Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, April 6, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 183

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 10 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act,

Hon. H. Bains

Bill M206 — Preserving Brunswick Point for

Agriculture and Migrating Waterfowl Habitat Act, 2022

I. Paton

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Sikh Heritage Month and meaning of home

R. Singh

Battle of Vimy Ridge

M. de Jong

Artists and community creativity and

resilience

G. Lore

Lytton fire recovery process

J. Tegart

Bicycle riding

S. Chandra Herbert

Cancer awareness and Daffodil Month

S. Bond

Oral Questions

Housing prices and action on

affordability

M. Bernier

Hon. D. Eby

Student housing

T. Stone

Hon. D. Eby

Long-term COVID-19 cases and support for

patients

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Government response to Lytton fire

P. Milobar

Hon. M. Farnworth

Prosecution service contract negotiations

M. de Jong

Hon. D. Eby

Labour dispute in Sea-to-Sky transit

system

J. Sturdy

Hon. H. Bains

Petitions

S. Chant

M. Starchuk

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2022

(continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Reporting of Bills

Bill 6 — Budget Measures Implementation Act,

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. K. Conroy

J. Rustad

M. Lee

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills

Training (continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. A. Kang

Estimates: Ministry of Citizens’ Services

Hon. L. Beare

B. Banman

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2022

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: J. Sims.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

H. Sandhu: Today we have some special guests in the gallery from the Punjabi

Press Club of British Columbia joining us here. The Punjabi Press Club of

B.C. has been created to deal with matters related to practice of the

profession of journalism. It is established in the context of support of

pluralist democracy as well as fundamental human rights. The club also

focuses on their 13 additional aims and objectives to support and strengthen

journalism.

Our guests in the gallery are Baljinder Kaur from Sanjha TV Punjab;

Khushpal Singh Gill from Sach Di Awaaz newspaper; Baldev Singh Mann

from RedFM radio; Dr. Gurvinder Singh Dhaliwal, freelance journalist;

Kanwaljeet Singh Randhawa from SW Media Group; Rachhpal Singh Gill from the

Punjabi Tribune ; Bakhshinder Khela, a freelance journalist;

Vinnie Combow from Connect FM Radio; Kuldip Singh from FYI Media and Sanjha

TV Radio Punjab; Santokh Singh Mander from Indo-Canadian

Times .

Would the House please join me to welcome our special guests from the

Punjabi Press Club today.

T. Stone: I would like to join the member for Vernon, as well, on behalf of our

caucus, in welcoming the many members of the Punjabi Press Club who are here

in the Legislature.

Our leader, Kevin Falcon, had the opportunity to spend some time with

all of them a couple of weeks ago, and he very much enjoyed that. We are

also, as a caucus, going to be meeting with them a little bit later this

afternoon, so we’ll look forward to that interaction as well.

Specifically I would like to welcome Baljinder Kaur, the president of

FYI Media and Sanjha TV Radio Punjab; Kuldip Singh, FYI Media and Sanjha TV

Radio Punjab; Khushpal Singh Gill secretary of Sach Di Awaaz

newspaper; Baldev Singh Mann of RedFM radio; Dr. Gurvinder Singh

Dhaliwal, a freelance journalist; Santokh Singh Mander of Indo-Canadian

Times ; Kanwaljeet Singh Randhawa of SW Media Group; Rachhpal Singh

Gill of Punjabi Tribune ; Sukhmander Singh Brar of Aikam Media

Group; Vinnie Combow from Connect FM Canada radio; Bakhshinder Khela,

freelance journalist; and Rajesh Ansal of Ansal Media Group.

Again, it’s a tremendous honour for all of us to have you with us

today and we’ll look forward to seeing you later this afternoon.

Please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Heyman: Joining us in the precinct for some time today, as well as in the

gallery, are two very old friends of mine from my time in Terrace — Gail

Murray and Frank Rowe, along with their grandson Christian

Thompson.

Gail spent ten years as a constituency assistant for MLA Helmut

Giesbrecht. Gail was active in many, many community endeavours and exercised

the unique skill of bringing political activism together with community

organising and activism and supporting people in the Terrace area who needed

it.

Her husband, Frank, was active in Terrace in the B.C. Teachers

Federation, but specifically, the Terrace district teachers union. He was

president for a while. It’s a real pleasure to see them here

today.

Would the House join me in making them very, very welcome, along with

their grandson.

L. Doerkson: It’s, indeed, a pleasure to introduce a friend of mine to this chamber

as well. This young man’s name is Massimo Calabrese. He was born and raised

in Williams Lake and a student at the University of Victoria. He noted a low

rate of vaccination through Cariboo-Chilcotin and the fact that our clinics

were lacking participation months ago.

[1:40 p.m.]

Massimo, a five-year employee of Paradise Cinemas, received permission

from the cinema owners, the Hothi family, formed a partnership with Interior

Health, went on to organize $1,500 of sponsorship from the community and

encouraged people to come and get vaccinated with the opportunity to win

prizes, free movie tickets and more. Well, get vaccinated they did, and

1,470 vaccinations are the responsibility of this young man.

Massimo, our town owes you a great deal of gratitude.

Would the members of this House please thank him.

J. Routledge: I’d like to introduce a guest I have here today, Loren Crawford. Loren

and I first met when I was getting my passport renewed. I stood in line, I

ended up at his wicket, and he was processing my passport. It says on there,

as occupation, union educator. So he very surreptitiously says: “Union

educator? Jeez, how do I get involved in my union?” I say: “Well, I happen

to work for your union.”

Twenty-four years later he is a program officer with the Public

Service Alliance of Canada, working in the education and organizing

department.

Please join me in welcoming Loren Crawford.

S. Furstenau: I also want to welcome the Punjabi Press Club of B.C. on behalf of the

B.C. Green caucus. I had the real pleasure of getting to know a lot of them

during the last election. I look forward to connecting with them again. I

really commend their commitment to independent journalism and the support of

democracy and fundamental human rights. It’s very admirable, and I really

want them to know I appreciate the work that they do.

J. Sims: It really is a pleasure to rise in this House. I know that a colleague

of mine and a dear friend…. We worked very closely together at the BCTF,

both when I was a local president in Nanaimo and he was in Terrace, then

taking on the BCTF in a couple of battles we had, and then of course at the

BCTF as well.

He’s an amazing social justice activist, a strong unionist who always,

always fought for inclusion and social justice and the best deal for the

kids in our classrooms. You often hear, “He’s a unionist and a labour

activist,” but I find that labour activists and unionists are also the best

social justice activists.

Please help me to welcome into this House Frank Rowe, a dear

friend.

Hon. M. Dean: It’s a real pleasure for me today to welcome to the gallery Dianna

Seaton. Although she’s a Langford resident, I’ve actually known her and

worked with her since about 2007, because she was elected to the school

district 62, Sooke school district, board in 2005. Before that she’d been in

public service on the B.C. public library board.

She has served on very many committees. Again we worked together on

the Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice Committee and also on the

Westshore Literacy committee. Her family has deep, deep roots in the West

Shore, and she works really hard on behalf of children, youth and families

across our community.

Would everybody please show their appreciation and make her

welcome.

S. Chant: I’d like to introduce to the House friends and constituents —

apparently they can be both — who I have known for quite some time. Our

children went to school together, and we were on numerous committees

together, most of the time agreeing with each other.

Sheila Balzer is here. She lives in Lynn Valley, and her kids and mine

went to school together. Betty Babbage is Sheila’s mom and also lives in

Lynn Valley. Then friend Monique Cloutier is actually from

Vancouver-Fairview.

I hope that the House will offer a lovely welcome to these

folks.

[1:45 p.m.]

D. Coulter: I’m very excited today because we have two high school classes from a

local high school in my constituency, Sardis Secondary School. They’re

Crystal Nesbitt’s classes. I went and spoke at one already, and I have an

upcoming chance to speak with them again.

I’ll tell you right now that they’re very passionate, very engaged

students. They really care about housing, education, amongst a number of

other issues. I’m happy to have them here today, and I can’t wait to meet

them after QP.

K. Paddon: I am very happy to join my colleague from Chilliwack in introducing

students from Sardis Senior Secondary, which is where I graduated from as

well, to the precinct today. These grade 11 students are part of the French

immersion program.

Je suis très heureux presenter aujourdhui des élèves de Sardis Senior

Secondary, qui est aussi l’école où j’ai obtenu mon diplôme, dans l’enceinte

aujourd’hui. Ces élèves de onzième année font

partie du programme

La maison pourrait-elle se joindre à moi pour les

accueillir.

[French text provided by K.

Paddon.]

Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. H. Bains presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour Relations Code Amendment Act,

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 10, the Labour Relations Code

Amendment Act, 2022. The bill amends the Labour Relations Code to

establish two significant improvements for workers and further our

progress on government’s commitment to ensure that every worker has the

right to join a union and bargain for fair working

conditions.

First, the proposed amendment will establish a single-step union

certification system, which will support employees in exercising their

Charter right to free association and their constitutionally protected

right to choose union representation in their workplaces. This bill will

ensure that they can exercise this right without interference by an

employer. A single-step process is often referred to as a card-check

system.

Second, the proposed amendments will provide workers in the

construction sector with the ability to change their union

representation in each year of the collective agreement. This change is

in response to the unique nature of the construction sector.

These changes recognize the importance of ensuring that the

workers across B.C. have a say in their working conditions and can

exercise their constitutional right to make a choice about union

representation.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2022, introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M206 — PRESERVING BRUNSWICK

POINT FOR AGRICULTURE

AND MIGRATING

WATERFOWL HABITAT ACT, 2022

I. Paton presented a bill intituled Preserving Brunswick Point for

Agriculture and Migrating Waterfowl Habitat Act, 2022.

I. Paton: I move that a bill intituled Preserving Bruns­wick Point for

Agriculture and Migrating Waterfowl Habitat Act, 2022, of which notice

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

for the first time.

Today I rise to introduce this bill for a second time, because the

history of Brunswick Point has been a lengthy and painful one for

several Delta families. This began back in 1968, when the proposal to

build a coal terminal at Deltaport and a railway line through the Delta

farmland was raised, and with it came the expropriation of 4,000 acres

of prime farmland in west Delta.

After many years, the government realized this expropriated land

was not necessarily needed as part of the port expansion and offered to

sell most of these farms back to their original owners. However, more

than 600 acres of Brunswick Point farmland was held back by the Crown

and not sold back to the original owners but, rather, leased back to the

farm families with short-term leases.

This bill seeks to protect Brunswick Point, a triangular shaped

piece of land that borders the ocean, the Fraser River and Canoe Pass

and features seven kilometres of dike walking trails.

[1:50 p.m.]

This farmland boasts exceptional class 1 soil that grows B.C.’s

very best potatoes, and most importantly, this particular area is world

renowned as a resting stop for migrating Canada geese, snow geese, swans

and snowy owls. The leftover morsels of potatoes, grain and corn make

excellent feed for these resting birds. This parcel of land is also only

two kilometres away from the Reifel bird sanctuary.

Being precariously close to the Deltaport and container terminal

and a massive warehousing development next door at Tsawwassen First

Nations, it is vitally important that this precious 600 acres of

farmland continues to be kept in agriculture and wildlife habitat in

perpetuity and be sold back to the local farmers or offered back with

long-term leases.

This bill aims to protect the Brunswick Point farmland and bird

habitat from any future economic development.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

I. Paton: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M206, Preserving Brunswick Point for Agriculture and Migrating

Waterfowl Habitat Act, 2022, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SIKH HERITAGE MONTH

AND MEANING OF

R. Singh: Today I want to speak about the special meaning of this month to

South Asian British Columbians and the thoughts it evokes in me,

thoughts of celebration and the evolving idea of home.

April, as many know, is Sikh Heritage Month, and it presents not

just an opportunity for us to celebrate our heritage and our

contributions to this magnificent province but also to recognize the

history of movements and struggles in making this our home. Cultural

celebrations make us feel at home, and the biggest celebration this

month is of Vaisakhi.

Even though this year’s public Vaisakhi celebrations have been

curtailed to maintain caution, the parades and festivities of past years

were, for many, an expression of finding a substantial slice of home

here in our province. Today this is where our families thrive, where we

work, play and build lives, and here is where we carry on the torch of

past and present movements to brighten our tomorrow and strengthen our

idea of home.

This idea is awakened without feeling franchised, and that is

another achievement that we honour this month, an achievement that did

not come without colossal struggle. As my friend and colleague the

member for Surrey-Fleetwood mentioned on Monday, this month,

specifically this past weekend, also marked the 75th anniversary of the

right to vote for South Asian people. As we celebrate it today, we also

recognize our complex and difficult past here.

True reconciliation with the past cannot be achieved without truth

itself, and I am glad to be part of a movement to embrace historical

truth and look forward to an equitable and just future for all of us. As

we all celebrate and honour this month, I would like to invite my

friends and colleagues here and people all over B.C. to celebrate and

recognize with us our common and unique histories in a place where we

all bring our idea of home.

BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE

M. de Jong: More than a century has passed since the Canadian Corps, fighting

together for the first time, stormed Vimy Ridge on a cold and snowy

April morning in 1917. With the passing of the final surviving veterans,

these events, both heroic and tragic, have slipped from the memories of

the living to become permanently and exclusively lodged in the pages of

our history books, where they take on a more mythical and ethereal

quality.

But they were real. The 10,600 killed and wounded were real. The

families were real, who mourned their death and ministered their wounds.

If you visit the Vimy Memorial, as I think the member for

Surrey-Guildford did on behalf of this House a few years ago, you’ll

feel very close to that reality.

The signage that warns of unexploded ordnance that even today

claims casualties from the grazing sheep. The magnificence of the

limestone memorial commemorating the over 11,000 Canadians killed in

France with no known grave.

[1:55 p.m.]

And the incredibly poignant and personal etchings that you will

see if you descend beneath the pastoral fields into the tunnels and

caves that protected soldiers as they moved up to battle and then

sheltered their broken bodies as casualties mounted.

Go into those tunnels and feel the presence of a wounded and

frightened 18-year-old from Quesnel, carving his initials into the chalk

walls, wondering if he’ll ever see the sunlight of home

again.

This year, a century after the war to end all wars, let us

remember that not so far from Vimy, young children huddle in dirty,

squalid basements and cellars, terrified as the bombs and artillery fall

around them, making them wonder if they will live to see the sunlight

again.

ARTISTS AND COMMUNITY

CREATIVITY AND

RESILIENCE

G. Lore: The arts connect us to each other, to our communities and to

ourselves. Artists, authors and musicians showed their resilience and

their creativity throughout the last two years. Over the weekend, as has

already been mentioned, Alex Cuba — a former Victoria resident, I might

add — won the Grammy for Latin pop album Mendó , an album he

recorded in his living room in Smithers.

Also during the pandemic, Victoria’s Theatre SKAM took their show

on the road — literally the side of the road — keeping theatre and

connection alive by bringing their show to people. They brought art and

hope and optimism while also tackling big issues like anti-Black racism,

and they did it by donation.

Thankfully, they are now back to productions and theatre classes,

inspiring a love of art and expression in children and youth, including

my two children, who recently made their stage debuts as a monster and a

tech-savvy princess. In the summer, during the annual SKAMpede, you’ll

find original shorts performed live alongside local bike trails. Theatre

SKAM and dozens of other organizations in my community were recently

awarded resilience funding and arts impact grants by the B.C. Arts

Council.

Orca Book Publishers, another recipient, believes that all people,

people of all ethnicities, abilities and genders, should see themselves

in the books they read and that reading can contribute to a more

compassionate world.

So many of the authors published with Orca are from right here in

my community, including Robin Stevenson, the award-winning author of

Pride Puppy , and Camosun College instructor and author Kari

Jones. The Witness Blanket: Truth, Art and Reconciliation was

written by Carey Newman, artist and impact chair in Indigenous art

practices, and award-winning journalist Kirstie Hudson.

The Belfry Theatre, the Jazz Society, the Victoria Film Fest, the

Afro Latin Cultural Exchange Society and many more have all been

recognized by the B.C. Arts Council through funding.

I encourage everyone to pick up a local book, listen to Alex

Cuba’s album and find a way to take in some live theatre this

spring.

LYTTON FIRE RECOVERY PROCESS

J. Tegart: Nine months. What can happen in nine months? You could conceive

and welcome a fully developed baby into this world. You could begin and

end a K-to-12 school year. You could build a new home. To sum it up,

there are many incredible, significant things you could do in nine

months.

When we look at the recovery effort of nine months after a

devastating wildfire ripped through Lytton in areas under federal

jurisdiction, we see that they’ve cleared the surface debris and

foundations of the buildings they lost. They are well on their way to

setting up temporary housing for their community members. Perhaps by the

end of this month, their people will be coming home.

Contrast this with the village of Lytton, under provincial

jurisdiction, where very little has happened in nearly nine months.

Residents like Denise O’Connor report they still have security fencing

around the village. Residents must get permission to access their own

property.

A partial cleaning of debris from municipally owned properties is

happening. Hydro and telephone wires are still piled on the streets, not

a single foundation removed. No soil remediation. No infrastructure

repaired. No hydro, and no 911 service.

In nearly nine months, 280 days to be exact, people in the village

of Lytton continue to look to this government for action, for hope, for

renewal and optimism for the future.

[2:00 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Member, keep the statement non-partisan, please.

J. Tegart: Nine months later, so far it’s been a very difficult

delivery.

Mr. Speaker: Members, all statements must be non-partisan in this

session.

BICYCLE RIDING

S. Chandra Herbert:

I ride my bike to work.

I ride my bike to the library

with my son.

I ride my bike to get groceries.

I ride my bike for

fun.

I ride my bike to fight climate change.

I ride my bike to

stay fit.

I ride my bike to beat the traffic,

so I don’t get

stuck in it.

I often ride an electric bike.

Yes, electric with

the letter “e.”

And many more are now too,

now that we got rid

of the PST.

But riding bikes isn’t always fun,

and sometimes it

can really suck.

Like the time the car driver doored me,

and all

I could say was fudge.

I ride my bike in rain, snow, sun or

sleet.

My son thinks my bike is pretty neat.

It’s not always

safe out there,

so be aware of those who bike, roll or walk.

hope you’ll join me in making it safer,

once I finish this little

talk.

Many of our roads weren’t designed with people in

mind.

No, they were designed for the car,

putting safe walking,

rolling and biking

as a dream, for some, too far.

But it doesn’t

have to be that way, no, not today.

Our governments need to

invest.

Roads that are safe for people to walk, bike and

roll

are really the best.

As gas prices rise and the world burns

because of climate change,

it’s high past time our transportation

system gets a real rearrange.

Building more all-ages-and-abilities

bike paths and trails

are part of what we must do.

So is making

sure the law and policies work for people who bike too.

For a long

time, riding a bike was seen as just a hobby.

But now there are so

many of us who do,

we’ve become a more effective lobby.

So I say

thank you to all who are making the change

by getting on a

bike.

I wish you safe riding and that making it safer

makes it

something for all of us to really, really, like.

CANCER AWARENESS

AND DAFFODIL

MONTH

S. Bond: The arrival of daffodils each year gives us a sense of hope that

spring is on the way. They also announce the arrival of the Canadian

Cancer Society’s Daffodil Campaign for cancer awareness. The annual

campaign calls Canadians to take action and support the nearly half of

Canadians expected to be diagnosed with cancer in their

lifetime.

Donations raised through the Daffodil Campaign support programs

nationwide that contribute to world-leading research to change the

future of cancer. Research is essential in our fight against cancer,

helping us to better prevent, detect and treat cancer and provide all

Canadians with hope.

All of us have been impacted by cancer in some way, including a

number of our colleagues in the House, who inspire us with the courage

they have shown in their battle with cancer. Research gives us hope,

hope for future breakthrough discoveries that will enable people to live

longer, fuller lives.

The Canadian Cancer Society’s Daffodil Campaign mobilizes

dedicated supporters and volunteers, who are the foundation of comfort

and care to those fighting cancer. Compassionate support programs are in

place to provide people with care and connection at a time when it is

most needed, ensuring that no one has to face cancer alone.

The Canadian Cancer Society wants us to help hope bloom and

reminds us that hope is more than a word. It is an action.

What can we do during the month of April? You can volunteer,

donate, host a fundraiser, wear your daffodil pin, share the message

and, perhaps most importantly, support those who you may know that are

facing a fight for their lives.

This month let us all find ways to raise awareness and support

cancer research. Wear your daffodil proudly. It is a symbol of strength,

resilience and hope for the future.

Oral Questions

HOUSING PRICES AND

ACTION ON

AFFORDABILITY

M. Bernier: The latest real estate numbers are showing the housing crisis is

continuing to worsen under this government. In fact, the Fraser Valley

Real Estate Board says now that a benchmark home in that region is up to

$1.7 million. That’s a 40 percent increase from last year. In Surrey,

the average price is nearly $2 million now for an average

home.

[2:05 p.m.]

Do you know what the most insulting part of all that is for

families of British Columbia? It’s that yesterday this NDP government

voted in favour to give themselves a $40,000 pay raise for the Premier

and his cabinet colleagues. In fact…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Bernier: …to add insult to injury, every single NDP member stood up

yesterday to make that retroactive for another year. Imagine that. Every

single one of them stood up to give another $10,000 into the Premier’s

pocket, on top of the almost $40,000 they’ve added.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the question, please.

M. Bernier: Extra money — extra taxpayers’ money going into the pockets of the

NDP cabinet and this Premier.

A very, very, you would think, simple question. Why is the NDP

more focused on filling their pockets, even going back and taking money

out from last year, rather than dealing with the skyrocketing prices

that are affecting people around British Columbia today?

Hon. D. Eby: Some important numbers are being released today by my colleague

the Minister of Jobs: 100,000 people moved to British Columbia in the

last year. That’s 100,000, a 60-year high in-migration to our

province.

Now, there are some good reasons for that. Our economy is leading

Canada. We managed COVID and kept schools open for families. There’s an

opportunity and success that people can find here in British

Columbia.

But it brings with it challenges, and the member has raised one of

them. We have a housing supply that is not keeping up with population. I

am working hard with the Minister of Municipal Affairs to reach out with

municipalities. In fact, I’m speaking with him and Metro Vancouver today

on this very issue. We’re working to identify ways to support

municipalities to get more housing built.

We’re having some success. We are setting records for the amount

of housing that is being built in this province. We have 47,607 units

that were built in 2021. That’s an all-time high, which is very good

news. But we have a lot more work to do. I thank the member for his

important question.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Peace River South, supplemental.

M. Bernier: Well, I do appreciate that the minister is acknowledging the NDP

failures of not keeping up with supply and demand in the province when

it comes to building houses. It’s not just me saying that. In fact, the

NDP friends in the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives have even

come out and said that this government has failed to deliver the

affordable housing units that they have been promising the people in

this province.

In fact, if you look at Surrey alone, renters in Surrey were

promised renters rebates. For two straight elections now, not only they

but every renter in this province has been promised that renters rebate.

Now rent is $270 more a month, just in Surrey.

A renters rebate was promised. They failed to deliver on that, but

instead yesterday, as we know, the NDP had no problem giving themselves

a raise and making that retroactive to last year.

Since it seems to be good enough for the NDP, will they stand in

the House today and say…? Since they’re working on the renters rebate,

will they now make that retroactive for the renters in B.C.?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, if I were that member, I wouldn’t compare government records

on housing, frankly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Attorney General.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

In 2012, when Kevin Falcon was the Finance Minister…. I think it’s

important to talk about records. When he was Finance Minister, this was

the assessment in 2013, after he’d been at work for a year. After a

small contraction in 2011, B.C. housing starts improved by 4 percent in

2012. However, home construction has been notably weak in the latter

half of 2012, with starts posting declines of 2.8 percent in the July to

September quarter and 14 percent in October to December. We posted

quarterly contractions in the final two quarters of the year that

suggest further weakening in B.C. homebuilding going into

[2:10 p.m.]

Now contrast that with this year. In 2021, housing starts

increased by 25.6 percent, reflecting a 35.2 percent increase in

permitting for single-detached dwellings…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Let’s listen to him.

Hon. D. Eby: …and a 19.8 percent increase for multiple-dwelling buildings. In

2012, 1,948 purpose-built rental registrations — 1,948; in 2021,

13,133.

STUDENT HOUSING

T. Stone: Among the statistics that the minister just rattled off, there are

a couple of important ones that he’s neglected to mention. Under the

NDP’s watch, under this government’s watch, we have the highest housing

prices in British Columbia’s history, and we have the highest rent

increases that British Columbians have ever seen.

This was the government, this was the party, that was going to

solve affordability and, especially, housing affordability. It has been

an abysmal failure on this government’s watch.

While the NDP cabinet was busy providing themselves with a pay

raise — as we learned yesterday, it will be retroactive to last year; a

retroactive pay raise for cabinet — students are being forced to camp

outside just to attend their university.

Daniel Drury is a student who was forced to buy a van in order to

have a place to live while he studies here at the University of

Victoria. He says: “I’ve been surprised by how many people have done it

or know someone who’s done it. There are definitely times where I’ve

been like: ‘Oh my god, why am I doing this?’” If the NDP’s housing plan

were working, then students like Daniel wouldn’t be forced to sleep in a

van.

After five years of this NDP government, how is it that students

are forced to experience homelessness just to attend their

university?

Hon. D. Eby: The only thing that would be more profoundly ironic is if this

member asked a question about ICBC.

We are building almost five times the amount of student housing

they built, at just the University of Victoria, in the whole 16 years

they were in government — in one project, 5,860 units of student housing

— and we’re just getting started.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, the CCPA has said over and over, over the last number of

years, that the NDP are counting homes that haven’t even been opened

yet. They haven’t. They haven’t been opened yet. This government is

really good at creating the illusion of action.

They talk often about the student housing that they’ve created in

Kamloops at TRU. There was a big, huge announcement of hundreds of

additional units that were created, but the one detail that was missing

was what the government did: they forced the university to acquire an

existing apartment building, which already had been providing student

housing for the past 30 years. There was no increase in housing units.

At TRU and at UVic and at universities all across this province, there

are countless numbers of students who don’t have the housing that they

need.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen.

T. Stone: Instead of this government putting students first and helping

students put a roof over their head, this cabinet over here, supported

by all of the backbenchers, endorsed…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

T. Stone: …a wage increase for cabinet that’s now retroactive to last year.

Shame on this government. Shame on this government.

Again to the Housing Minister, how can the Premier and the cabinet

possibly give themselves a pay raise, retroactive to last year, while

they’re leaving students flapping in the wind when they’re trying to get

an education?

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows this housing is real. The member knows that

people are moving in. You know how I know that, hon. Speaker? He and his

colleague…

Interjection.

[2:15 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, you have already asked your question.

Hon. D. Eby: …write letters to me, letters of support for the housing that this

government is building, and I receive them gladly. I receive them

gladly, because I know the housing is needed, they know the housing is

needed, and we are funding that housing.

The students need it, the seniors need it, and so many other

people need it that it seems like a good opportunity to provide an

update on our 114,000-unit housing plan. We have 11,000 units complete,

10,000 units in active construction, of a total of 35,501 units

funded.

LONG-TERM COVID-19 CASES

AND SUPPORT FOR

PATIENTS

S. Furstenau: Yesterday, the White House released a memo on addressing the

effects of long COVID, recognizing that anyone who has had a COVID

infection can experience long-term and chronic effects from this virus.

The United States is creating a federal long COVID program.

In this province, there are potentially 83,000 B.C. residents

experiencing symptoms of long COVID. For them, the pandemic is far from

over. Long COVID can be severe.

A recent peer-reviewed study found that long COVID can cause a

spectrum of symptoms, including systemic neuropsychiatric, respiratory,

cardiac, gastrointestinal and endocrine complications. Long COVID has

been shown to occur after both mild and severe cases of COVID, and while

some preliminary literature suggests that vaccinations reduce the

incidents of some symptoms, vaccinations have not eliminated the risk of

long COVID.

Our understanding is still evolving, and all governments have a

responsibility to recognize the people who are struggling and who will

struggle with the effects of long COVID.

My question is to the Minister of Health. What responsibility does

government have to inform, educate and support the public when it comes

to long COVID?

Hon. A. Dix: The first thing I’d say in response to that question should be

obvious to anyone who’s reviewed the COVID-19 pandemic anywhere: the

best way to avoid COVID, the best way to avoid serious symptoms of

COVID, the best way to avoid long COVID and the best way to survive

COVID are to get vaccinated, and to get vaccinated when you’re invited

to do so. That is the best way.

With respect to long COVID, it is an absolute priority. We know

that many people recover differently, do not recover well and have

long-term results and consequences of COVID-19. It’s all the more reason

why it’s important to be vaccinated. It’s why we set up the

interdisciplinary clinical care network, which is the first of its kind

in Canada, to coordinate our response across health authorities to make

sure that people get the care they need.

Our post-COVID recovery clinics are in place. They don’t just

support direct patients at the clinics, in the thousands, with positive

results, but they support primary care providers and health care

providers across B.C., because we’ve taken those steps. There is more to

learn, and there is more to do. B.C. is leading Canada in that regard

and working with everyone in the world to support people who are

struggling with COVID-19.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: Indeed, there is still much more to learn. Vaccinations absolutely

reduce the risk, according to the literature. However, we know that

transmission of COVID is happening even amongst people who are

vaccinated, and that long COVID remains a risk.

Dr. Zach Schwartz is the lead of the post-COVID recovery clinic at

Vancouver General Hospital. He recently stated in an interview with CTV

that even with clinical support, some patients “seem to have stalled and

not recovered.” Those patients in that clinic are the lucky few to have

made it up to the top of the waiting list.

People are grappling with a new illness that has impacted their

day-to-day lives. Some have lost their livelihoods. They have little

information and limited support.

To the Minister of Health, beyond the COVID post-recovery clinics,

which can’t serve everybody who, in this province, is suffering from

long COVID, what additional supports can the tens of thousands of

British Columbians managing long COVID expect from this

government?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Well, first of all, with respect to information…. The member talks

about information.

Patients and their caregivers can access interdisciplinary

clinical care networks, online education tools and resources to support

themselves as they recover. We have put in place, the first in Canada, a

comprehensive system that supports people across British Columbia. We

have long-COVID clinics for people. Anyone who has symptoms beyond three

months can ask to become involved and get support through those

processes. Those are in place now.

We need to have…. It’s why it’s so important to have a robust

primary care network across B.C. to support people who are dealing with

chronic illnesses across the spectrum, from continuing to suffer the

effects of COVID-19 to other chronic diseases, such as diabetes. We have

to continue to build that.

I would say this. I can’t emphasize it enough. It is important now

to get vaccinated. There are 68,000 people over 70 who’ve been invited

to get their booster dose and who haven’t got it. They need to phone up

today. There are more than 450 pharmacies available to give vaccinations

today. Last week there were more than 100,000 unfilled appointments. We

can support each other and prevent this, as well, by getting

vaccinated.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO LYTTON FIRE

P. Milobar: We know this government can move at lightning speed if it suits

them, be it an FOI fee to restrict access being signed off within 15

minutes of legislation or when it comes to their own pay, especially if

it can be retroactive pay raises to the Premier and to the cabinet. That

seems to be moved along very quickly. At least it wasn’t backdated, I

guess, just retroactive.

When it comes to the people of Lytton…. It’s been 280 days, and

they still have no idea when they can go home. Hydro and telephone lines

are piled up on the streets. No infrastructure repaired. There is not

even hydro or 911 service.

I know the minister will get up and talk about the flood event.

I’ll remind the minister that that flood event happened five months

after the fires. It’s now been another four months after the flood

event. People still deserve action on specific timelines and specific

actions that are going to be taken so they know when they can get home.

They don’t need excuses anymore.

To the minister, when will Lytton be rebuilt, and when will people

have the opportunity to go back to their homes?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

There is a significant amount of work that is underway at Lytton.

As the member may well know, the contracts have been awarded for debris

removal. Debris removal has started. There has been the assignment of an

assistant deputy minister to work very closely with the community of

Lytton, on a full-time basis, on the recovery process.

In terms of the hydro and the power lines and the power poles…. As

the member well knows, that decision has been made now by the community

of Lytton, in terms of that replacement. They were looking at wanting to

put those services underground. The community had a view that that was

going to take too long. They have decided to put the power poles back

up. That removal will take place. B.C. Hydro is going to be paying for

the cost of installing those poles. No cost to the residents.

I can also tell you that in terms of the permitting required…. We

have worked very closely with the insurance industry to ensure that

those who are insured, those who have no insurance or those who are

underinsured will not have to pay for any of the archaeological work.

The permit is held on a single basis, so they’re not going to have to go

through the process individually.

There’s a significant amount of work. We’re working very closely

with the community of Lytton. We all want to see it rebuilt as soon as

possible, and that work is underway.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.

P. Milobar: Hopefully, the minister and cabinet can understand why the

residents of Lytton feel that the priority seems to be retroactive pay

raises for cabinet and not their living circumstances. This is very

clearly a tale of two different government approaches.

[2:25 p.m.]

In the areas that the federal government has taken the lead on

recovery and rebuilding, people will be back in their homes as early as

the end of this month. In the areas that this provincial government has

been working, people still don’t even have their debris moved

yet.

Again, when will the minister have a firm timeline that they

commit to so people know not the theoretical work that’s being done but

the actual timelines when they can actually get back into the area and

actually start working on their own properties and get their homes

rebuilt and get back to their own lives?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Providing supports to communities isn’t theoretical. Showing that

they’ve got the supports while a community is being rebuilt is not

theoretical. Picking up the permitting process, which they were very

much concerned about, in terms of we’re limiting their ability to start

that rebuilding process, and making sure that they don’t have to worry

about those costs is not theoretical.

The debris cleanup is underway. That is a particularly challenging

and new site. It’s unfortunate that the members opposite don’t want to

recognize that.

We worked very closely with the federal government to ensure that

those First Nations communities who are in the village of Lytton, for

example, which was the part that was most devastated, are going to get

rebuilt as well. The federal government has made that

commitment.

As I’ve said, we’ve ensured that the permitting process is being

held by one individual, so individuals in the community don’t have to go

through that process themselves. They don’t have to pay that money. That

work is underway. With the removal of the debris…. Then the rebuilding

process is going to start, and you will start to see the significant

improvement and the significant rebuilding that everybody wants to

see.

There have been commitments from the RCMP in terms of rebuilding.

There have been medical services provided that are now being serviced

out on the First Nations communities. Canada Post has been installing

mail service for communities. All of those things are happening, and

they’re going to continue to happen until that community is

rebuilt.

PROSECUTION SERVICE

CONTRACT

NEGOTIATIONS

M. de Jong: I was listening carefully yesterday when the Attorney General

correctly pointed out the important role that B.C.’s core of prosecutors

play in protecting the safety of our communities. He referred to the

authority he has to issue directions related to general prosecutorial

policy, which is something we’re clearly going to want to discuss with

him in the days ahead.

What I didn’t hear him refer to is the deplorable state of morale

within the Prosecution Service, which has been without a contract for

three years, since the last contract expired in 2019. Prosecutors, like

everyone else, saw the ease with which the Premier and cabinet voted

themselves a raise. They are asking….

They are more than curious to know why they have been without a

contract for three years and how much longer our communities are going

to be relying upon the important work done by the Prosecution Service,

which has been without a contract for three years.

Hon. D. Eby: Let me start off by thanking our hard-working Crown prosecutors

for the important work they do. I know the opposition and I sometimes

agree about that hard work, that it’s important, difficult, challenging

work. Sometimes I’m not so sure where the opposition stands in terms of

the challenge of that job, given the questions that were asked

yesterday.

Let me say to them that I appreciate their work. I appreciate the

time they take, the hours they spend, the work they do with victims, the

traumatic scenes they have to hear recounted, the horrific evidence they

have to go through in order to prosecute crimes in our courts. I am

incredibly grateful for what they do.

Bargaining, as the member knows — he used to be the Minister of

Finance for this province — takes place at the bargaining table. I am

sure that the government and the Crown will ultimately come to a

mutually satisfactory agreement.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West, supplemental.

M. de Jong: It’s been three years, three years without a contract. I am told

by 30-year veterans of the prosecutorial service that they have never

seen morale as bad as is presently the case.

[2:30 p.m.]

The minister can stand in the House and say things, which I think

all members would agree with, about the importance of the work and the

value that we place on the work of the prosecutors and the Prosecution

Service. But where the government really gets to reveal that value is by

sitting down and negotiating a contract.

Prosecutors had a contract for 12 years that expired in 2019, and

they have languished without a contract since that date. Communities

want to know that their prosecutors are fully engaged, fully retained

and fully under contract, and that has not been the case for three

years.

The one thing I, again, didn’t hear from the Attorney General is

anything approaching an explanation for why prosecutors have been

without a contract for three long years.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll say it is a pleasure to hear today a different tone from the

opposition about the important work of our Crown. I agree with the

member. Their work is important. It should be recognized, and they

should be appropriately compensated.

That work is happening at the bargaining table. I have confidence

in the public servants that are negotiating that, and in the Crown

Counsel Association, that they will be able to reach a mutually

beneficial agreement that recognizes that important work every single

day.

LABOUR DISPUTE IN

SEA-TO-SKY TRANSIT

SYSTEM

J. Sturdy: Well, the NDP cabinet has found a way to give itself a retroactive

pay increase.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has the floor.

J. Sturdy: The reality here is that transit users in the Sea to Sky have been

without services for over ten weeks. There’s a transit dispute. There’s

a strike entering its tenth week. This strike is hurting vulnerable

people who need to get to work, need to get to medical appointments,

need to get to school. People like my constituent, Laura, who says: “The

transit strike is making an already challenging time more challenging,

and we desperately need to get the buses back up and

running.”

It’s hurting people who are spending thousands of dollars to take

cabs to get to work. A constituent wrote to say: “I want to share with

you that my son called last week, crying, because he cannot pay his

rent. He’s spending his wages on taxis.” People are being forced to walk

miles.

How much longer will residents have to wait? I have to tell you

that the minister…. That the residents up and down the whole Sea to Sky

corridor…. It’s long past resolution, and they can’t wait any longer as

a pawn of provincial labour negotiations. When will the minister step up

and help people like Manuela, who are desperate for a return of transit

services?

Hon. H. Bains: I’m fully aware of the situation, and we continue to monitor very,

very closely. I also know that the strike is having an impact on people

who are within the Sea to Sky corridor who depend on this service.

That’s why I met with both sides twice now, and I have made it very,

very clear on behalf of those transit users that they need to get back

to the bargaining table. After my first meeting, they did go back to the

bargaining table but, unfortunately, they were not able to conclude the

bargaining process. Progress was made, I am told.

Again, I want to make it clear that I and this government fully

support the free collective bargaining process. We must protect the

integrity of free collective bargaining. Any hint of anybody interfering

in that process is not useful. So I would ask the member to be very,

very careful. Let’s work together to encourage both sides to get back to

the bargaining table because the agreement will be found at the

bargaining table — not in this chamber, not outside, not in the media.

I’m encouraging both sides.

I also have met with both mayors, the mayor of Squamish and the

mayor of Whistler, and we have discussed the importance of them getting

back to the bargaining table. We will continue to ask those parties to

find a way to get back to the bargaining table. As late as two days ago

I met with them again.

Therefore, let’s protect the integrity of the bargaining table. At

the same time, let’s encourage those two parties to get back to the

bargaining table because that’s where the agreement will be

made.

[2:35 p.m.]

[End of question period.]

Petitions

S. Chant: I rise to present a petition regarding the farming of furbearing

animals. The petition was compiled by constituents in North Vancouver and

has signatures from 5,800 people across British Columbia.

M. Starchuk: I rise to table a petition of 627 signatures from Madan Singla, who is

looking for financial relief for the seniors of British Columbia with regard

to dental services.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the continued committee stage on Bill 6, Budget

Measures Implementation Act.

In

Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the

Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training. After that is complete, then

it will be the estimates for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2022

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

The Chair: We are here with Bill 6. We were on clause 27, which is where

we will begin, the clean building tax credit

section of the

bill.

Clauses 27 to 45 inclusive approved.

On clause 46.

[2:40 p.m.]

P. Milobar: This

section appears to be all about adding in a whole whack of

definitions — well, three, in particular, here — around used cars for

future clauses, when we get to used cars being added to sales tax.

There’s a definition for appraised value, a definition for average

wholesale value and a definition for designated purchase

price.

I’m just wondering, in terms of the average wholesale value, which

actual valuation book or method will be used in terms of determining how

people would get to that. What would be the official document? There are

a few different platforms out there to get an average wholesale price

off of.

Hon. S. Robinson: I do want to introduce staff who are here. They rotate in and out

depending on which act we’re doing. I’ve got on my right Renée

Mounteney. We’ve got David Karp on my left. Grant Nulle is right behind

me, and he’s our car guy.

There are three books. There’s the Red Book, the Black Book and

the Blue Book. Different provinces use one or a combination of those,

and we’re engaging with other provinces to make the determination. That

will be done through regulation. It will be one of those, as we continue

to do our research to make a determination about what would work best

here in British Columbia.

P. Milobar: In terms of commencement date, however, with the changes to the

used car taxation regime, what would be, then, the timeline or the

overlap of trying to determine when an actual Blue Book, Red Book or

Black Book will be used, versus the implementation of commencement of

the provisions?

Hon. S. Robinson: This will take effect October 1 of this year, and the

determinations in the regulation will be established before that

date.

[2:45 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Most of the tools that determine a wholesale value have regional

components to them. The price of a pickup truck in Fort St. John is

going to have a different value to it for the exact same truck than it

will in the capital regional district, because of need and supply and

demand and things of that nature with the vehicle.

Will this book that’s chosen be reflective of regional

differentials within the province, or is it going to be strictly one

valuation, full stop, regardless of where you are in the

province?

Hon. S. Robinson: These industry publications that I had mentioned are

long-standing. They’re well trusted. Dealers around the province use

them because they are consistent. They are trusted, and they are

long-standing. Most of the provinces use them as well.

It’s in everyone’s interest to get a consistent valuation, and

that’s why we’re turning to these well-used, well-known resources to

help establish consistent fair valuations.

P. Milobar: I do recognize that there’s a whole…. Maybe I’ll just give the

minister an idea where my head space is going today with some of the

questions.

I recognize that there are two or three areas that I’m going to

try to concentrate time on — the furnaces, the used cars and a couple of

things like that — but they kind of interlap in a whole lot of sections

between

definitions and other sections. So with a little bit of

latitude, I’ll cover them off as best I can in blocks. Then, as we just

witnessed, we’ll see a whole bunch of sections move through.

Just to put your mind on ease on that, so we don’t miss anything

on the overlap pieces.

I guess, really, at its core, though, with the used car and the

regionality of it, to get a better understanding by an online…. It’s

understood right now, because used car dealers aren’t part of these

changes. It’s just online private sales, is my understanding, with used

cars.

I will then go into my ICBC office, and I’ll be required to try to

prove, presumably, what the value of my car is. Those online rating

wholesale prices give it a good, fair or poor valuation, and then you

start getting into price ranges. But there’s that regionality to it

too.

Will those wholesale prices be dependent, city-specific? In other

words, I buy it online and I need to justify it in the jurisdiction that

I’m now registering it at ICBC at that valuation, or is it that I’m

justifying it based on a price point that may be in a different part of

the province?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: These industry publications each have somewhat slightly different

methodologies in their valuations, which is what staff are looking at in

order to identify which would meet our needs the best, and the public

can easily access these industry publications so that they can make

their best valuation about their vehicle.

It is organized by province so they could see within the context

of British Columbia, but if somebody doesn’t agree with the valuation,

if they don’t believe that’s accurate, then they can go and get an

appraisal in their local market and get an assessment that they think

might better reflect the value of their vehicle.

Clauses 46 and 47 approved.

On clause 48.

P. Milobar: This

section has a whole whack of more

definitions, again on

section 1 of the Provincial Sales Tax Act. The questions that I have are

specifically around the new

definitions and changes to

definitions

around fossil fuel combustion systems.

I’m just wondering. Recognizing this is going to be picked up in

some other sections to get that broader concept, what consultation with

industry — with groups that would be associated with fossil-fuel-burning

devices, combustion systems — did the ministry do leading up to the

insertion of the tax changes that would make a change in the tax rate to

12 percent?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think the member would be well aware that when there are tax

changes, we don’t go out and do consultation per se. However, staff did

reach out to other ministries, particularly around CleanBC, to research

with them around tools that can help change behaviours and purchasing of

equipment that would help mitigate climate change and help us achieve

our GHG emissions targets. It was with their research, expertise and

advice that these decisions were made.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

P. Milobar: I’m wondering if the minister is aware that B.C. is home to more

gas hearth products produced, and has more individuals employed in that

sector in B.C., than in any other state or province in North America. In

fact, there are over 60 member companies in that industry. They

manufacture, sell and distribute hearth products across B.C. and to the

outside markets. About 40 percent of gas hearth products sold in Canada

are in B.C. There are 3,000 direct jobs and another 7,000 indirect jobs

with this industry — which wasn’t consulted.

I ask that because when you read the “Provincial Sales Tax on

Fossil Fuel Combustion Systems and Heat Pumps” — the bulletin, the

notice that came out — and start looking at how component parts start to

be taxed, this piece of the industry has a very real concern on those

input costs. The bulletin seems to be written with the thought of a

homeowner purchasing a furnace and someone coming to install a furnace,

a thermostat and ductwork in your home, but there doesn’t seem to be

much thought to the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association members,

which is the largest in North America for jobs and production, in B.C.

here.

Was the minister aware of the significance of this industry to

British Columbia when this came forward?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think back to my previous answer to the member and about what it

is that we’re trying to achieve here. A single household switching from

a standard natural gas furnace to a heat pump can save over 1.7 tonnes

of GHG emissions per year. Supporting folks to make that transition is

absolutely critical. We know that all around this province there are

industry efforts being made to switch over, making sure that we do our

best, as a jurisdiction, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It’s not an

easy task.

I’m waving to the students who are leaving, and I’m sure that they

would agree that making sure that we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and

fight climate change — I’m getting thumbs up from everybody up there —

is absolutely critically important. It’s for their future that we think

it’s really important to make sure that they have a climate that is

resilient — a climate that they can live and raise their children in and

that the Chair’s grandbabies can grow old in. It’s for them that it’s

important that we make this transition.

[3:00 p.m.]

Having said that, I know it’s not easy, making change and

transitioning to technologies that protect our environment, protect

human health. I don’t think I have to say it to folks living in Lytton

or the folks in Princeton, the folks in Abbotsford about how critical it

is that we make these changes. It is hard.

We are also know, from the data, that there are real

opportunities, business opportunities, by making the transition. That

doesn’t mean it’s without growing pains. It doesn’t mean that it’s not

painful to make the switch. By not making the switch, we know…. How many

more lives do we need to lose, how many more farms need to be impacted,

how many more roads need to be washed away?

It’s for that reason that we’re trying to support British

Columbians to make the change, to reduce their GHG emissions so that the

next generation isn’t faced with the challenges that we’re faced

with.

P. Milobar: I don’t think anyone, including the industry, is opposed to energy

efficiencies. This is about added punitive extra costs that they feel

are unwarranted at this time for certain pieces of this.

The minister referenced that they do cross-ministry work and

development of this and connect. I’m going to read a little bit out of

the letter that I received from the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue

Association of Canada: “The imposition of the 5 percent additional PST

on fireplaces occurred without consulting the B.C. hearth industry. From

conception to implementation, this punitive and unfair tax was adopted

without transparency or due diligence even though the hearth industry

was in contact with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation on other issues.” Unfortunately, I guess those two ministries

didn’t want to chat about this behind the scenes. “Not one phone call,

email or heads-up of any type,” they say.

“Here’s why that’s important. The implementation of a fiscal

disincentive while adopting a fiscal incentive for heat pumps shows a

complete lack of understanding of the realities of heat pump technology

and research on their efficiency, the weather conditions and the

realities of ensuring B.C. residents have access to heat. Significant

implementation issues exist beyond the initial notice, which has created

additional costs and confusion for small business.

“Ambiguity in the legislation and the potential for different

interpretations of the rules increase the risk that retailers could be

held accountable to different

interpretations over time. Any accountant

or bookkeeper would have to be a fireplace/heating appliance expert to

be able to properly apply these rules.

“Even then, sales would need to be further categorized based on the

type of sale — cash, carry, install, repair, etc. Examples: fans. Fossil

fuel PST is not charged on fan accessories. So now fireplaces” —

remember, they manufacture fireplaces — “that ship with fans

preinstalled are being taxed more than fireplaces that ship with the fan

as an accessory.”

That’s backed up in the bulletin. It says it right there as an

example.

“That means, in many cases, the electronic ignition fireplaces,

which are required by legislation to reduce energy use, are being taxed

at a higher rate despite legislation and building code and rebates and

other directives trying to encourage consumers to choose electronic

ignition units for their increased efficiency.

“Fire boxes. Fire boxes come with burners. It would be

administratively impossible for those who do know the billing to know if

the liner and the log set from brand X are required or not. They may be

required on model A but not model B, and sometimes on model C.”

Why was the implementation date on a tax like this not delayed

until after it was presented and proper consultation could be done so

that the rules could actually make sense to the realities of how one of

the largest manufacturing sectors of its kind in North America operates

in B.C. but also how these units actually get delivered and get

installed?

Another example I have is that a thermostat could be charged zero

percent sales tax, 7 percent sales tax or 12 percent sales tax, and that

is on the advice of the Ministry of Finance staff to a wholesaler. This

seems to be quite a rushed mess in terms of trying to get to the root of

what the minister is trying to get at.

[3:05 p.m.]

Is there a willingness to take a step back and get these rules to

actually make sense to how the equipment is not only manufactured in

British Columbia but actually installed in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Robinson: We brought this in on budget day, February 22.The implementation

date of April 1, recognizing that we’re trying to balance giving the

industry time to adapt and adapt their systems, but also not so much

time as to have a run on the old model of taxation…. Again, I think the

member agrees that helping move people off of gas combustion is a good

thing and using tax as an incentive to help people make the right choice

is something that governments often do.

What we have is…. We do have guidance for the industry. I want to

remind the member and anyone watching that electric fireplaces are not

subject to this additional tax. The member was talking about how various

component parts might be taxed differently. But, really, if you’re

purchasing a system that uses gas, it is subject to this additional tax,

and the idea is to encourage people to move away from those sorts of

systems.

Staff are available to help industry make the appropriate

adjustments in order for them to be taxing appropriately, given that we

are making these changes.

P. Milobar: Well, the budget was introduced February 22. The implementation

date’s April 1, but, in fact, it makes very clear that everything has to

be held on February 23, in terms of any run on taxation changes. In

other words, you can still…. If you can show a valid contract, you can

fulfil that without the added tax for something that happened before

February 23, actually not April 1. That was already being addressed, and

it could have actually been moved out further so that we could have a

system that actually makes sense.

Here’s another group. This is the Heating, Refrigeration and Air

Conditioning Institute of Canada’s letter. This is what they had to

say:

“HRAI has been actively engaged with key B.C. ministries responsible

for the CleanBC climate action plan since the plan’s inception in 2018.

HRAI members understand fully the vital role our industry can play in

de-carbonizing homes and buildings as we collectively strive to meet

British Columbia’s climate change mitigation targets and those of the

entire country.

[3:10 p.m.]

“Our industry has been supportive and we have provided constructive

inputs on appropriate tactics for achieving these goals — tactics that

ensure better results through industry buy-in. We believe government and

industry collaboration is, and will continue to be, essential to meeting

the formidable challenges facing the province as it strives to tackle

climate change.

“It is very disappointing, therefore, that the provincewould

introduce tax measures that affect our sector so directly and so

significantly without providing any opportunity for consultation and

input. The new measures raise many questions for industry members and

will pose some real challenges to implement, especially in the extremely

tight time frame provided.

“HVAC contractors in the province, almost all of whom sell both

fossil-fuel-based systems and electric heat pump alternatives, will face

significant challenges sorting through and enacting the required

adjustments to their business systems. Indeed, the hasty introductions

of these tax measures risk alienating the very sector that is in the

position to act as a constructive partner for the government on its path

to a low-carbon future.

“HRAI respectfully requests that the government of British Columbia

consider delaying the implementation of these tax changes by six months

to allow them to better prepare.”

Again, the industry is not denying that transitions are happening.

The industry is not even saying that the tax measures are necessarily a

bad thing. What they’re saying is that they weren’t consulted. They’ve

been trying to be a partner on climate emission reduction strategies,

and now they’ve been ignored, with a tax change that is unworkable right

now and punitive to large portions of the province. So they’re pretty

clear that they support the overall goal, and they understand the

importance of homes on the carbon footprint of British Columbia

overall.

Will the minister take them up on their offer of a six-month

extension and provide that? And we could amend this today and have the

implementation be six months from now.

Hon. S. Robinson: I think the member knows full well that government doesn’t consult

on tax changes. It’s not something we’ve done. It’s certainly not

something that was done when they were in government. It’s just not good

practice, because it creates this risk of a run on certain products when

you are trying to create the shift.

We are, and I want to assure the member, in an ongoing dialogue

with the industry, the other ministries as well as my ministry. I have

been assured that revenue division is working with the industry to

facilitate the transition and that it is a priority for the revenue

division to support the industry with these tax changes.

P. Milobar: Well, part of the problem the industry and people have with this

change is not the concept of reducing the carbon footprint and not even

the concept of further incentivizing heat pumps because there’s already

a lot of different incentives out there for a heat pump, but it’s the

technology of the heat pump itself in certain areas of the

province.

When you have the vast majority of housing units and

fossil-fuel-burning appliances located in a part of the province that

actually can’t handle heat pumps for that purpose or an electric hot

water tank for that purpose, you could still be making significant gains

on emission standards, given that the older furnace in Prince George

that’s being replaced is still going to be replaced with a much more

energy efficient furnace than it currently has — not as obviously as a

heat pump.

[3:15 p.m.]

But considering a heat pump in Prince George needs to have a

fossil fuel backup heat source to it, as recommended…. Even when you go

to a B.C. Hydro webpage, it very clearly says to check with your

installer because not all heat pumps work the same in regional weather

conditions. They advise that a fossil-fuel-burning backup might be

needed.

Given that we could still make some gain on emissions as those

furnaces get replaced with a newer technology gas furnace while still

incentivizing and making sure that the Lower Mainland and the capital

regional district…. It actually maximizes the heat pump technology in

the short term — awaiting heat pump technology to improve and get

better, as it undoubtedly will. Why are there not regional differences

in this tax measure to enable people that live in areas that are simply

technologically disadvantaged, because of the heat pump technology, from

having severely economically punitive measures taken against

them?

It’s not just the tax differential. That’s the small part of the

equation. A cold-rated heat pump is around $20,000. It’s two, 2½ times

more expensive than the same heat pump to fuel the same house in the

Lower Mainland. That’s the punitive nature of this. Then they still

would have to have that fossil-fuel-burning backup.

Why was there no regional aspect brought into this measure while

we wait for heat pump technology to catch up to the climate of large

geographic areas of our province?

Hon. S. Robinson: Heat pump technology continues to grow by leaps and bounds. We now

know that people in colder climates in B.C. can benefit from the

efficiency and the savings that are associated with the cleaner option.

Even the Yukon has been promoting heat pumps. They have said in a quote

from the government there that they’re a proven technology that works in

Yukon’s cold climate down to minus 25 Celsius.

In Manitoba, as well, there’s a specialist there from Arctic Heat

Pumps that talks about covering your heating needs down to minus 30.

They recognize that there has been a technological change.

Having recognized that in colder climates, you need a slightly,

I’ll say, more sophisticated system, because of the colder climates, we

recognize that there are additional costs in those parts of the province

that are perhaps colder. That’s why we’ve added $16 million in new

top-up incentives specifically for people in colder climates, in

northern communities, so that we can make heat pumps affordable for them

as well.

We recognize that, and that’s why we have an added incentive to

support those living in colder climates.

Clauses 48 to 51 inclusive approved.

On clause 52.

[3:20 p.m.]

P. Milobar: This is where we are in terms of determining the price of the

motor vehicles. I’m just wondering if the minister can provide more

detail.

I go into ICBC. I say I paid $5,000 for the car. Can the minister

walk me through the process of how exactly the average wholesale price

will be brought into that transaction as the ICBC clerk is processing my

paperwork so I can register the vehicle I’ve purchased?

Hon. S. Robinson: This is, of course, for a private sale. If you purchased the

vehicle, you would go to ICBC. You would get a transfer form from them.

You’d fill it out. You would include the purchase price on the form. The

clerk at ICBC would review the form, take a look at the industry

publication and compare the price. They would confirm the higher of the

two values. I mean, they could be the same price, but if it’s the same

price, it’s the same price. That would be the tax on which you would be

subject to pay.

I’m going to anticipate the member’s next question, so perhaps I

could answer it before he even asks it. If, in purchasing the vehicle,

there was a determination that the book value was not adequate, didn’t

represent…. Perhaps the vehicle had been in a significant accident and

so didn’t really match, and they just chose to go to an acceptable

appraiser to get a third-party valuation of the vehicle. That would be

submitted with the transfer form. The clerk would take a look at it and

make sure that it is from an appropriate appraiser, and that would be

the value that you would pay the tax on.

P. Milobar: Well, appraisers aren’t free. You go to a mechanical shop or some

other car valuator, and their time is worth something. They’re not going

to do things for free. They have a duty that they swear to just like a

provincial car inspector — that’s a mechanic licenced to inspect the

roadworthiness of a car and sign off on it. They have a certain

obligation to deal with things.

Mechanics have an obligation. If they see mechanical failures,

they can’t allow it to leave back out on the road. These appraisers and

that would have the same duty of care to provide. That doesn’t come

free. It’s not easy to necessarily book.

[3:25 p.m.]

I say that because if you go to a car dealer or your car is in an

auction house, those ratings of fair and good and mint — or whatever the

terminology they want to use for their scaling system to determine the

wholesale price of a car — are based on a visual inspection of the car.

It turns into a big amalgamation of various…. The same car and model,

years and trim lines and everything else, so trim line starts to become

important. That’s never on a transfer paper. You don’t say whether it’s

an SLE or an SLT or what. That makes a huge difference to a vehicle — a

trim line, whether it has leather or not.

There’s a massive differential between what information is on a

transfer paper for ICBC versus what would go into a Blue Book wholesale

valuation. So we now either have to rely on someone from one of the ICBC

offices to walk out and make that judgment call on a car that might not

be there, because it doesn’t have to be there to get plates…. How did

you get it there in the first place if it doesn’t have plates? It could

be in a different town completely that you are insuring before you go

pick it up, so you can drive it back to town.

There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of thought put into this on

vehicles that, for the most part, are probably $20,000 and less that

we’re talking about. More expensive vehicles tend to either wind up on

dealerships or tend to be…. The paperwork is more reflective of the

value. Why the urgency to do something along these lines when the

minister’s own budget book says that it directly impacts low- and

middle-income families? There does not seem to be an easy way for

somebody to justify the price they paid for a vehicle strictly by the

paperwork and a Blue Book.

I would just point out to the minister that my understanding right

now is that when people attest to a transfer paper, they’ve attested to

the price. There’s already the ability for a government to go back in

and to audit if they don’t believe the purchase price. Why are we

treating everyone like a criminal and creating a major bureaucratic

nightmare based on so many other intangibles that go into the valuation

of a car, especially a used car?

A new car is pretty easy to figure out. A used car has every

variable under the sun, from how bald its tires are, what its brakes are

like, how many scratches, does it have rust or doesn’t it have rust,

mileage, you name it. Does the air conditioner actually work or not.

None of that would show up on a transfer form.

Why is this becoming so cumbersome to try to essentially capture

what some on the government side have said are tax cheats when there’s

already an auditing process in place on these forms?

Hon. S. Robinson: The government has been studying this since 2014 and doing the

analysis and has been finding fairly consistently, even with the

declaration form, consistent purchase prices that are below the

wholesale value. It’s been fairly consistent. So looking for ways to

make sure that it’s a fair system right across the board…. I also don’t

know if the member is aware that we’re the only province that has a

sales tax that doesn’t use this system.

[3:30 p.m.]

If all the other provinces have figured out how to make a system

fair so that everyone is paying fairly — everyone right across the

country is doing it, except for Alberta, where they don’t have a sales

tax — I’m sure that we can figure out, as well, how to make it as simple

and as seamless as possible.

Clauses 52 to 57 inclusive approved.

On clause 58.

P. Milobar: The last answer from the minister, I guess, just reaffirms what

I’ll be saying next. It’s been in the works since 2014, eight years,

because it’s not as simple to try to enact something that won’t wind up

being bureaucratic and problematic for the public. It strikes me as

seeking a problem to a proposed solution instead of the other way

around.

These are tough times out there. The timing’s incredibly poor. The

minister’s own budget book says that it will disproportionately impact

low- and middle-income homes. It says it very clearly on page 91. That

makes sense, because vehicles from $20,000 and under would be the bulk

of the vehicles that lower- and middle-income families would

buy.

It also says it impacts rural areas disproportionately. That makes

sense. When I go for a drive in my riding to get to the northern end of

it, I don’t pass used-car dealerships anywhere, all along Highway 5.

They don’t exist. Everything is done on the online marketplace, on

highway, and you make a phone call. They’re not high-end vehicles.

They’re just vehicles people are trying to use to traverse large

distances in this province.

I do appreciate, though, what the minister said about trying to

make things fair and easy and workable. To that end, I would like to

propose an amendment to clause 58,

section 34. I’ve provided copies to

the table, and I’ll await the Chair’s instruction as to how she would

like me to proceed.

[ CLAUSE 58 , by deleting the text shown as struck

out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Section 34 is amended

(

a) in subsection (3) by striking out

“ subsections (3.1), (5) and (6) ” and

substituting “ subsections (3.1), (5), (6) ,

and (6.1) and

(6.2) ”,

(

b) in subsection (3.1) by striking out

“ subsections (5) and (6) ” and substituting

“ subsections (5), (6) ,

and (6.1) and

(6.2) ”,

(

c) in subsection (4) by striking out

“ Subsections (5) and (6) ” and substituting

“ Subsections (5), (6) ,

and (6.1) and

(6.2) ”,

(

d) in subsection (5) by striking out

“ subsection (6) ” and

substituting“ subsections (6) ,

and (6.1) and

(6.2) ”,

(

e) in subsection (6) by adding

“ , other than a passenger vehicle that is a

zero-emission vehicle , or a used passenger vehicle as defined in

subsection (6.2) , ” after “ a passenger

vehicle ”, and

(

f) by adding the following subsection:

(6.1) The rate of tax payable under sections 37,

49 (6) (a), 50 (2) (a), 51 (6), 52 and 81

to 86 on a passenger vehicle that is a zero-emission vehicle is as

follows:

(a) 7% of the purchase price of the zero-emission vehicle,

if the original purchase price is less than $75 000;

(b) 8% of the purchase price of the zero-emission vehicle,

if the original purchase price is $75 000 or more but less than

$76 000;

(c) 9% of the purchase price of the zero-emission vehicle,

if the original purchase price is $76 000 or more but less than

$77 000;

(d) 10% of the purchase price of the zero-emission

vehicle, if the original purchase price is $77 000 or more but less than

$125 000;

(e) 15% of the purchase price of the zero-emission

vehicle, if the original purchase price is $125 000 or more but less

than $150 000;

(f) 20% of the purchase price of the zero-emission

vehicle, if the original purchase price is $150 000 or

more.

(

g) by adding the following subsection:

(6.2) (

a) In this subsection,

“used passenger vehicle”

means a passenger vehicle that has been

(

i) previously purchased, and

(ii) driven at least 6,000 kilometers.

(

b) The rate of tax payable under sections 37,

49 (6) (a), 50 (2) (a), 51 (6), 52 and

81 to 86 on a passenger vehicle that is a used passenger vehicle is

0% of the purchase price of the used passenger vehicle, if the

purchase price of the used passenger vehicle is less than $20

000; ]

The Chair: We’ll call a short recess to circulate the copies.

The committee recessed from 3:33 p.m. to 3:39 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order. We’re dealing with a

proposed amendment, at this time, on Bill 6.

On the amendment.

P. Milobar: This amendment is for clause 58 of Bill 6,

section 34. I’ll just

read it briefly: “…is amended (

a) in subsection (3) by striking out

‘subsections (3.1), (5) and (6)’ and substituting ‘subsections (3.1),

(5), (6)’” — striking “and” — “(6.1) and (6.2).” Essentially, what we’re

doing throughout it is we’re striking out the word “and,” adding in a

new section (6.2), except for in (c), where there is no addition of

(6.2). “(

e) in subsection (6) by adding ‘, other than a passenger

vehicle that is a zero-emission vehicle, or a used passenger vehicle as

defined in subsection (6.2).”

[3:40 p.m.]

We’re adding in a

section (

g) after (

f) by adding the following

subsection: “(6.2) (

a) In this subsection, ‘used passenger vehicle’

means a passenger vehicle that has been (

i) previously purchased, and

(ii) driven at least 6,000 kilometers. (

b) The rate of tax payable under

sections 37, 49 (6) (a), 50 (2) (a), 51 (6), 52 and 81 to 86 on a

passenger vehicle that is a used passenger vehicle is 0% of the purchase

price of the used passenger vehicle, if the purchase price of the used

passenger vehicle is less than $20 000.”

What this would do is align that this is now a used vehicle. It

would be at the 6,000-kilometre threshold, just as an EV vehicle is

being defined as a used EV vehicle. What it would do is set that any

vehicle, essentially, under $20,000 in British Columbia, regardless of

fuel source to power it, would not have to pay a tax if it was valued

under $20,000. This would apply to car dealerships as well as private

sales.

It would be a recognition that in these economic times people are

struggling to get by. Used vehicles are in high demand as an affordable

way to try to move around the province, to try to get on with their

daily lives, to try to get to work, to try to get their kids to school

and activities and events. It seems to be a much simpler way to be fair,

as the minister was saying earlier. Treat everyone fairly. Treat

everyone, regardless of geography, regardless of where they may be

buying the vehicle — be it in a dealership or be it online through a

private sale — with the benefit of being able to purchase that vehicle

in an affordable fashion.

I will point out that the average used-vehicle car sale in British

Columbia is just under $35,000 — the value of a used car in British

Columbia, on average. So by capping this at $20,000, it’s really meant

to try to actually help those low- and middle-income families that, as

the minister’s budget document points out, would be otherwise harmed by

the change to the used-car provisions that the minister was trying to

enact within this budget.

Now, I know, given previous sections, 2 to 7 for one, where the

ministerial pay raises came into play…. I think in a time like this,

within the same document, it would send a very good signal to the public

that although cabinet and the Premier were ensuring pay raises within

Bill 6, they also actually had some provisions that would help low- and

middle-income families in Bill 6 as well.

That’s what this amendment would do. It would enable any car under

$20,000 to not trigger provincial sales tax. And let’s remember these

are all vehicles that are used, which means they have already paid

provincial sales tax at a much higher value at some point in their

life.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We’ve certainly taken a look at it. We’ve had several sets of eyes

taking a look at this amendment, and it really is a significant policy

change, which is not anything that has been analyzed to see what the

implications are. No other province has something like this — so it’s

very significant — in all of Canada.

There is some concern around this amendment and the potential

loophole that it could create, given how it’s written, where someone

could have a vehicle that is relatively new, driven at least 6,000

kilometres, but without using book value could just say: “Well, I’m just

going to put on the form $20,000, and then you don’t have to pay the tax

on it.” So there’s a potential risk of undervaluing a vehicle in the way

that they’re reading this particular amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I will call on Kamloops–North

Thompson to close debate.

P. Milobar: Well, we didn’t have anything in this…. In fact, the provision

around book value was in previous sections. This doesn’t change the

definition of “book value.” So that provision would stay in place. In

fact, this is the same….

If it’s a loophole for a combustion engine vehicle at 6,000

kilometres to then be sold as used, I don’t see how that would not be

the same, then, for an electric vehicle. The mileage we used was the

exact same as the mileage being used for electric vehicles. We don’t

take issue with that. That’s why these amendments do not change

that.

What this amendment does is it changes the tax rate to zero

percent for a used vehicle of any type of combustion or emission source

if it’s under $20,000 and has 6,000 kilometres or more on it.

The fact that no other jurisdiction in Canada…. That’s not an

excuse not to do something. In fact, I would implore the minister and

this government to be leaders in the nation and actually take a bold

step to provide affordability for those low- and middle-income people

that her own budget book says an added tax on used vehicles will

disproportionately hurt.

With that, I look forward to the question being called and the

vote. I’m hoping that the government will see their way to support

this.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member sort of clarifying the intent. Again, this

is a significant policy change, and it’s not something that government

is contemplating.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I will call the question. Shall

the amendment to clause 58 pass?

Division has been called.

[3:50 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Cadieux

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Furstenau

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Paton

Ross

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Wat

NAYS — 51

Alexis

Anderson

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D’Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mark

Mercier

Osborne

Paddon

Popham

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

Clauses 58 to 79 inclusive approved.

On clause 80.

P. Milobar: I thought I tested the patience of the minister yesterday. I might

as well test your patience today.

[4:05 p.m.]

This appears to be predominantly around the online marketplace

changes and

definitions and whatnot. Can the minister just give us a

broader overview? There seems to be a lot of confusion out there of when

someone would have to charge, whether or not a marketplace seller is

anyone or not? So if we could get a general clarification statement,

that would be great.

Hon. S. Robinson: What this does is require online market facilitators — these are

websites that facilitate transactions, like Etsy or Airbnb or eBay — to

collect and remit PST. It actually relieves the seller from the burden

of having to make that collection.

I want to make sure and read into the record — and I suspect the

member might know this; I don’t know if the folks watching at home might

not know this — we’re not talking about Craigslist here. We’re not

talking about Facebook Marketplace. We’re talking about online platforms

that actually collect revenues. Craigslist and Facebook Marketplace

aren’t collecting anything. They’re just making the…. In Yiddish, they

call it the shidduch , the match. But then the exchange happens

between individuals. This is different when the actual website collects

the funds.

[4:10 p.m.]

It does a number of things. It strengthens, certainly, consistency

of PST collections, making sure that it’s fair. It relieves the burden

from small businesses that are using these facilitators.

This isn’t new. This is an existing requirement. It’s just a way,

as well, of levelling the playing field with brick-and-mortar businesses

that are charging the PST and collecting the PST, and it certainly

catches out-of-province sellers as well.

P. Milobar: Some of the larger platforms, it’s my understanding, like a

Facebook Marketplace and others, are tinkering with modelling, piloting

— whatever word you want to use — the ability to be that flow-through

payment option for the seller and the purchaser. If a Facebook

Marketplace developed that as part of their platform, then that would be

subject to this tax?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. It’s really hard to judge

because we don’t know what they’re going to do. The technology,

certainly, continues to evolve and change, and how it gets used evolves

and changes. We constantly are monitoring to make sure that we have a….

Tax fairness is a principle, I think, of all governments — making sure

that everyone is paying their share. So it’s really hard to comment on

the member’s example, because we just don’t know how that would

evolve.

Once that changes, we’ll certainly take a look at it and do the

analysis to see if it meets some of the requirements that we’re looking

at in terms of keeping a level playing field between bricks-and-mortar

stores, for example, and understanding, if Facebook is going to be

changing, how they facilitate exchanges. We’d have to see exactly how

they’re doing that and how resources are collected. It’s really hard to

understand when we don’t really know exactly what’s being

proposed.

Clauses 80 to 99 inclusive approved.

On clause 100.

P. Milobar: I recognize that we’ve already canvassed this a little bit

already. This is around, it appears to me, the Blue Book, Black Book,

Red Book — whatever book you want. It starts to sound like a Dr. Seuss

in terms of used car sales. Again, there’s a regionality to the pricing

that seems to happen, and we seem to be getting some mixed messages

here.

Bill 12, I guess, has the potential for regionality in it by

regulation. That’s under this minister’s purview. I had asked questions

around heating appliances and trying to have some interim regionality to

the tax measures so that people in one part of the province’s geography

wouldn’t necessarily be subject to different taxes or a different, more

punitive taxation regime based on technology availability, or not, for

heating their homes. That’s a pretty basic thing to have to

do.

Yet when it comes to used cars, it’s very well established — and I

think I established that earlier with the minister and she acknowledged

— that these pricing models, these blue books, use a regionality to

them.

[4:15 p.m.]

Can the minister explain why a regionality for a heating system

that’s critical to people having an ability to weather a winter season

doesn’t seem appropriate, but a regionality on a used vehicle — when by

her own budget book, the bulk of these used vehicles that will be

captured are in rural areas — is fair and appropriate?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to recognize that what we’re doing here is

creating a floor, a minimum standard for how the PST is to be applied

with a minimum consistency across the province. It might very well be

that a truck that is purchased in the Lower Mainland might be 40 percent

above book value, and the PST will be paid on that price. In the north

or in rural British Columbia or another part of British Columbia, that

same truck might be sold at the book value, at the wholesale value, and

the PST would be paid on that.

It’s just really about creating a floor so that everyone is

starting from the same place. There might still be regional differences

in how it’s sold. In fact, there is an expectation that most used

vehicles are sold at higher than the wholesale value. So again, those

regional differences will play out as they might.

I also, just in the comparison that the member was making….

Recognizing that you need different equipment for different parts of the

province when you’re heating your home — that makes sense. You might

need a truck in rural British Columbia — fair enough. But that same

truck might be part of somebody’s use in the Lower Mainland or south

Island, and they would be valued based on what the market of that region

is. But the wholesale price is just the base level.

Clauses 100 to 102 inclusive approved.

On clause 103.

[4:20 p.m.]

P. Milobar: If I can put back on my muni-elected hat from years gone by, class

4 was always a problematic class to deal with in terms of mill rates and

things of that nature, depending on how much heavy industry you actually

have in your community or not, so I recognize this is about removing

that, and it’s supposed to have some sort of an offset.

Can the minister explain, if the offset is intended to be the

same, why the need to remove something that seems to have been working

reasonably well from 2014 until this year and replace it with something

different? Or is it indeed not a true one-for-one change-out of

programs?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member asking for the rationale for this

amendment. The benefit provided through the industrial property tax

credit can be done more simply through setting a lower school tax rate

for that class. The industrial property tax credit is a trade irritant

that the member spoke to, and creates unnecessary complexity in the tax

system. So in Budget 2022, we said that the tax rate for the 2023 tax

year would be reduced to offset the loss of the tax credit.

I want to assure the member that this is not an increase. It’s

just a simpler way to deliver this. School taxation revenue from the

major industry class has been stable under our government, and the

effective tax rate is considerably lower than typical municipal tax

rates on the major industry class.

P. Milobar: I could always get into this, I guess, a little bit more in

estimates, so I’ll just ask the one more question, then, on this. So

just for certainty’s sake, can we get a better understanding of what the

value of the tax credits were previously, and what the valuation on the

mill rate reduction will be for this year?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank Genevieve for joining us — one of my staff here to

help us through this.

An owner of class 4 property is entitled to a credit equal to 60

percent of the school tax levied in the taxation year on the class 4

property. The member is looking for specific dollar amounts. I’m happy

to get back to him in writing. We don’t have those numbers here with us

today.

Clauses 103 to 105 inclusive approved.

On clause 106.

P. Milobar: This seems to have a commencement date, if I remember correctly,

of November 27, 2018. I’m assuming that was a significant watershed date

with the speculation and vacancy tax, but admittedly, I was not paying

that close of attention, because I was the critic for the Environment

Minister at the time. Can we just get an explanation why, basically,

it’s backdated — it’s going back to a new commencement of November 27,

2018?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The amendment ensures that non-B.C. residents who may be eligible

for a tax credit maintain the ability to apply for it even if they

receive a notice of assessment or re-assessment or after the result of

an appeal to the minister near the end of or after the normal three-year

application period.

It extends the normal application deadline for the speculation and

vacancy tax credit for eligible taxpayers, non-B.C. residents, in

certain circumstances. It’s effective as of November 27, 2018, which is

the effective date. The effective date makes the change retroactive to

the coming into force of the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act.

Clauses 106 to 108 inclusive approved.

On clause 109.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move the amendment to clause 109 that is in the possession of

the Clerk.

[ CLAUSE 109, by deleting the text shown as struck out and

adding the underlined text as shown:

Section 1 of the Tobacco Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.

452, is amended

(

a) in subsection (1) by repealing the definition of

“tangible personal property”, and

(

b) by repealing subsection (2) (

b) and substituting the

following:

(

b) in sections 22 (2), 27 (3),

39 (4) (

d) and

43 (2) (b). and 43 (2) (b),

. ]

The Chair: We’ll take a short recess to distribute the

amendment.

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:34 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ve got a proposed amendment, I understand.

Minister of Finance.

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is required to correct a drafting error, and it

replaces a period with a comma.

Amendment approved.

Clause 109 as amended approved.

Clauses 110 to 122 inclusive approved.

On clause 123.

[4:35 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Being one that’s always curious around consistency of wording

myself, I appreciate the grammatical change in the previous amendment by

the minister. But it leads me to some questions on a couple of upcoming

sections here.

On this one, on clause 123, if I look at the wording, it says:

“provides authority for regulations under the specified provisions to be

made retroactive.” Then when you go into the actual change, it’s the

regulation, the Motor Fuel Act: “on or before December 31…may be made

retroactive to February 23, 2022 or a later date.” And if made

retroactive, “is deemed to have come into force on the specified

date.”

I’m curious, because these are pretty recent dates. Yet the

language “retroactive” is used very clearly to demonstrate that it’s

something to capture something in the past. Yet when we were debating

clauses 2 through 7, which very much dealt with retroactivity — in fact,

clauses 2 to 7 comes into effect as of April 1, 2021 — not only is the

word “retroactive” not used anywhere in the descriptions, the minister

refused to acknowledge it as a concept. So I’m just wondering why, in

clause 123, descriptors such as “retroactive” would be deemed

appropriate?

Hon. S. Robinson: The Motor Vehicle Act does not provide authority for regulations

to be made retroactive. For this reason, specific authority is required.

Budget 2022 includes amendments to the motor vehicle tax regulation that

require retroactive effect. Specifically, while the motor fuel tax

regulation currently allows for annual tax return filing, the annual

period is limited to July 1 to June 30. The MFTR, as it’s called, will

be amended to authorize tax return filing for an annual period specified

by the director or the statutory decision-maker.

Clauses 123 to 128 inclusive approved.

On clause 129.

P. Milobar: So again, there’s that pesky retroactive word in the descriptions

as well as in the actual amendment. Again, clauses 2 through 7 dealt

with the pay raise for cabinet. No mention of retroactive at all, even

though its commencement date is April 1, 2021.

Here we have a regulation in a much tighter time frame, again,

being referred to as retroactive. I can only surmise, with the

minister’s previous answer, that pay provisions allow for retroactive

decisions to be made. I’m sure all of the unions that are negotiating

right now on the public sector bargaining table will be interested to

hear that in light of what the cabinet did with their pay raises

yesterday.

Again, why is retroactive used so regularly on these types of

provisions, yet not on ministerial pay raises that took effect as of a

year ago?

Hon. S. Robinson: So the exemption for used zero-emission vehicles will be made in

regulation, which is how most PST exemptions are made. The Provincial

Sales Tax Act does not provide authority for regulations to be made

retroactive. For this reason, specific authority is required.

[4:40 p.m.]

Budget 2022 includes amendments to two PST regulations that

require retroactive effect in order to enact the used zero-emission

vehicle exemption. As I explained yesterday, the holdback provision

doesn’t finalize until July or August when the public accounts are

reviewed. It’s for the reason that these are completely different

things.

Clause 129 approved.

On clause 130.

P. Milobar: Just to correct something, the minister confirmed this, that the

pay raise does not rely on public accounts anymore. It’ll probably get

processed faster than people waiting for their $110 cheque from ICBC,

because the provision for a balanced budget that required the holdback

was removed yesterday as well. There’s no need to wait for public

accounts because it doesn’t matter if the collective budget is out of

deficit or not.

The minister confirmed yesterday that the payments will be out as

soon as payroll can start processing them. She wasn’t sure what that

timeline was, but it would be in the next short while. So the public

accounts have nothing to do with the pay raise that was granted

retroactively yesterday to cabinet. Like I say, in all likelihood that

pay raise will be out long before people see their $110 rebate cheques

from ICBC — long before. We’ve heard that it will be the end of May at

best.

I want to make sure that we’re clear, because that was the

minister’s answer yesterday. Again, we’re into “retroactive” on 130. I’m

just wondering why the retroactive provisions fit 130 but didn’t fit

yesterday in clauses 2 through 7, when it relates to a ministerial pay

raise that takes effect as of April 1, 2021.

Hon. S. Robinson: I will read into the record about what we’re doing here on clause

130. Exempting heat pumps from PST along with increasing the PST on

fossil fuel combustion systems by five percentage points will

incentivize, of course, switching buildings from a fossil fuel heating

system to a heat pump — which we all know and I think we can agree on —

will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, which is something that is

really important to all of us. Of course, the PST does not provide

authority for regulations to be made retroactive. For this reason,

specific authority is required.

I will say that I’m really starting to take significant offence

that the member keeps talking about a pay raise when anyone can take a

look at what executive council is paid on the website. It’s right there.

No one will get a penny more than what is listed on that. I know that

the member prefers to characterize it in a disrespectful way that, I

think, is not accurate. But I would invite anyone who is listening,

anyone who is watching, to take a look on the website. They will see on

the website what the pay is for members of executive council, and no one

will get anything beyond what is listed on that website.

Clause 130 approved.

On clause 131.

P. Milobar: I am trying to stick to the clauses, but the minister keeps

wanting to defend the pay raise, so I’ll just correct one thing. We’re

probably going to keep disagreeing on this, but the bottom line is if

someone has to change a law to ensure that they get a cheque for more

money in their bank account because they’ve changed the provisions of

how they get paid — in the real world, that’s a pay raise. That’s how

that’s looked at.

I noticed there were quite a few public sector organizations

yesterday that took note as well. They are currently negotiating with

this minister, so I can see where she’s probably a little sensitive to

that. Regardless, the rules yesterday were changed. An extra $5,600

cheque will be coming to cabinet ministers in the next short while after

they changed the rules, well ahead of the $110 cheque that residents

will expect from ICBC. Again, that was to take effect as of April 1,

2021. As we stand here on April 6, 2022, the minister ahs refused to

acknowledge that it was retroactive.

[4:45 p.m.]

Yet here we are again with another clause, with much shorter

timelines to this, with the word “retroactive” all over. I think this is

the last time that we see “retroactive” in this bill. I’m just wondering

if the minister can once again explain to us: “A regulation made on or

before December 31, 2022 under

section 236 or 241 of the Provincial

Sales Tax Act respecting tobacco may be made retroactive to July 1, 2022

or a later date, and if made retroactive is deemed to have come into

force on the specified date.”

That is classified as retroactive language and a retroactive

clause, yet something that takes force and effect after being passed on

April 5, 2022, to commence on April 1, 2021, is not deemed retroactive.

I think the public would like to understand the difference between what

is considered retroactive by the minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: On clause 131, the reason for this amendment is that if there are

any regulation amendments to be made consequential to the removal of the

PST exemption for tobacco, it is desirable that these amendments be

given effect on July 1, 2022.

The PSTA does not provide authority for regulations to be made

retroactive, and because the timing for royal assent on the budget bill

is not certain, it’s difficult to predict if an OIC package with

consequential amendments, if any are to be made, will proceed to cabinet

ahead of July 1, 2022. For this reason, clause 131 provides specific

authority to make tobacco-related regulations under the PSTA retroactive

to July 1, 2022.

Clauses 131 to 133 inclusive approved.

On clause 134.

P. Milobar: Well, there seemed to be a little ambiguity around sections 2

through 7 on the front end of this, around whether we were dealing with

things that were retroactive or not. So I rise to propose an amendment.

I believe copies have been made to the table. I can wait to speak to it

after it’s been distributed, if the Chair would like.

[ CLAUSE 134, by deleting the text shown as

struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Commencement

134 The provisions of this Act referred to in

column 1 of the following table come into force as set out in column 2

of the table:

Item

Column 1

Provisions of Act

Column 2

Commencement

Anything not elsewhere covered by this table

The date of Royal Assent

Sections 2 to 7

April 1, 2021 2022

Sections 12 to 17

October 1, 2022

Sections 18 and 19

February 23, 2022

Section 22

February 22, 2022

Section 27

February 23, 2022

Sections 28 and 29

October 1, 2022

Section 32

April 1, 2022

Sections 33 to 36

October 1, 2022

Sections 38 and 39

October 1, 2022

Sections 41 to 43

October 1, 2022

Section 44

April 1, 2022

Sections 45 and 46

October 1, 2022

Section 47

July 1, 2022

Section 48

April 1, 2022

Sections 49 and 50

February 23, 2022

Section 51

July 1, 2022

Sections 52 and 53

October 1, 2022

Sections 54 and 55

July 1, 2022

Section 56

February 23, 2022

Section 57

July 1, 2022

Section 58

February 23, 2022

Section 59

February 23, 2027

Section 60

April 1, 2022

Section 61

February 23, 2022

Section 62

February 23, 2027

Section 63

April 1, 2022

Section 64

February 23, 2022

Section 65

February 23, 2027

Section 66

April 1, 2022

Section 67

February 23, 2022

Section 68

February 23, 2027

Section 69

February 23, 2022

Section 70

February 23, 2027

Section 71

April 1, 2022

Sections 72 to 75

April 1, 2013

Section 76

February 23, 2022

Section 77

February 23, 2027

Section 78

February 23, 2022

Section 79

February 23, 2027

Sections 80 to 97

July 1, 2022

Sections 98 to 100

October 1, 2022

Sections 101 and 102

July 1, 2022

Section 104

November 1, 2021

Section 106

November 27, 2018

Sections 107 and 108

October 1, 2022

Section 109

July 1, 2022

Sections 110 to 112

October 1, 2022

Sections 113 and 114

July 1, 2022

Section 115

October 1, 2022

Sections 117 to 122

October 1, 2022

Section 124

October 1, 2022

Sections 125 to 127

April 1, 2022

Section 128

October 1, 2022

Section 130

April 1, 2022

Section 131

July 1, 2022

Sections 132 and 133

October 1, 2022

The Chair: Yes, we’ll take a short recess to ensure that all members who

want to read the amendment get that chance. This House will be in a

short recess.

The committee recessed from 4:47 p.m. to 4:55 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. We are here with a proposed amendment to

clause 134.

On the amendment.

P. Milobar: This is for clause 134, the commencement schedule. There are

always two columns, so this is to deal with item 2, column 1, sections 2

to 7. The change is actually in column 2, the commencement date, which

would change the commencement date from April 1, 2021, to April 1,

What this would do is it would give the government the ability to

recognize the egregious nature of trying to do a retroactive pay hike

for cabinet. It would give, especially, the backbench members — who have

undoubtedly started to hear from constituents that people are not too

impressed with the way they voted yesterday on their standing vote —

time to ensure that retroactive pay hike that was not really discussed

or talked about up until yesterday in any meaningful way whatsoever, in

fact, not even acknowledged….

Really, it’s not changing any of the other pieces of the

legislation that was changed yesterday to ensure that cabinet can

receive their 10 percent of pay regardless of what is happening with the

provincial finances, as they’ve changed the legislation to ensure that

will happen for budget year 2022-2023.

Having a commencement date now match up to the budget book, where

this was first mentioned, which was Budget 2022-2023 — it was not

discussed for Budget 2021-2022 at all — would actually align things more

with what public expectation would be with how people should be

conducting — whether or not they want to change the provisions of how

they have pay provided to them and the conditions under which salary

will be disbursed or not.

It’s a fairly simple amendment. It literally is taking the date,

2021, and making it the more appropriate 2022. It does not touch any of

those other issues that we expressed yesterday with the changing of the

rules around deficit spending of governments and the waiving of the

holdback by ministers. This strictly aligns the date to the budget book

that it was referenced in — the budget book that people assumed that

change was going to start happening in. It provides better transparency,

for once, out of this government on how things are being

conducted.

The Chair: The amendment fails, but division has been called.

[5:00 p.m. - 5:10 p.m.]

All right, Members, we’re here for a proposed amendment moved

by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson to clause 134.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Cadieux

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Olsen

Paton

Ross

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Tegart

Wat

NAYS — 51

Alexis

Anderson

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D’Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mark

Mercier

Osborne

Paddon

Popham

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

Clause 134 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to just take a moment to thank staff. I want to thank the

member opposite for good questions about significant changes and just

the exchange of ideas. I certainly welcome them.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:14 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 6 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT,

Bill 6, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2022, reported complete

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

today.

Hon. R. Fleming: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 14, Wildlife Amendment

Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — WILDLIFE

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 5:17 p.m.

The Chair: Members, I am going to suggest that we take a short recess to

allow staff and appropriate parties to arrive.

The committee recessed from 5:17 p.m. to 5:21 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 1.

The Chair: All right. Members, we are here on Bill 14, the Wildlife

Amendment Act, 2022.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m happy to be here for committee stage on the Wildlife Amendment

Act, 2022. I’d like to introduce my staff with me. With me are my deputy

minister, Rick Manwaring; our assistant deputy minister — we are

currently sharing him — David Muter; director of legislation, Yimmie

Sonuga; and Jennifer Psyllakis, execu­tive director for

wildlife.

I don’t need to say anything more. I’ll turn it over to the

critic.

J. Rustad: This will be a little bit awkward. I apologize for not being able

to be in the Legislature here today as we go through the starting

process of Bill 14.

Bill 14, although it is not a lengthy bill…. There is a lot to

this bill that needs to be discussed around this. Wildlife in British

Columbia is, of course, as the minister said in her opening statements,

something that is unique in that all people in British Columbia have a

unique relationship with it. It’s not just First Nations. All people

view wildlife so importantly in this province. I think it’s why we do

need to take some time, going through committee stage on this bill, to

understand the intent of what the minister is trying to do with this

bill.

I was born and raised in British Columbia, as the minister was,

and served in the Legislature for, I think, the same length of time that

the minister has, and wildlife is something that has always come up as a

topic, as an issue. But quite frankly, we have seen it in decline,

particularly the ungulate species in decline, for many years now. The

only thing that seems to be doing very well these days is predators,

which, of course, are on the increase. There certainly seems to be a bit

of a relationship there.

With Bill 14, the Wildlife Amendment Act, we seem to be veering

away from provincial management to wildlife and allowing for more

individual management within areas. I find that particular component

troubling for that reason, because provincial jurisdiction over

wildlife, over the environment and wildlife, is something, I think, that

is very clear.

Even through treaties and what have you that have been created in

the province, it’s always been very clear [audio interrupted] that there

are provisions to allow for the hunting, to allow for the harvesting.

But the responsibility around it and the rules around it need to be laid

out by the province.

[5:25 p.m.]

I’m wondering, as we go through this and look at this bill, and as

we get into the section-by-section on this bill, how that sort of

overla