have them. I anticipated the question. I knew to prepare over

lunch.

So 2,620,456 British Columbians have received or will receive

their benefit imminently. That’s $1,298,693,145 that has been or will be

paid in the days to come. We have received 1,976,400 applications, and

1,901,925 have been processed. That’s 98 percent that have been

processed.

The remaining that have not received a benefit who may have

applied…. They have been processed. We are waiting for information in

order to move them through and to make out those payments.

So the system…. The member did recognize the very first couple of

days it was…. There were certainly challenges in the system. But it’s up

and running. It’s been smooth.

[2:20 p.m.]

We are continuing to receive applications, which are available for

another month or so. I want to encourage those that are eligible to make

their application.

I think, based on feedback that I have received from people, it’s

made a difference in their lives. It’s helped them do some of the things

that they perhaps would have chosen not to do. It’s also allowed them to

contribute in their local communities, whether it’s ordering in meals

from a restaurant that is only able to do takeout or whether it’s taking

their bike to a bike repair shop because the weather is better and they

want to get out. Now they have a little bit of extra cash in their

pocket to do that. It’s certainly helping in communities right around

the province.

M. Bernier: I don’t want to debate the merits and the intent of the COVID

recovery benefit. There’s a reason why it passed unanimously in the

House. I believe everybody, and collectively, wants to see people get

the support that they need as best as possible right now, obviously

especially those who need it the most.

The minister — which I appreciate, thank you; she knows me well

enough to know what kinds of questions I will probably ask — went very

quickly through some of it. Now, I’m trying to understand: 2.6 million

applied; 1.9 million, just over, have been paid the benefits. I assume

that means a lot applied but didn’t qualify — looking at those numbers,

if I heard the minister correctly, through the Zoom screen

here.

But how many applications, then, are still under review, people

who applied? The minister said: “…looking to get more information.” How

many would that be? The minister said 98 percent. I’m just trying to

quantify it into a number.

Hon. S. Robinson: That’s 74,475 applications remain in process. They’ve been

reviewed, and there might be some information missing, or there needs to

be a double-check or a reference. As I get reports regularly, those

numbers are decreasing dramatically as more information comes in, and we

can move them through the rest of the process.

M. Bernier: Can the minister explain that again? I know we went over this a

little bit last December, but I didn’t think it would be to the extent

that I’ve seen. How come so many were red-flagged, required more

information? That was not part of the announcement originally. The money

was going to be direct deposited.

The reason why I flag this — and I’ll incorporate maybe a bunch of

my thoughts into this one opportunity for the minister — is I

continually, on a daily basis, receive emails, phone calls,

correspondence. A lot of it goes to the minister’s office as well —

people of that 75,000-ish who are extremely frustrated. I know I’ll ask

maybe some more detailed process questions in estimates.

I even had one yesterday that went to the minister’s office, which

I was cc’d on, where they applied January 4 and still have not received

the money. In fact, all the email threads were shared with me. They were

told, even as early as March, that they had submitted all of their

required documentation. Well, that’s two months ago. So they received an

email saying: “Thank you very much. We have all the information.” Every

time they’ve emailed back to find out the status, it is, understandably

in some ways, a canned email that gets back, continuously saying: “Thank

you. We’re reviewing your application.”

We are hearing a lot of people of that 75,000 who are very

frustrated, who need help, who have been waiting for that money.

Christmas isn’t in July. It was six months ago. Just curious on the

minister’s thought process — how she can work to help expedite some of

that, especially the people who have already submitted all of the

documentation that’s required and now are just waiting for that money to

be deposited. How can we move that along faster for those

people?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that the member will recall, when we put this plan in

place, we did our best to design it as simple as possible. But at the

same time, we did put in some criteria. There are eligibility

requirements. We wanted to make it as simple as possible and put it

online.

[2:25 p.m.]

For most British Columbians, it was seamless. It was absolutely

seamless. They got their information in, and they were able to get their

cheque processed as automatic deposit within a matter of days. For the

majority of applications, that’s exactly how it worked.

However, there were certainly some where their information didn’t

correspond, perhaps, with their spouse’s information. That required to

get pulled from the automatic system, and then it needed a set of eyes

to review it, to identify exactly what information was needed. It had to

be communicated back to the person. Information had to then be sent back

to the ministry for manual processing. I certainly appreciate the

frustration. I do see those emails.

We’ve brought in additional staff because it required a lot of

hands on deck to address the volume. We’re continuing to move as quickly

as we can. I will say the bulk of those that are in process were waiting

for information. There are some that have delivered it. If the member

wants to flag that particular one, I’m happy to see where it is in the

process. But in my update from the public service that is dealing with

this, the bulk of those that are in process are about waiting for

information to get back to us so that we can continue to move it

along.

I can appreciate how frustrating it is for people. It has been a

difficult time. The extra dollars make a difference. Millions of British

Columbians have been able to receive it pretty expeditiously, but we

also have a responsibility to make sure that it meets the eligibility

requirements. That’s the due diligence that we’re taking as

well.

Clauses 39 to 42 inclusive approved.

On clause 43.

M. Bernier: Again, Chair, I appreciate your patience when we’re trying to do

this through the House and virtual means. So thank you very much for the

accommodations.

Clause 43. Now we’re talking about the Insurance Premium Tax Act —

disclosure, again, of information for fiscal policy formulation or

evaluation. I know I talked about this earlier. I just want to flag that

there’s a whole bunch of areas where the minister, ministry and staff

are looking to gather — use, I guess — information or maybe just

formulate opportunities within the information they already have. We

canvassed that earlier. I don’t need a response specifically on that

from the minister.

I want to ask, in this, more around the strata insurance premiums.

Was any analysis done, or will there be analysis done, on the strata

insurance premiums under this section? Is there going to be any work

done, especially with the information that government has access

to?

Hon. S. Robinson: As a part of sort of annual review…. All the tax acts are reviewed

annually. It’s part of what government does. I think that’s responsible

government, and we certainly do that. This Insurance Premium Tax Act is

always up for review.

My mandate letter has…. I’ve been asked by the Premier to take a

look at the strata insurance, make sure that that system is working

better and, if it isn’t, to take action. So everything is part of doing

that work.

[2:30 p.m.]

That’s one that has been an active file for us as government,

pre-COVID. I always feel like life is pre-COVID, post-COVID. I see the

member is smiling, recognizing that that’s sort of how our brains seem

to be working these days. That is part of my mandate, to make sure that

that system is working better.

M. Bernier: Yes, I acknowledge through my smirk that we definitely do relate a

lot of what goes on in our lives right now to pre-COVID existing time

and hopefully, post-COVID, some of the better situations I think we will

hopefully all find ourselves in once we get through this.

What the minister said, though…. As I know, it’s part of her

mandate letter. I’m just curious, then. I know the minister has had a

lot on her plate as we go through a lot of the different changes — some

of the delays in the budget and work that had to be done, as the

minister said, because of COVID and behind-the-scenes work. What kind of

work has been done then to fulfil that part of the mandate

letter?

The reason why I ask is that for people who are part of stratas,

this is not a new issue. This was a pre-COVID issue, and it’s something

that’s still hitting a lot of these people quite hard with the

skyrocketing costs of strata insurance.

I’m just kind of curious. If the ministry has a lot of

information, is evaluating or reviewing or looking at that, is the

minister willing to say then that because it’s taken a long time to get

to a point of finding a solution, there might be some retroactive

consideration from government to help repay some of these skyrocketing

costs back to strata owners and assist them? Because many of them have

had to take out loans or look at other things to pay their increased

strata costs. Is that something the government will look at?

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much. The member will recall, certainly pre-COVID,

we did significant work with the B.C. FSA. They brought forward an

interim report and then a final report. We took action. We’ve certainly

seen best pricing has changed. The industry has decided to abandon that

practice, which is a good thing. A number of other items were changed as

a result.

I also want to point out — and we’ve done this before — the

analysis that we’ve done around the insurance premium tax that this

would save about $9 per household. I don’t think that that is really

what strata owners are looking for. They’re looking for the option to

have choice in the market, and that’s the work that we’ve been

doing.

We’ve certainly had conversations with the opposition last year, I

think, a year and a half ago — again, pre-COVID — about that that was

the solution and making sure that the market would operate better. We

are starting to see a bit of change, and that’s a good thing.

Clauses 43 and 44 approved.

On clause 45.

M. Bernier: I’m going to incorporate probably a few things here if I can to

save some time and help the minister, because whether…. In 45, we have

the Land Tax Deferment Act; in 46, the Logging Tax Act; and then

further, in 52, the Motor Fuel Tax Act. I just want to incorporate,

maybe, a whole bunch of those together. I could have even done this a

little earlier, possibly.

[2:35 p.m.]

As we’re talking about in all of those acts, again, it’s about

gathering the information or using the information for fiscal policy

formulation. Is it fair to say, then, for almost all these areas, for

this situation, that, again, the privacy impact assessment was done on

all of these? Again, it’s back to the same situation that I asked

earlier. Maybe I’ll ask it again for the remainder of all the ones in

the bills. If there was a change that was being made without that impact

assessment, maybe the minister can let us know.

Hon. S. Robinson: Privacy impact assessments were done for all of these, and no

concerns were raised.

Clauses 45 to 51 inclusive approved.

On clause 52.

M. Bernier: We’re looking at

section 52. It’s the Motor Fuel Tax Act. As we’re

going into the summer months here, I’m just kind of curious. With the

information that’s being used and gathered for formulating policy we

talked about, is there any opportunity, then, for the government to use

the data to deliver some relief at the pumps this summer to help people

as we see these skyrocketing gas prices?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question, given that we saw such a dip

back in, I believe it was pro­bably March, April last year. Gas,

certainly in my community, was well below $1, but no one was driving

anywhere. No one was going anywhere. Although I do know that everyone

filled up, because they knew that that was not likely to last for very

long.

Of course, life has gone back to somewhat normal, as have gas

prices. This amendment really is just about making sure that we can

understand how these different taxes impact each other so that we can

make the best decisions possible on behalf of British

Columbians.

Clauses 52 to 61 inclusive approved.

On clause 62.

M. Bernier: If it helps at all, we’re getting closer to the end of the bill.

In clause 62, I’m just looking for a little bit of information here.

Clause 62 talks about, I guess, the “grey market” area around export

cars that was detailed in the German report.

[2:40 p.m.]

It’s now looking at requiring forms for resale, registration. I

think I can understand the intent for this. Maybe the minister, though,

can provide a little bit of an overview of how those forms will be

processed, examined and enforced. How is that going to be dealt with

internally?

Hon. S. Robinson: Purchasers can use a PST number if they already have it. There is

an exemption form that al­ready exists that is available as

well.

Clause 62 approved.

On clause 63.

M. Bernier: I’m sure the minister was anticipating some questions here under

clause 63. Government brought in, obviously, an extra tax, a new tax,

that they announced for carbonated soda drinks. Can the minister explain

why, if I’m reading this correctly under

section 63, they are now adding

bottled water into the additional tax that will be added for carbonated

sugary drinks. Why is water added now?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, the people talking in my ear have lots of information, so

it’s great to hear from them.

This is not a change. This is just addressing an ambiguity to make

sure that there’s no ambiguity about interpreting that there is no

additional tax on water.

M. Bernier: Maybe I’m not quite understanding what the minister means there.

Maybe she can explain to me then, because

section 63 specifically says:

“Removes water that is dispensed by a vending machine,” and all that,

from products “that are exempt from the tax.”

Maybe it’s just my wording. Does that mean that…? Is the minister

saying that I’m reading this incorrectly, that water is not being taxed

— bottled water that would be in a vending machine, water through a soda

fountain or soda gun? Does that mean that that water is not quantified

in some way and taxed? Because unless I’m misunderstanding the wording

here, it makes it seem that water is no longer exempt from the

tax.

Hon. S. Robinson: This is really administrative. What we’ve learned is that if there

are sweetened beverages in a vending machine and then there is one

compartment that is for water, the vending machine can’t distinguish.

It’s a programming issue.

[2:45 p.m.]

That’s been one of the challenges. So it’s just about making sure

there is clarity about how to address that. As part of…. All beverages

dispensed from vending machines or similar equipment are taxed unless

the vending machine or equipment does not dispense soda beverages.

Similarly, all beverages dispensed by a soda fountain, soda gun or

similar equipment are subject to PST.

M. Bernier: Through that answer, it’s not quite what the minister said the

first time, if I understand then.

So bottled water does get taxed if you are buying it through a

vending machine. The minister said water wasn’t, but it sounds like if

you’re buying it through a machine where there are already carbonated

drinks that are being taxed, because the machine is not set up to tell

the difference…. That means if you buy a bottle of water now at a

vending machine at the airport, at the SkyTrain station, you’ll be

paying additional taxes now on that bottle of water.

What about…? Under that same section, in the wording in

section

63, it talks about not only vending machines. It talks about soda

fountains and soda guns. I mean, many people go to restaurants and ask

for water, and they dispense the water out of a soda gun. How do we

differentiate them? For the minister, how does she explain that

sometimes there is tax applied, sometimes there is not, when the wording

says, in the act, that those would be taxed?

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to remind the member that these changes came in last

budget, and this is just looking to clarify that.

Under those special equipment rules, water can be taxable in some

circumstances, when a bottle of water is purchased from a vending

machine that also sells carbonated sweetened beverages. This, again, is

intended to simplify recordkeeping for businesses — it really would be

very complex to try to sort out those elements — and reduces the

likelihood of disagreements, of course, in PST audits. The same applies

if it’s a soda gun or soda fountain and someone asks for water. Most

operators, most restaurateurs, do not charge for water.

Again, this is really just to clarify the time when it might be

operationally very difficult to separate it out. That’s all we’re trying

to do here — just to clarify where it could happen in those places where

there is a machine that has 15 different sweetened carbonated drinks and

one little thing for water. Being able to program these machines to be

able to differentiate is next to impossible, and recordkeeping is very,

very difficult for the owners.

M. Bernier: I’m not trying to water down this issue at all with the

minister.

Does that mean, if I went to a vending machine that sold just

water…? That’s what we’re trying to do here. The whole point of this

government bringing in this additional carbonated sugary tax was to

incentivize people to drink things like water, to not drink carbonated

and sugary drinks. So if I went to a vending machine that sold just

water products, I’m not subject to the tax, but if I go to a vending

machine that sells a combination, I am. Is that what the minister is

saying?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, that is absolutely correct.

M. Bernier: I just want to acknowledge that the minister just drank some water

that was dispensed from a bottle of water, so I’m not sure if that was

taxed before she drank it, but just wanted to throw that in there as a

bit of a jab at the minister.

I think it’s important to highlight this, because I don’t

remember, at any time when we were debating and discussing this

additional tax last year, that it was also going to mean bottled water

would be taxed. I understand the minister is adding that in now as a

clarification, probably because they found out, through the course of

the last year — through administration of remittance of taxes through

different companies or corporations that deal with, let’s say, vending

machines, fountain machines — that it was hard for them. I assume that

means that they have asked for it?

Obviously, at the end of the day, we’re trying to incentivize,

through this tax the government has put in, to not drink those products.

Did the minister or government not look at any other way around this

issue, rather than just adding another tax to water that wasn’t really

announced in the initial part of this program?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, this was canvassed as part of Budget 2020. This was listed

as part of that budget. I guess it was clear, but not as clear here,

where we are adding, “unless it is a beverage described in paragraph

(a),” which points to some very specific things. So it’s really about

adding a fine point on a budget bill that was already

adopted.

Clauses 63 to 69 inclusive approved.

On clause 70.

M. Bernier: In clause 70, we’re talking about the B.C. training and education

savings grant. Looking through this, can the minister explain why it

appears…? Why is the minister ceasing these payments? What is the

change? Why are we stopping this?

Hon. S. Robinson: After operating the program since 2014, it’s become apparent that

the annual transfers have resulted in an overallocation of funds to the

special ac­count. It’s because the uptick for the program has been

below 50 percent, while the current formula, as originally set in

section 9.4 (2), allocates $1,000 for every child born or adopted here

in British Columbia.

There is a current balance of over $500 million in the account,

and the amount can support eligible B.C. recipients for an additional

ten years before any additional contribution to the account is required.

This amendment will ensure that the balance of the special account

better re­flects the cost of the program. Program eligibility and

payments to qualified recipients are not impacted by this proposed

amendment.

M. Bernier: Taking the minister’s answer there, just for clarification, that

means that there are no plans, then, under this government or this

minister, of cancelling the grant?

[2:55 p.m.]

It sounds like there is enough in the piggy bank to continue it

for a while. Is that what the minister is saying? There are no plans of

changing it?

Hon. S. Robinson: Exactly.

Clause 70 approved.

On clause 71.

M. Bernier: I think this will be my last question. I just want to flag that

for the Chair, if that helps for him to move through the remaining

sections quicker.

Under

section 71, we’re talking about the speculation tax. We

specifically, as we go forward in here, talk about some of the charities

being exempt now. I’m just kind of curious, if the minister can run

through a timeline quickly for me, on the speculation tax being applied

in the past to charities. Is it just now that they’re being exempted?

And if that is the case, are there any retroactive applications allowed

for charities who may have paid the speculation tax — that they can

apply to get that money back to help these charities?

Hon. S. Robinson: I believe the member is referring to clause 73 in his comments. I

just want to make sure that if anyone is watching at home — this

riveting exercise — they know where we’re at.

Subsection 20(

a) already provides an exemption when a registered

charity is on legal title for a residential property. This amendment

ensures that a registered charity is also exempt when it is not on legal

title and instead holds property through a trust. Often registered

charities are required by law to hold property through a trust, so we

wanted to make sure that they were captured here.

Clauses 71 to 85 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank my staff, who have been incredibly diligent and

speaking in my ear. I want to thank the member for Peace River South for

his thoughtful questions.

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:58 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:00 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 4 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT,

Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2021, reported complete

with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Hon. S. Robinson: We call second reading, Bill 7.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

B. Bailey: I’ll continue from where I left off yesterday, essentially

focusing on the very important democratic principle that everyone’s vote

should be reasonably equal in weight in choosing elected

officials.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I want to speak a little bit about independence. The Electoral

Boundaries Commission is an independent, non-partisan commission. These

changes actually restore that independence. Under the EBCA, a commission

must be in place within a year of the last general election, as we’ve

mentioned. It’s important that the commission have certainty as to its

mandate before they’re appointed, and that’s why the government is

introducing amendments to this act.

Every province and territory has similar legislation that provides

guidance for commissions to recommend electoral districts. These changes

will remove restrictions in the commission’s independent decision-making

and enhance the commission’s ability to exercise independent judgment in

recommending electoral district boundaries that best provide effective

representation for all British Columbians. B.C.’s act has been in place

since 1989 and has been amended several times in the past to support the

commission’s work.

[3:05 p.m.]

I want to speak a little bit about timing. Under the Electoral

Boundaries Commission Act, a commission must be convened within one year

of the last general election — October 24, 2021. The commission will

present an initial report to the Legislature within 12 months of being

appointed and then have six months to hear from the public and consider

any further input before a final report is presented before the

Legislature.

The Legislative Assembly will then review the commission’s

proposals and determine whether to implement the recommended electoral

boundaries, the amendments to the Electoral Districts Act. These changes

would need to be in place before the 2024 scheduled general

election.

In regards to choosing the membership, the act requires that the

commission be made up of three people: B.C.’s Chief Electoral Officer, a

judge or retired judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal

nominated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and another person

nominated by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in consultation

with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition.

In regards to cost, the previous commission’s work took around 16

months to complete for a total cost of just over $1.5 million. We expect

the cost of the upcoming commission to be similar. The cost includes

salaries for one or two of the commissioners, administrative and

communication support — for example, the website — and travel and public

hearings if public health rules allow for it.

Previously, Elections B.C. provided administrative support to the

commission, and we understand that they are willing to play the same

role for the upcoming commission as well.

I want to reiterate this is not an attack on rural B.C. —

absolutely not. This is about ensuring effective representation for

people and the core democratic principle that everyone’s vote should be

reasonably equal in strength. Most other provinces do not have the kinds

of regions that these previous restrictions did. The 2014 changes made

B.C. an outlier, in fact.

There is one part of the current legislation which re­quires

that the population of electoral districts is no more than 25 percent

above or below the average district population, unless there are very

special circumstances. The proposed amendments further recognize the

representation concerns of less populated regions by making it explicit

in the act that the commission may take into account special

considerations respecting demographic and geographic factors, including

keeping manageable geographic size for electoral districts.

By giving the commission the option of adding more electoral

districts, we’re giving them the ability to support population growth in

urban areas while supporting effective representation in northern and

Interior electoral districts.

B.C.’s legislation will arguably be one of the more flexible

legislative frameworks across Canada with respect to allowing for the

possibility of lower-than-average electoral district populations. As an

example, Alberta’s legislation allows for up to four electoral districts

to be outside of their plus-minus-25 deviation range, and those four

districts can be no more than 50 percent below the average district

population. B.C.’s proposed legislation does not set any such cap to

ensure that the commission has the tools they need to support

representation in less populated regions.

While we don’t know yet what the Electoral Boundaries Commission

will recommend, allowing for up to six new districts means that the

commission has the authority to adjust electoral districts to better

reflect B.C.’s growing population while still maintaining effective

representation for British Columbians in less populated regions. But

there’s nothing saying that six seats will be added.

Commissioners have had the discretion to propose additional

electoral districts since 1996 yet have not always recommended

establishing the maximum number permitted by the act. Both the Wood

commission in 1998-99 and the Cohen commission in 2005-2008 had the

option of adding six extra seats but recommended four. However, the

Legislature at the time chose the Cohen commission’s alternative

suggestion of six additional seats because it maintained the existing

number of electoral districts in the north and Interior with no loss in

rural representation.

As the population grows, it becomes more difficult for elected

officials to respond effectively to the diverse needs of their

constituents. The current legislative framework has solidified a

significant differential between the least and the most populated

electoral districts. Some MLAs represent in the realm of 20,000 to

30,000 people, while others have populations of 70,000

people.

[3:10 p.m.]

At the time the last commission completed its work in 2015, none

of the boundaries were more than 20 percent above the provincial

average, and ten were more than 25 percent below the provincial average.

Two of those were 50 percent below. It’s clear from population estimates

that most of B.C.’s population growth has been concentrated in the

Okanagan, the Lower Mainland and the south Island. Continued growth in

these areas means that it is likely that the next commission will find

that some electoral districts are more than 25 percent over the average

electoral district population.

What are the implications for Indigenous communities? Well, we

don’t know yet what the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission

will, in fact, recommend, but that’s one of the reasons we’re proposing

an amendment that specifies that the commission may take into account

special considerations respecting demographic factors, which could

include Indigenous representation.

Currently, though, the legislation requires that the population of

electoral districts is no more than 25 percent above or below the

average district population, unless there are very special

circumstances. That’s also why we’re proposing to give the commission

the option of adding more electoral districts. We’re giving them the

ability to support population growth in urban areas while supporting

effective representation in northern and Interior electoral

districts.

In conclusion, I just want to say again that everyone’s vote

should be reasonably equal in weight in choosing elected

officials.

G. Kyllo: I’m immensely proud and honoured to be able to rise in the House

today and speak to Bill 7, the boundary review of our provincial

ridings. I’ll just take a few minutes to talk a little bit about my home

riding of Shuswap. The Shuswap riding is about 8,400 kilometres in size.

It has approximately 56,000 constituents, which is right about the mean

average if you take the population of the province and divide it by the

87 ridings. So I would say that the population of Shuswap represents the

average size, population-wise, of ridings across British

Columbia.

I think what’s important as we speak to the boundary review that’s

being undertaken today is to give consideration to the differences. B.C.

is a very vast geographic area. Many different types of terrain. We have

a significant amount of different diversity. There is need to give

consideration to minority representations — obviously a significant

number of First Nations communities; 204 different First Nations bands

in the province — as well as just, I think, giving a bit of

consideration to where we have come from.

The term “riding.” When I was first elected back in 2013, I

certainly understood what a riding was, as far as the fact that B.C., at

the time, had 85. We now have 87 ridings. Where did the term even come

from? I did a quick search on the Internet. The term riding comes back

from some of our heritage with the British parliamentary system. Even

back when the term riding was first utilized in the U.K., it took into

consideration not just the number of constituents that a representative

or a member would actually be able to service but also their ability to

be of service to a specific set of constituents.

It took into consideration how far a member could actually travel

on horseback over a certain number of days, and that was determined by

the size of the riding. How far could you actually be of service to your

constituents? Although population was one of the considerations, I think

it is very important to have a look at our historical traditions and

that the fact that the term riding also took into consideration the

ability to provide effective representation to constituents.

Now, as I mentioned, the Shuswap riding is 8,400 square

kilometres. Some ridings in this province are close to 100,000 square

kilometres, so a vast area. Some of the ridings of this province will

take upwards of eight hours of driving time just to get from one end of

your riding to the other.

[3:15 p.m.]

As we have a look at the great variety of the size and

con­figuration of different ridings in the province, I think it’s

really important to have a look at, really, what representation is. The

ability of constituents to have access to a representative also must

take into consideration the actual geographic location and the

geographic size of some of these ridings.

As I mentioned, Shuswap is only 8,400. I can travel from the north

end of my riding to the south end. It’s about a five-hour drive from

Seymour Arm to Mabel Lake. If I’m going east to west, from the community

of Revelstoke all the way down to the west side of Okanagan Lake to

Parker Cove, it’s about a four-hour drive. So a pretty significant area

to try and represent.

There are five different municipalities within the Shu­swap

riding. We have Sicamous and Enderby, Armstrong, Spallumcheen and Salmon

Arm. There are two regional districts, both the Columbia-Shuswap

regional district and a portion of the regional district of the North

Okanagan. So as we have a look at the number of relationships that rural

ridings quite often are incumbent to actually foster with the different

municipalities: five mayors, two regional district chairs, 30

councillors, about another 14 regional district

representatives.

We also have in Shuswap four First Nations communities, including

the Splatsin First Nation in Enderby, Okan­agan Indian Band,

Neskonlith and Little Shuswap Lake Indian Band. So there are a

considerable number of other locally elected governments that do work

directly with the constituency office in Shuswap, my office, in

providing that access to representation on any provincial

matters.

If we compare the size of Shuswap riding to some of our northern

ridings, Peace River North or Peace River South — these are vast areas.

As some of the members opposite have indicated, they have a smaller

population, but they have a vast geographic area for which they have to

provide service. And in many of these rural areas, they are not afforded

the equity with respect to access of services as we might find in some

of our metro ridings — things that I believe are probably taken for

granted if you’re living Victoria, capital regional district, or in

Vancouver, like transit.

Many ridings around the province are not serviced by transit. They

have limited access to cellular service. They have limited access, if

any access, to broadband. Many rural communities — and there are number

of communities even within my riding of Shuswap — are not serviced by

fire protection. And they are unable — can you believe this? — to even

access fire insurance.

In addition to that, there are some communities in the Shuswap

riding and, I know, other rural parts of the pro­vince that are

not even covered under building codes. So if an individual is looking at

purchasing a house in a rural area, there may not have even been a

requirement for that house to have followed any particular building code

standards when that home was constructed. In many rural parts of the

province, the only requirements are for an electrical permit and for a

health permit. That would be to cover the installation of water wells or

septic systems.

But for the vast majority of the province, there are great

differences. One of my colleagues was mentioning to me earlier today….

My colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie was doing some quick math and

having a look at the geographic area of the province and where our main

population centres are located. He shared with me that 60 percent of the

population of British Columbia is located within 0.5 percent of the

geographic area. Just think about that. Half a percent of the geographic

area holds 60 percent of the population.

Now, the member that just spoke before me, the member for

Vancouver–False Creek…. That riding was previously held by a friend and

colleague of mine, Sam Sullivan. Sam Sullivan was sharing with me how

Vancouver–False Creek is one of the most densely populated ridings

within the province of B.C. Sam shared with me that his riding was

approximately six city blocks. Sam uses an electric wheelchair, and he

said that he could actually ride around the full perimeter of his riding

in his wheelchair in about 2½ hours.

[3:20 p.m.]

When you have a look at the concentration of population and the

concentration of services…. When you’re in a metro riding, there’s very

limited need or necessity for Vancouver mayor and council to reach out

to your locally elected representative. A city the size of Vancouver has

direct access to the provincial government, so there is less of a need

to actually reach out and acquire the services and the support and the

advocacy of your local MLA. I believe that Vancouver has upwards of ten

MLAs that provide representation for that geographic area.

So as we look to the work that needs to be undertaken by the

electoral boundaries review committee and commission as they start to

undertake their work, I think it is incredibly important that they look

not just to the population but also to the geographic area and then also

give consideration to the complexity of issues that are borne by

different ridings around the province.

The colleague for Cariboo North, in her opening re­marks,

shared some of the significant challenges. The particular riding of

Cariboo North has a reduced population. I don’t have the exact numbers,

but I believe it’s significantly below the provincial average. But the

complexity of issues that a rural MLA has to be confronted with are

significant.

If we compare, again, how the rural ridings compare differently to

a metro riding like Vancouver–False Creek, there are a significant

number of issues that rural MLAs are forced, or actually incumbent and

have the opportunity, to address — things like snow removal. In

Vancouver–False Creek and the city of Vancouver, snow removal is all

looked after by the city of Vancouver. There’s no provincial involvement

and no requirement to deal with some of the complexity of issues that

Cariboo North has dealt with, whether it’s fires or floods or even

subdivision approvals. Many folks that I have spoken to from metro areas

— largely, more densely populated areas — don’t understand the

differences.

In rural British Columbia, even in Shuswap or Cariboo North, as an

example, as soon as you get outside of a municipal region and out into

the regional districts, things like road maintenance and snow removal

are all a function of the Ministry of Transportation, which is a

provincial responsibility. So if you’re living in rural B.C. and you

have a challenge, or you’re maybe a little bit unhappy with the quality

of the services being provided with snow removal or grading on many of

the gravel roads, you will be reaching out to your local MLA to make

those inquiries. The rural MLA then has the responsibility of working in

conjunction with the constituent and the Ministry of Transportation to

try and provide resolution.

Those concerns and those issues do not exist in metro British

Columbia. Metro MLAs are not faced with those same concerns.

When we look to subdivision approvals, again, within Metro

Vancouver, if there’s a new development, if there’s a new subdivision

going in, all of those issues are dealt with by a municipal government.

But as you move out into rural parts of the province….

Even within the two regional districts that reside in part within

the Shuswap riding, if you’re looking to do even a simple subdivision,

even a simple two-lot subdivision, it is the Ministry of Transportation

that actually has the final responsibility for subdivision approvals.

And if there are challenges or delays or questions, and if a constituent

is unable to have those concerns addressed, they will reach out to the

local MLA’s office to seek out assistance and advocacy to try and assist

with the actual subdivision approval process. I actually have two

particular subdivision approval processes in rural parts of the Shuswap

riding that I’m trying to provide assistance to currently.

Again, I certainly welcome the opportunity to always provide

support to constituents, but it is very different. An MLA that provides

representation in a metro riding is not faced with any of those

complexities of issues. So I think it’s really important, as we look at

the opportunity to better inform the commission as they start to

undertake their work, to have a look at some of these

considerations.

[3:25 p.m.]

As I’ve set out, it’s not just population. It’s the geographic

diversity. It is about equity — the ability of a constituent to have

ready access to their representative. Again, in Vancouver, that could be

a couple blocks, or maybe 20 minutes on the SkyTrain. If you’re in Fort

Nelson and you’re looking to go and have a meeting directly with your

representative for Peace River North, that’s about a 3½-hour drive at

minimum.

Now, in today’s day and age, with improvements in technology,

people will automatically say: “Well, you just pick up the phone, or you

can do a Zoom call.” Many areas of rural B.C. still have no cellular

coverage and limited, if any, access to broadband services. They are not

serviced by any form of public transit.

We know what has happened with Greyhound services, as they pulled

out of British Columbia. Government had an opportunity to encourage and

provide some financial assistance so that we would still be serviced by

Greyhound, but that opportunity was lost. We now have a hodgepodge of

different transportation companies providing some limited service around

British Columbia.

But if you’re living up in Pink Mountain in northern B.C. and you

want to try and get down to see your representative in Fort St. John,

that is extremely challenging. There is no service. There is no transit

service. Best you could do, if you don’t have your own automobile, is

maybe thumb a ride or get a ride from a neighbour. So there are many,

many differences that the geography of this province actually

creates.

As we look at effective representation, I think we have to also

have a look at equity and fairness. I’ll just come back to, again, some

of the different complexities of issues that vary between different

parts of the province.

Health care access. We could talk about what is fair. Where is the

fairness in having ready access to health care services? Your ability to

have access to health care services in northern B.C. or remote areas of

the province is very different than it is if you actually live in a 604

area code somewhere close to the Lower Mainland or here in the Victoria

capital regional district.

There are many inequities across the province. The fact that

a representative of a rural area may be representing a reduced number of

constituents does not take away from the workload or the complexity of

the issues or the access to representation that that constituent is

entitled to.

I referenced fire protection, building codes. We also have to look

at the maintenance of bridges, especially in rural B.C. Cariboo North

has had a considerable…. The challenges that have sprung initially from

the wildfires now is increasing the amount of flooding in the area. The

number of rural roads — there are constituents that literally cannot get

to and from different locations within their riding.

Significant detours. I believe I recall the member for Cariboo

North indicating that there was one road washout which required children

on a school bus to be detoured an hour and a half out of their way. Just

think about that for a second. A road has been washed out. The Minister

of Transportation has failed, I believe, to rebuild or resurface that

road in a timely manner and put it back into operation. Families’

children are having to spend three hours a day on a school bus just to

get to and from school. That, again, represents an inequity.

Now, those that are listening from home may say: “Well, people

have choice. You may choose to live in a metro area. If you move out to

the hinterland of B.C., well, that’s just something that is understood,

and you should just accept that.” Might be a valid argument. But I think

those residents who are living in rural B.C. are also providing very

important services that are of benefit to the rest of British Columbia,

whether it’s natural gas, hydroelectricity….

You know, there really seems to be a bit of a lack of

understanding about the resource development in our province. I

certainly don’t want to disparage any of our metro folks. I’ve got many

friends that live in metro areas. But I think it’s just assumed, if you

live in metro area that, yeah, there’s access to transit.

[3:30 p.m.]

There’s good Wi-Fi and good cellular coverage. Beef comes from a

package in the grocery store. Natural gas just magically appears out of

a pipe in the ground and plumbs into my house to heat my home.

Electricity just wings in from overhead, and everything is

good.

If you have a look at the impact on the land base and those

residents of British Columbia that work important, very hard, diligent

family-supporting jobs to provide those benefits that the rest of us

enjoy…. There also needs to be, I think, better consideration for what

they provide.

Again, back to the comment that was shared with me by my colleague

from Prince George–Valemount, 60 percent of the population resides in an

area that represents only half a percent of the geographic area of

British Columbia.

My colleague from Penticton was sharing with me…. He was doing a

bit of research. He said that from the B.C. border, it is further to get

to the Yukon border than it is to get to the border of Mexico. I believe

the member mentioned that it’s around 1,480 kilometres to get from the

south end of the province of B.C. to the B.C.-Yukon border, and it’s

only around 1,420 kilometres to get from the B.C. border to Tijuana,

Mexico.

There are considerable geographic differences and challenges, and

the complexity of issues which rural MLAs are required to actually be

aware of in order to represent their constituents…. As the commission

goes to undertake their work, I certainly believe that there is a

responsibility and a necessity to give consideration…. Representation is

not just a representative for 50,000 constituents. The complexity of the

issues and the number and quantity of issues that a representative must

undertake in order to provide beneficial service to those constituents

are also absolutely paramount.

The member for Abbotsford West, a very wise colleague of mine who

has had probably more experience in this House than any other at the

present time, spoke about the need to ensure that existing constituents

in some of these rurally located ridings do not see their access to

representation further diminished or further reduced.

A riding may be 600 kilometres from one side to the other. If the

population of that riding is below a threshold, well, the only way in

order to increase the population of that riding is to increase the size.

By increasing the size, you’re, thereby, reducing or putting in an

additional impediment for those existing constituents to have ready

access to their duly elected representative.

I’m certainly concerned about the manner in which the commission

is being informed through this legislation. I certainly believe that the

rural MLAs, although they may represent fewer constituents than some of

the Metro ridings, work doubly hard. They have a significantly higher

complexity of issues. There are more elected representatives that they

are being leaned on for representation, whether it be local government,

regional districts, First Nation communities.

It’s interesting, also, when we give consideration to this

particular piece of legislation…. Government took significant effort to

undertake and to have approval in this House, by all members, of the

UNDRIP legislation, which requires consultation. Yet in drafting this

legislation that’s before us today, it’s my understanding that that

consultation has not been undertaken.

[3:35 p.m.]

I certainly believe the 204 First Nations in this province would

be very interested to find out and learn, as this legislation comes to

light and the commission undertakes its work, that the manner in which

this legislation has been brought forward to direct the commission puts

in place parameters which will likely and largely mean that their access

to representation will be diminished. The hours of travel — the distance

by which First Nations communities will have to travel in order to meet

with their locally elected representative — will only increase and, by

increasing, will actually diminish their opportunity to have that ready

access to duly elected representatives.

We have a government that says one thing and does something quite

different. There are two different bills that I had the opportunity of

making inquiries on in this House in recent weeks. I have to admit that

I was equally disappointed by the lack of effort and undertaking, or

even the slightest initiative, by government to try and actually bring

to light and to improve the communication and consultation with First

Nations. I think that in itself, that piece alone, the fact that this

government is continuing to bring forward legislation without the

smallest degree of respect or consultation with First Nations, is

troubling enough.

Government has a majority. They will hammer this bill through,

like they have with every other piece of legislation they have brought

forward, as ill thought, as ill timed and with the errors that exist

within.

I just can’t say enough about how proud I am to represent the

hard-working men and women of the Shuswap riding. I certainly look

forward to hearing my colleagues with some further commentary with

respect to Bill 7.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ve been interested in this legislation, interested in learning

more about where my colleagues stand. I’ve got to say it’s….

Listening to the last member, he seemed to suggest be­ing an

urban MLA was easy. He claimed that rural MLAs have to work doubly

harder than urban MLAs. A little insulting and not true. I will never

denigrate the work of my hard-working colleagues who represent rural

ridings across B.C. They work very hard. But I will not denigrate the

work of MLAs who represent urban ridings or suburban ridings. They work

very hard too. The issues are sometimes different. They’re sometimes the

same. But they are complex.

A speaker yesterday was complaining about ten-hour days. Well,

many MLAs all across this province are used to ten-hour days. We do that

because…. We put in the time for our constituents who elected us. We ran

for this work because we wanted to accomplish things. That takes hard

work. That takes complex conversations. That takes challenging

debate.

When I first ran to be an MLA in 2008, the constituency that I ran

for, Vancouver-Burrard, was 59,000 eligi­ble voters. I think,

actually…. No, let me check that. So 59,815 eligible voters, I believe,

according to Elections B.C., at the time.

We know that there are MLAs who represent 14,000 eligible voters

and 15,000 eligible voters. MLAs who represent those communities make

very strong cases for how challenging it is to get out to see those

people. I don’t doubt it. I’m not arguing against that issue. I just

don’t think it’s right for MLAs on the opposition side to claim that

only rural B.C. matters. Urban B.C. matters too. So does the strength of

the urban B.C. voter matter too.

I said I represented 59,815 people at the time. Well, when you

dial that back, if folks are representing 14,000, that means that the

MLA that represents that community could arguably have four times the

voting power that I do. So my constituent’s vote is worth one-quarter of

the vote of the MLA that represents many fewer people but in a much

bigger constituency.

[3:40 p.m.]

That’s the challenge that Electoral Boundaries Commissions face.

They want to balance the need to allow effective representation with the

need to represent folks as close to equal as you can. Now that’s hard. I

don’t think you’re ever going to get a perfect situation where it’s just

one member, one vote per community.

Of course, with the geographical challenges people face and with

the communities of interest, with diversity, and so on, you want to make

sure that you give a commission the ability to think of those issues. I

think this bill meets that test by giving the opportunity to add some

seats. I know very few people want more politicians. But this allows us

to make sure that we don’t get to such a distorted place where you can

have four times the voting power as somebody in an urban community does,

because of course, that’s not fair either.

I get it — that it’s challenging to travel very, very long to

reach people and to give them the chance to have their say. But it’s

also very hard to represent twice the number of people or three times

the number of people as another MLA, because those people have demands.

Those people have wants. Those people have dreams.

In my case, in the community of Vancouver–West End, my office is

right there on the main street. So access to my office isn’t a

challenge. The challenge is just the sheer number of people wanting

meetings, phone calls, requests, demands — about any number of issues.

There are quite a wide variety.

I think it is important we acknowledge that when you represent

three times or two times the number of people as somebody else, that

also has an impact. It’s not often talked about, but it’s important,

because those people deserve just as much representation as a community

somewhere else. They deserve just the same ability to have their votes

count, their voices heard.

But you know, if it’s just phone calls…. In a Zoom world or a

phone call world, when you have two times or three times the number of

people wanting to talk to the MLA, that’s a challenge of representation

as well, because there are only so many hours in the day. I think

commissions are going to balance those out, as they have for many, many

years, to try and find that happy medium [audio interrupted].

The issues in my community are complex. We have challenges of

rental housing on top of homelessness, mental health, addictions and

then the impact on residents around those scenarios, around those

situations. I understand that the speaker before me seemed to suggest

that no, there was no need to talk to the mayor or council about issues,

as he has to. But that is just dead wrong. I talk to councillors, the

mayor, the park board, the school board all the time to represent my

community of Vancouver–West End.

I know it’s easy to try and pit rural B.C. against urban B.C. The

opposition, in this case, seems to think that’s an effective political

strategy. But I don’t think that brings us together. I don’t think

that’s, in fact, what the facts would suggest. I think we have to work

together and listen to each other. That’s why I will never denigrate the

hard work of MLAs that represent communities like the Cariboo, the north

coast, the far north, the Peace River country or the work of MLAs that

represent places like Vancouver–False Creek, like Quilchena, like Surrey

South, Surrey–White Rock and other urban communities as well. They do

work incredibly hard.

Maybe it was just poor phrasing from my colleague before to

suggest that only rural MLAs work doubly hard. But he was wrong then,

and I would hope he would reflect on that, because urban and rural MLAs

work very hard to ensure that they can speak on behalf of their

constituents — that they can represent their interests, that they can

advocate for them and that they can get change on their behalf. That’s a

very important thing.

This bill ensures that the Electoral Boundaries Commission can

make sure that the challenges of representing large, rural areas are

taken into account. But it also ensures that communities like

Vancouver–West End and our needs are taken into account too so that you

don’t have such outsized voting power for a small number of people and

such reduced voting power for a large number of people. You don’t want a

situation where it’s the tyranny of the minority, but you don’t want a

situation, of course, where only the majority in large urban centres can

ever be heard as well.

[3:45 p.m.]

That’s why the commission is set out in such a way to ensure that

representation can continue in the way it has, in giving the sense that

those communities matter just as much as communities like mine, even if

the voting power might not be quite the same. It’s now, I think, 44,000

eligible voters that I represent, compared to some constituencies of

about 15,000, which, you know — three times the voting power in a small

population community and large geographic community compared to my

constituency.

But certainly, constituents can understand that the challenge of

representing those communities is difficult. We wouldn’t denigrate that,

nor should MLAs in rural B.C. denigrate those of us who represent urban

B.C. and the hard work that we do on behalf of our

constituents.

So I will vote in favour of this. I do support the legislation,

because I think it meets the right balance between the needs of

representing communities of interest, the needs of representing rural

and urban constituencies and the needs, really, of the people. That’s,

in the end, who we do it for. We want to make sure that they have a

chance to have their voices heard.

It’s an independent process, so it’s not the situation we see in

some communities of gerrymandering, as the term is, of switching

boundaries just to represent one party or another. It’s about

representing the people of B.C.

I thank the Attorney General for moving this legislation, and I

will be supporting it.

T. Halford: I thank the member before me. I thank the other members before me

that spoke on this bill.

I believe that all politics is local. I’m from the riding of

Surrey–White Rock. I have, obviously, two municipalities in my riding.

Surrey is growing at a rapid race. I don’t think any of us in this House

would deny that. I do realize, though, that when we talk about

MLAs….

One of the privileges that we have being in this building, whether

you work in this building or you’re elected into this office, is you do

have the great chance to travel this province. You go in areas that many

British Columbians never get to. I can list off the communities that

I’ve been able to travel to while I was staffing ministers before. I

understand that one of the great joys of being in this House, whether

it’s in opposition or government or on different committees, is you get

to travel to a lot of those communities.

A fair number of those communities are, as previous speakers have

spoken, very remote. The member for Shuswap talked about eight hours of

driving time in some ridings. I can do my riding in about five minutes

from end to end. That is going the speed limit, except if you’re going

down Marine Drive where it’s 30 kilometres an hour, so I would avoid

that.

I do realize, though, that we have to acknowledge the fact that

every MLA in this House deals with different sets of issues, based on

their own constituencies. My constituency is predominantly seniors. My

neighbouring constituency Surrey South has a fair number of seniors in

the riding but also a lot of young families. Even though we’re

neighbouring MLAs, the needs are much different. That is obviously the

case across all 87 ridings. Every riding has its own unique

challenges.

When I first got up in this House, I guess six months ago, or

maybe four, I spoke on the throne speech, and I spoke about a story that

was fairly near and dear to my heart. It was actually somewhat

life-changing. I fear that this could get lost in this bill.

When I was in high school, I struggled quite a bit. I didn’t enjoy

high school. I was having some issues, and my parents decided that it

was time for me to go and see my MLA. Now, my MLA at the time — it was

1998 — was somebody I think this House is very familiar with: Gordie

Hogg. Gordie Hogg kind of transcends partisan politics, I think. I’ve

never heard anybody say anything disparaging about the former mayor, the

former MP and the former MLA for Surrey–White Rock.

[3:50 p.m.]

But I went in there, and I sat with my MLA for an hour. One of the

great things about Gordie is that Gordie had a lot of experience dealing

with youth in his previous career. He’s obviously still a big advocate

for youth and his work in KidSport.

The conversation that I had with Gord at the time and the amount

of, I guess, self-esteem that he inserted into me and the follow-up that

he did to ensure that I was going on a better path is something that him

and I talk about to this day, quite often. It is something of a

gratitude to him that I will never forget.

Growing up, I always knew who my MLA was. I was fortunate enough

to have Gord there for a number of years, followed by Tracy Redies. I

will never, ever forget the importance of that relationship, of that

conversation, and what it meant to me, what it meant to my family and,

ultimately, how it guided me in my life.

I will say that I’ve been here for a number of months, and I still

think that I’m obviously relatively new. It’s a very humbling experience

to come in here every day and to speak in this House. A lot of times I

catch myself realizing what a great privilege this is.

I hope that I have that same opportunity to one day have a

conversation with a kid like myself in my constituency office. I am sure

that members on both sides have had that conversation.

I worry that when we are looking at ridings the way we are in

rural B.C…. We’ve got to make sure that we’re not missing any of those

conversations. We need to make sure that we are accessible. We need to

make sure that people know who their MLA is and that they can access

their MLA.

We already have, when we look at some of these ridings — we talked

about the eight hours of drive time — MLAs that span multiple

municipalities. One of the things I’ve learned, being a new MLA, is how

important it is to foster those relationships with those municipalities.

I’ve got two. I spend a fair amount of time trying to work and improve

those relationships every day, because they are vitally

important.

I understand that it doesn’t matter whether you’re an urban MLA, a

rural MLA or a suburban MLA. You still have to foster those

relationships with municipalities, regional districts. I fear that

changes to this legislation could greatly impact that. I fear that those

relationships are really at the value of what we do in this House; what

mayors and councillors do. I fear that…. We need to keep in mind that

effective representation is crucial to what we do in this

House.

A lot of MLAs have to have two constituency offices, because if

they have a meeting at one end of their riding, they’re not able to make

it home in time. That is something that we have to reflect on in this

House.

I have the luxury of leaving here when the bells ring and being

able to sleep in my bed by ten o’clock. A lot of MLAs do, but a lot of

MLAs don’t. I think that’s a massive sacrifice, on both sides of the

House, that we need to thank those MLAs for and we need to thank their

families for. There are a lot of MLAs…. When we’re going from week to

week, they’re at home for 12, 14 hours.

None of that’s a surprise. They know what they signed up for, but

it is a sacrifice. It is, I think, one that we need to reflect on and

always give thanks to those MLAs. Those MLAs are on both sides of this

House.

I really do recognize the growing needs of urban B.C. — I see it —

but I also recognize the challenges with our rural communities. I

listened to the entire speech from my colleague and friend from Cariboo

North. This has not been an easy past few weeks for that member, for

obvious reasons, given the challenges that she’s faced in her community,

the devastation that she’s seen from the transportation

sector.

[3:55 p.m.]

I do not experience forest fires — I hope I don’t — in my riding,

or floods or avalanches. When we look at some of the challenges we’ve

seen from forest fires, from other natural disasters, and we look at how

important it is to have that support from that local MLA…. But for those

regional emergency services, knowing they can depend on and have access

to their MLA, I think, is vitally important.

I will not be supporting this bill for the reasons that I’ve just

stated, and I look forward to listening to the following

speakers.

S. Chant: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the group

on this rather important bill, in my opinion and the opinion of many, I

think. Bill 7, the electoral boundaries act, is really looking at

realigning the electoral act with what was the original intent of

it.

As a democracy, we’ve always wanted to believe that each vote has

equal weight, which isn’t quite true at this point in British Columbia,

which makes us an anomaly in Canada, actually. There are no other

provinces that have the distribution of ridings with the same parameters

as we do.

In 2014, a certain government, who shall not be named, passed an

amendment on the Electoral Boundaries Act that was already established

and set it up so that some areas were protected, even though many less

people lived, worked and played in those regions. The result of this was

that a riding that perhaps had 20,000 voters in it could elect one

representative MLA and a riding with 70,000 voters could elect — oh,

wait for it — one representative MLA. Even my math doesn’t make that

work.

It’s very difficult to explain to a voter that their vote doesn’t

mean as much, should they happen to live in one part of British Columbia

than another. The people of B.C. are not terribly comfortable with that,

probably.

Bill 7 has, of course, the underlying premise of the commission

being appointed to work on reviewing and, if necessary, revising

electoral boundaries. This is to be done after every second general

election in order to accommodate the changes in our ever-growing

province. Our population grows, the distribution of the population

evolves, and it is very important to be able to reflect those changes

when it comes time to elect our leaders.

Additionally, the commission needs to have autonomy and do its

work without constraints imposed based on old doctrine or old data. The

commission is an impartial body of folks who are in trusted positions,

trusted to be able to evaluate information, input situations and

circumstances and come up with recommendations that make

sense.

Who gets to be on this commission? Who gets this trust? The given

member is B.C.’s Chief Electoral Officer. This is an individual who,

with staff, oversees our elections and makes sure the rules are

followed. It makes sense that this individual would have an intimate

knowledge of the current state of ridings to bring to the table as well

as be able to access current and historical information.

The next candidate for the commission would be someone nominated

by our Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, who we’ll be seeing in the

chambers this afternoon giving assent to bills that have been debated

and passed. The pool that she chooses her candidate from is that of

judges, current or retired, of the Supreme Court or the Court of

Appeal.

The third person for this tribunal gets nominated by our hon.

Speaker, who would work with the Premier and the Leader of the

Opposition in order to find a candidate that can fulfil this most

important role.

[4:00 p.m.]

This commission is a tribunal of people who believe in British

Columbia, who know that it is important that we are well represented in

our Legislature, who understand the work of the government, who

understand the work of the MLAs and are able to look at things and say:

“Okay, this is reasonable. This is fair.”

They’re not just going to do it in a vacuum. They will be doing it

based on information and data and also on input from the people who it

impacts, which is critical. We need to make sure that that is reflected

and transparent to the people that are involved in any changes that end

up happening.

Every MLA in this chamber knows that their own riding is unique,

whether it’s the geography, the people, the ethnicity, the history, the

agriculture, the economy, the hunting, the fishing, the shopping. There

is a myriad of variables that create the character and profile of a

riding. Coincidentally, every MLA is unique, sometimes in ways we don’t

discuss.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

However, the common thread is that we want to represent our

constituents effectively, fairly and appropriately. We want to be able

to advocate, to understand the characteristics of our riding and be

ready to speak to the amazing things, such as those that I hear every

day in members’ statements.

Understandably, if you’re an MLA that represents a large

population in a small geography, this can be extraordinarily

challenging. If I talk about my friend Joanne the nurse, why aren’t I

talking about all my other friends the nurses, who also do amazing jobs?

If I talk about the folks that run one of our seniors support areas, why

aren’t I talking about all of them? Daycare, schools — everything that

brings our society together. If I talk about some of them, I should be

able to talk about all of them fairly.

If I’ve got 70,000 people in my riding, it’s going to be pretty

darn difficult. That’s just talking about the things that come to the

surface. What about all those other things that go on, the things that

need a little bit of heat and light to look at them and say: “Wait a

minute. How do we solve this? How do we make this better?” If you’ve got

a huge population, you’ll never do it, and you might not

sleep.

Conversely, if you’ve got a small population and a huge geography,

you’ve got similar problems or different problems. You’ve got all sorts

of opportunities to test your knowledge, skills, history, relationships,

map reading and other pertinent topics. You have as much of a challenge

as the person does with the large population if you’ve got your large

geography.

Somehow or other, this stuff all has to be balanced out. Somehow

or other, we have to make a way to make it equal. We do have, already,

an established process that says that after every second general

election, our ridings and constituencies will be reviewed. Got that.

Have it. It’s in place. It’s used. However, what we don’t have is the

freedom of that commission at this point to do its job without

constraint. That’s what we’re aiming for in Bill 7.

Another example is in my riding. We’re very lucky. On one side are

beautiful coastal mountains, and on the other side is the Salish Sea.

Related to my geography here is the access to marvellous trails for

hiking, running, walking, bike riding and horseback riding. Our

mountain-biking network is famous, world famous. The trail names are

spectacular. We’ve got Oilcan, Ladies Only, Executioner, Upper and Lower

Griffens and Forever After, just to name a few. Who knew that I, as an

MLA, should be familiar with these in order to speak the same language

as some of my constituents? Max, age nine, who lives in my riding, knows

all of the trails and can map them out if asked.

We have Quarry Rock, Lynn Canyon Suspension Bridge, Seymour

Demonstration Forest, Lynn Headwaters and other parks and natural

attractions. The Tsleil-Waututh Nation, an intrinsic part of this

riding, is engaged with so many of these things.

How do I represent those people? How do I do it properly? How do I

do it effectively? An important piece is that I know what my boundaries

are, I know who my riding is, and I have the ability to work within that

knowledge.

[4:05 p.m.]

The other thing that comes as an interface with this nature? My

voters are interested in the environment. They are interested in

animals. Oh, wait a minute — they’re also interested in housing,

traffic, the economy, health and surviving and getting beyond COVID. Are

all these and other issues pertinent only to my riding? Heck no; of

course not. However, these will always be considerations that are

applicable to North Vancouver–Seymour and may or not be applicable to

Penticton or Nechako Lakes or Vancouver-Fairview or

Surrey-Fleetwood.

This bill allows the commission the freedom to take considerations

under advisement in order to ensure that each of our voters has an equal

opportunity to be represented fairly. Bill 7 also frees up the

commission to do its assigned job and make recommendations that can

support B.C. to remain a democratic province.

If new ridings are needed to reflect population changes, that

possibility is there. If boundaries need to move in order to ensure

sufficient people are well represented, the commission can make that

recommendation. If we need more seats to represent the diversity in the

population, that opportunity is there. I’m not quite sure where we’ll

put those seats in the chamber. However, that is something else to be

decided.

Bill 7 is a relook, like we have to do with so many of our things.

It’s a way of bringing the legislation into current state. Bill 7 gives

us that opportunity to update it and revise it, like we have to do with

many other things because they need that current lens on

them.

Excuse me for one second, Mr. Speaker. I’m just going to close my

door. Sorry. Shortly there’s going to be a compressor going on in the

background, and you guys don’t want to hear that.

B.C.’s population is expected to grow at a rate that can be

estimated fairly accurately, and the diversity that’s already present

can be counted on to expand as well. Bill 7 needs to be in place in

order to allow the B.C. electoral commission and Electoral Boundaries

Act to do and be as effective and appropriate as possible, given the

future that we expect B.C. to move into.

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

this.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Thank you for thinking of us with that

compressor.

All right, recognizing the member for Nechako Lakes.

J. Rustad: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to be able to speak, I guess.

I was going to say stand, but of course, I’m not standing. I’m sitting

at home.

I’m pleased to be able to speak to this bill, Bill 7, and to

continue to represent the good folks who live in Nechako Lakes. I’ve

listened to some of the debate that I have been able to listen to from

both sides. I listened to the member from the Green Party, the leader

from the Green Party, and her comments. But I want to relate, in terms

of Bill 7, a few stories from my riding, because I do believe there is a

difference when you think about equitable representation.

I fully understand that when you’ve got a large riding,

population-wise, it puts a lot of pressure on MLAs. I had the good

fortune, when I was first elected, of representing the riding of Prince

George–Omineca, which had a significant component of my current riding,

but it also had a large chunk of Prince George. There certainly was a

big difference between representing the people in Prince George and

representing the people in the Omineca side.

When my riding changed in 2009 to what is now Nechako Lakes, a lot

of those same issues that happened in Prince George that I had to deal

with weren’t around. The types of issues, the types of things that you

had to deal with changed dramatically. I understood that, because it’s

more of urban issues and the complexities that happen with that versus

the rural issues. So there are significant differences across the

province.

[4:10 p.m.]

I understand that with the growth and population, you need to be

able to make sure you can have that balance, in terms of representation,

but I want to make the case to think about the rules for using very

special circumstances.

Now, that opportunity to use those very special circumstances,

those opportunities to go beyond the 25 percent variation exist in this

change to the act and to Bill 7. But I’d like people, not just the MLAs

here but also the Electoral Boundaries Commission, to think about what

that means. What is a very special circumstance? What would be the

rationale for saying that a riding can be outside of that 20 percent

variation of the average population or the electoral

quotient?

Obviously, distance travelled is one factor. Certainly, that needs

to be thought about. The uniqueness of communities. The uniqueness of

the population in some of those communities. The geographic challenges,

like mountain ranges and these types of things. The vast area,

obviously. That needs to be considered, as well as some very unique

situations in terms of some of the very social factors that could come

up in areas. So there are a number of things that could be looked at in

terms of very special circumstances.

I started thinking about that. I started thinking about…. Okay.

Nechako Lakes, which is, I think, about the third-largest riding, is

about 72,000 square kilometres. It’s about 2.2 times the size of

Vancouver Island. To put it in other terms, it’s the size of Belgium and

the Netherlands put together. What makes that very special in terms of

the circumstance of representation?

Well, you come up to Prince George, and you drive 2½ hours west of

Prince George to get to Burns Lake, then you turn south for about 20

minutes, and then you take a