Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, May 16, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 208

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

James “Stocky” Edwards

R. Leonard

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Mindy Derro

Hon. B. Ma

Teresa Hills-Platt

Hon. B. Ma

By-Election Results

MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena

T. Stone

K. Falcon

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

B.C. Museums Week and role of museums

A. Singh

Mental health supports for first responders

T. Shypitka

B.C. Book Day and publishing industry

S. Chant

Role of police officers

M. Morris

Asian Impact Society and B.C. Dumpling Festival

R. Glumac

Pronunciation of “Lieutenant-Governor”

D. Davies

Oral Questions

Affordability issues and museum replacement

project

K. Falcon

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Stone

Transit services and funding

S. Furstenau

Hon. J. Horgan

Action on gas prices

P. Milobar

Hon. B. Ralston

Service model change for children with support needs and funding for autism services

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. M. Dean

Affordability issues and museum replacement project

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

Hon. S. Robinson

P. Milobar

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — School Amendment Act, 2022

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

Hon. S. Robinson

P. Milobar

Reporting of Bills

Bill 10 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2022

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — School Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. J. Whiteside

K. Kirkpatrick

Bill 10 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. H. Bains

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. A. Dix

S. Bond

K. Kirkpatrick

S. Furstenau

M. Lee

MONDAY, MAY 16, 2022

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

T. Halford: Joining us in the gallery today is someone who I was proud to call

boss and now I’m proud to call friend. That is former MLA Iain Black. I ask

the House to please make him welcome.

[1:35 p.m.]

Somebody else that wasn’t able to join us today but is at home

watching on TV, and we hope to see her soon, is former mayor of Surrey

Dianne Watts.

Hon. J. Horgan: I want to also acknowledge the son of one of my two favourite

constituents, when I was representing them ably on that side of the

House.

It’s good to see you Iain, Dave as well, and many others who I haven’t

seen for many, many years.

I did want to rise in my place. Many in this place — sadly, not me —

oftentimes stand and announce grandchildren. I know the member from Kootenay

West seems to do that every few weeks, but sadly, we haven’t been able to do

that. I’ve seen the pride on the faces of many as they’ve stood and done

that. My spouse and I continue to cross our fingers. But there is a new

grandchild in the precinct.

The venerable Vaughn Palmer has become a grandfather this past

weekend. I think “venerable” is now going to be put on the board of words

I’m not allowed to say. Born this past weekend, at 7 pounds 8 ounces, to

mom, Elise, and Jordan Armstrong of Global Television fame. Both mom, dad

and baby Reid are resting comfortably. I know, again, the excitement that

parents have when grandchildren arrive.

Vaughn, congratulations.

Jordan, congratulations.

We look forward to many, many more from all of us around this

place.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Will the Legislature please extend a very warm welcome to my mother

and father, Anne and Samuel Malcolmson, who are joining us in the gallery

today.

I’m grateful to you every day.

A. Mercier: I’d just like to wish a happy seventh anniversary to my wife, Kate

Makarow, the love of my life. The past seven years have been the best years

of my life. I was reminded this morning that it was my seventh wedding

anniversary when Kate texted me to say that we’d both forgotten our wedding

anniversary. Clearly, we’re meant to be together.

Hon. S. Robinson: In honour of celebrations and birthdays, I want to wish my in-laws,

who share the same birthday, a very happy birthday — to Sandra Robinson, who

has turned the big eight-zero. It’s certainly a milestone. She’s robust and

clever and loving, and I’m grateful to have her as a mother-in-law. My

father-in-law, Gary Robinson, who is 83 today, is kind and gentle and

supportive.

I’m very grateful to have been in their lives for 37 years. I want to

wish them both a very happy birthday today.

M. Bernier: Unlike the member for Langley, I remember all of my anniversaries.

It’s a pleasure. My wife might argue with me sometimes, but I try to make

sure…. It’s not often I get to celebrate anniversaries with my wife, because

of the timing we have. But this coming week, I’m really excited to be

celebrating my 31st anniversary with my wife, Valerie, who’s here

today.

Because of my wife, I also have the most amazing mother-in-law, Betty

Misfeld, who’s with us in the gallery today as well.

If everybody could please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: Joining us in the gallery today to celebrate B.C. Book Day are Matea

Kulić, the executive director of the Association of Book Publishers of B.C.;

Andrew Wooldridge and Ruth Linka, Orca Book Publishers; Don Gorman,

publisher with Rocky Mountain Books; and Eve Rickert, publisher with the

Royal B.C. Museum.

B.C. Book Day marks the official beginning of the Creative Industries

Week. I was so glad to meet with them earlier this morning to hear about the

important work that they do. I know that all members of the chamber miss

having B.C. Book Day in the Hall of Honour. It is a time to celebrate the

importance of literacy, the small businesses, the storytellers, the truth

tellers.

Will the House please join me welcoming our delegates, who are doing

important work on behalf of B.C. Book Day.

N. Letnick: In the precinct today, right behind us, we have Dave Hayer, former MLA

for Surrey-Tynehead — from 2001 to 2013, I believe. A nicer man you’ve never

met. Please make him feel very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Today over lunch, members on both sides of the House had lunch with

the B.C. Cancer Foundation. It was a remarkable turnout of MLAs that

supports the extraordinary work of the foundation. B.C.’s is number one in

terms of size and everything else — charity.

We wanted to welcome in the gallery today Sarah Roth, the president

and CEO of the B.C. Cancer Foundation; William Litchfield, executive

director and director of development; Cindy Greenaway, development

coordinator, B.C. Cancer; John McCarthy, the board chair, who is a good

friend of my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education and her

constituent; and also board members Jessica O’Brien Cameron, Tamara Napoleon

and Lynda Farmer.

They also brought with them — we had an opportunity to hear from him —

an honoured guest, a speaker, a cancer survivor — someone who, like our

colleague the Premier, has dealt with cancer in this past year, Angus

Matthews.

I want to thank them for all the work they do in health care every day

on behalf of all members of the House.

M. Dykeman: Today is the start of the Canada-Wide Science Fair, which is being

held virtually again this year, hosted by the University of New Brunswick.

We have a large contingent from British Columbia competing, and many of the

alumni from the Canada-Wide Science Fair have gone on to change the world,

develop new methodologies and create new products to help tackle some of the

most challenging problems we face in our society.

I was wondering if the House could please join me in wishing Team B.C.

and all of the competitors across Canada who are competing today, including

a special congratulations to my daughter who is competing for the first year

as a senior there….

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Tourism and Arts again.

Hon. M. Mark: Well, you are hearing from me again, because it’s Creative Industries

Week. This week also marks B.C. Museums Week.

Earlier today I got to meet with stakeholders from different museums

to officially proclaim this week and give them the official proclamation.

Joining us in the gallery is Ryan Hunt, the executive director of the B.C.

Museums Association; and Grace Wong, the chair of the Chinese Canadian

Museum, which is located in my riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and which

I’m very proud of.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians know that our government is deeply

committed to preserving and honouring the diverse history of our province.

We know the critical role museums play as cultural institutions and

knowledge-keepers — their legacies that are key to shaping our future by

making sure that all of our stories are told and brought out of the

shadows.

I’m so glad that these distinguished representatives are joining us

today to mark the beginning of B.C. Museums Week. Something that the

official opposition and I both agree to…. I can’t mention names, but it was

tweeted out there that B.C. Museums Week is very important.

Would the House please join me in welcoming our distinguished

guests.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition. So sorry….

S. Bond: Still? No. Something happened that I didn’t know about.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount.

S. Bond: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Been there, done that.

I forgot why I stood up. It was worth it though. I was just testing

him — no, actually not.

I actually am delighted to welcome a friend who has joined us in the

gallery today, as many have. He also is a former MLA in this place and could

certainly have taken his seat here on the floor with us — someone who worked

incredibly hard as an MLA, brought really important issues here to the

Legislature. I want to welcome Lorne Mayencourt, who was the MLA, if my

memory serves me correctly, for Vancouver-Burrard from 2001 to

Welcome, Lorne. We’re really glad to see you here today.

G. Lore: On Saturday, the legislative interns had a get-together, current and

past. As a former intern myself, I was thrilled to go. I inadvertently stole

the coat of an intern in our Third Party caucus, so I wanted to publicly

apologize. It was neither personal nor partisan.

[1:45 p.m.]

In addition, on the way up here today, the current interns let me know

that next year’s interns are joining us in the gallery for the first time.

I’m hoping that the House will please make them very welcome for the first

but certainly not the last time.

I. Paton: This past weekend at my farm, which is right on the dike of Boundary

Bay, I did my annual beach cleanup, an environmentally friendly and

non-partisan event. It was a great event. We collected so much incredible

stuff that floats in from the ocean in the big high tides every winter. The

new Leader of the Official Opposition came out to help out. But the reason

I’m making an introduction is that the young man who does such a wonderful

job for me as my CA is here today, Taylor Grant.

Thanks for all your hard work.

B. Anderson: All right. Today is a very special day. We’re celebrating a 91st

birthday. This person is extremely special to me. They were in the air

force, where they learned how to fly planes. They have been a hobby farmer.

They’re a great shot. They were also a gold miner up in Dawson.

I would like everyone in the House to wish my grandma a very happy

91st birthday.

I love you, Grandma, and thanks for being such a badass.

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today is my very good friend John McCarthy, who is here

as part of the delegation from the B.C. Cancer Foundation. John comes from a

family of philanthropists based in Burnaby, and I’m so honoured and happy

that he is able to be here. I want the House to please make him feel very

welcome today.

B. Banman: Today is a special day. It is, in fact, my baby brother’s birthday,

and much to his chagrin, I arrived first. But I was the best role model that

a brother could ask for, mainly on what not to do.

I would just like the House to please welcome my baby brother, Dr.

Scott Banman — a very happy birthday.

Tributes

JAMES “STOCKY” EDWARDS

R. Leonard: I rise with great sadness today. Just shy of a year ago I was able

to pay tribute to a World War II flying ace who lives in my community,

centenarian Stocky Edwards. Unfortunately, on Saturday, three weeks shy

of his 101st birthday, he passed.

A man of great courage and valour through the Second World War, he

didn’t like to dwell on those heroic accomplishments. They were better

left off to the side while he continued to really live life and pursue

interests that helped community, that lifted us up and made the world a

better place in all ways.

Ducks Unlimited was his charity of choice and a great passion of

his.

I wanted the House to recognize and honour him one more

time.

Introductions by Members

T. Shypitka: In the precinct today and possibly in the gallery, and in celebration

of Mining Month here in B.C., is Chad Pederson. Chad is the manager of

government affairs for Teck Resources. He is responsible for providing

leadership, strategic and technical direction on the development and

implementation of government affair programs and policies in support of

Teck’s short- and long-term corporate goals and reputational

interests.

Being from the Kootenays, I can totally understand the value that Teck

Resources brings to the communities of Kootenay East, and I thank him for

it.

Would the House just please welcome Chad Pederson.

K. Paddon: Today is the birthday of a very, very special person in my life. She

is all the best of generations of women who have come before her. I get to

be her mom. Her name is Rory Paddon — or Aurora, but don’t call her

that.

[1:50 p.m.]

To my daughter, Rory, happy 15th birthday.

Would the House please join me…. She couldn’t be here today like her

brother. So if we can give her a bigger applause, then maybe she

wins.

M. Lee: There are so many members in the community that have come here for

this historic day. It will be our House Leader who will give the welcome

here, but I would just like to take the opportunity to recognize a few on

the list of over 50 that have come here today, in the gallery.

We have Randy Sandhu from the South Vancouver area. As many of the

members in this House know, Randy’s parents and other family members were

part of the pioneers for the Ross Street Gurdwara.

We have Ron Basra in the South Vancouver area, who recently was

recognized by RealtyCares as a leading realtor in the Vancouver area for his

commitment to community.

Gordon Jong, involved with Kwantlen Polytechnic University, is here as

a leader in the community.

I also wanted to join the minister opposite in terms of welcoming

Grace Wong, who is a constituent of mine and the chair of the Chinese

Canadian Museum as well.

T. Wat: I would like to join the member from Kootenay East in extending a warm

welcome to my dear friend and my constituent Chad Pederson to the

Legislature. In addition to all of the mining portfolios that my colleague

mentioned just now, I would like to mention that Chad is also the chair of

the board of directors for the Richmond Hospital Foundation, who recently

completed a $50 million fundraising campaign in support of a new acute care

tower and campus redevelopment.

Will the House please make Chad a very warm welcome.

H. Sandhu: I just want to acknowledge that today I looked up in the gallery to

wave, and I’m thrilled to see my uncle Satwinder Sumra, known as Popu

Unkuji. We have known each other for several years and were neighbours in

Mackenzie — more like family. Such a wonderful family. Now, they relocated

to Surrey years ago, and they own Raj Suites. I am absolutely thrilled to

see you here, Unkujilong.

I want the House to please give them a warm welcome and applaud with

me.

Tributes

MINDY DERRO

Hon. B. Ma: It is an honour for me to rise to pay tribute to two amazing

people who are no longer with us today. The celebration of life for both

occurred separately over the last weekend. This is my opportunity to pay

them tribute.

The first is Mindy Derro. Mindy Derro was born September 8, 1950,

and passed from cancer on April 30, 2022. I knew her as a very, very

devoted nurse, someone who was extremely active in her community and

someone who loved and was extremely devoted to her family as well. She

saw strength in all the people around her and always knew how to lift us

up where maybe we were not so strong.

She will be very, very much missed by her community, the health

care community on the North Shore and by me as well.

TERESA HILLS-PLATT

Hon. B. Ma: The second person I’d like to pay tribute to is somebody that many

of us will know here in the House. Her name is Teresa “Terry”

Hills-Platt. She was born February 22, 1956, and she chose her own way

to go on December 3, 2021. Terry loved life. She loved people, animals.

She loved scouting. She loved her job at B.C. Ferries, and she loved her

husband, Ron. She was also a stalwart New Democrat who worked for many,

many years supporting the work that our political party did.

As the member for West Vancouver–Capilano will know, having

resoundingly won her seat in West Vancouver, West Vancouver is not

fertile ground for the NDP.

[1:55 p.m.]

But Terry Platt ran for us multiple times in those areas, knowing

it was unlikely that we would succeed there but because she believed

very, very strongly that people needed to have a choice. She did it

bravely and with courage and kindness every single time that she did put

her name on the ballot to support the New Democrats there.

I had the opportunity to call Terry 30 minutes before her

scheduled death by medical assistance. I have to say I never expected to

be in a position where you would call somebody to wish somebody goodbye

when they had just 30 minutes left before they left. I didn’t know what

to say. What I did say to her: “Terry, I hear you’re going on your next

adventure.”

I could not believe how upbeat and joyful her voice was on the

other side of that phone call. She always brought joy into people’s

lives through all of the work that she did, right up through to the very

end. She believed in the capacity of all of us to make life better for

the people around us, and I’m very, very grateful to have had her in my

life as well as the lives of people in our communities.

Thank you so much for giving me that time to honour these two

amazing people. I know they would not have wanted us to be sad. I hope

people will join me in celebrating their lives with applause.

Mr. Speaker: There are many guests in the gallery. We welcome you

all.

By-Election Results

MLA FOR VANCOUVER-QUILCHENA

Mr. Speaker: I call on Madam Clerk to read the certification letter from the

Chief Electoral Officer regarding the by-election in

Vancouver-Quilchena.

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: Sent by Elections B.C.:

May 11, 2022

Hon. Raj Chouhan, MLA

Speaker of the Legislative

Assembly

Dear Mr. Speaker:

On February 17, 2022, this office received your warrant advising

of a vacancy in the Legislative Assembly resulting from the resignation

of Andrew Wilkinson, member for the electoral district of

Vancouver-Quilchena.

On direction from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I issued a

writ of election for the electoral district of Vancouver-Quilchena on

April 2, 2022, ordering a by-election to be held to fill the vacancy.

The writ specified final voting day to be April 30, 2022.

The by-election was held in accordance with the provisions of the

Election Act, and the completed writ of election has been returned to

me.

In accordance with

section 147(2) of the Election Act, I hereby

certify the following individual elected to serve as a Member of the

Legislative Assembly: Kevin Falcon of the B.C. Liberal Party for the

electoral district of Vancouver-Quilchena.

Sincerely,

Anton Boegman

Chief Electoral

Officer

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the certificate of the Chief Electoral Officer of

the result of the election of the member be entered upon the

Journals of this House.

Motion approved.

T. Stone: I am thrilled to stand here today to introduce one of the

hardest-working and most dedicated people that I’ve ever had the

pleasure of calling a colleague and a friend — a good man and a family

man. His family is here with us today.

He’s someone who is certainly no stranger to this House, but he’s

been away for a while, out of the public eye for about a decade, and

boy, does he ever think that this place needs some change. But you

wouldn’t know he has been gone for that long by how often government

goes out of their way to name-drop him. A quick look at Hansard

shows his name has time and time again been on the lips of the Premier,

the Government House Leader, the Jobs Minister, the Finance Minister,

the Minister of Tourism and, of course, the Attorney General, who seems

to have a particular affinity for talking about the member in this

place.

Looking at this long list of mentions — with government pretty

much blaming him for everything going back to the time of Amor De Cosmos

— it seems I’m about to welcome forward one of the most memorable people

in the chamber’s history.

[2:00 p.m.]

It truly breaks my heart, it really does, for those across the

aisle that once sworn in, due to the due to the quirk of parliamentary

etiquette forbidding MLAs from naming one another in this chamber, that

the government just won’t be able to name-drop their favourite person

any longer.

In a few minutes, he’ll be here in person, holding them to

account. Please allow me to be the final person on record in

Hansard to use his actual name in this hallowed chamber as

I fulfil my duty as official opposition House Leader to bring up the new

Leader of the Official Opposition.

I have the honour to present to you Kevin Falcon, the member for

the electoral district of Vancouver-Quilchena, who has taken his oath,

signed the parliamentary roll and now claims his right to take his

seat.

Mr. Speaker: Please proceed. [Applause.]

Take your seat. Welcome, Member for Vancouver-Quilchena, to your

seat and the Assembly.

K. Falcon: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I seek leave to make a very

brief introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

K. Falcon: Thank you, Members and Mr. Speaker. And by the way, you’re doing a

great job. I have to tell you that you’re the pride of Surrey, and I just

wanted to make sure I pointed that out.

Mr. Speaker: Burnaby.

K. Falcon: Surrey. Surrey always comes first in Kevin’s mind, of course. But of

course, in Burnaby too.

I would like to make a couple of very brief introductions. I’d like to

start off by recognizing my sister-in-law, Caroline Elliott, who is here

with her daughter Ivy. Let’s see if Ivy can wave, there.

Can you see me, Ivy? Oh, there she is. Oh, little Ivy.

Hello.

I’d also like to introduce the three most important women in my life.

Those are my lovely wife, Jessica, and my two girls, Josephine and Rose, who

also join us here today. Can the House please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

B.C. MUSEUMS WEEK

AND ROLE OF

MUSEUMS

A. Singh: Firstly, to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena,

welcome.

I rise, metaphorically of course, in this House today to

acknowledge B.C. Museums Week that celebrates and highlights the

important contributions museums, art galleries, historic sites and

cultural centres make to the social and cultural fabric of our province

— the preservation of our rich history and the provision of learning

opportunities that promote acceptance and appreciation for B.C.’s

diverse heritage.

In a time when upholding the values of equity, diversity and

inclusion in our province is more important than ever, B.C. Museums

Association’s theme for 2022, “Defy expectations,” is aptly chosen.

Through this theme, BCMA brings attention to questions such as how

museums are creating a more inclusive future and how British Columbians

can support repatriation.

Our government understands the pivotal role museums, art

galleries, historic sites and cultural centres have in preserving and

showcasing the history, culture and contributions of specific

communities in B.C. We’ve taken definitive action to support significant

progress on this front, including starting work on the first-of-its-kind

South Asian museum and establishing Canada’s first Chinese-Canadian

museum, located at the historic Wing Sang building in Vancouver

Chinatown.

The province is also developing a state-of-the-art, seismically

safe and more inclusive, accessible and modern Royal B.C. Museum. Last

Friday our government announced a historic investment towards this

important provincial cultural legacy. This project is an opportunity to

add voices and lived experiences of Indigenous peoples along with

diverse communities and people in British Columbia whose histories and

experiences have shaped our province but were previously left

out.

[2:05 p.m.]

The province has made supporting our amazing museums and cultural

institutions a priority, recognizing their excellence and positive

impact in adding to the quality of life in our communities, drawing

visitors to our province and generating economic returns that benefit

the growth and success of British Columbia.

In honour of B.C. Museums Week, I would thank the outstanding

British Columbians who work in B.C.’s incredible museums and cultural

institutions. I also ask the House to join me in recognizing B.C.

Museums Week by raising awareness and encouraging British Columbians in

their constituencies to visit museums, art galleries, historic sites and

cultural centres as well as to voice your support through social

media.

Let’s all celebrate B.C. Museums Week.

MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORTS

FOR FIRST

RESPONDERS

T. Shypitka: Welcome to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Firefighters, paramedics and law enforcement officers are

experiencing traumas and stressors on the job that are unlike those seen

in most other occupations. It’s not surprising, therefore, that recent

research has shown that these workers are at higher risk of mental

health injuries, yet agencies that employ first responders are tasked

with how to best support their mental health, from determining

appropriate training for first responders and their managers, to

sourcing occupationally aware practitioners, to aiding with recovery and

hope through peer support.

Six years ago the B.C. First Responders’ Mental Health Committee

formed, which is a multi-agency committee representing labour and

management from both urban and rural communities. Chaired by WorkSafeBC,

the committee is working collaboratively to provide cross-organizational

leadership and recommended practices that promote positive mental health

for first responders across the province.

To date, no first-responder organization in B.C. has fully

implemented either the recommended practices from the B.C.

first-responder steering committee or the National Standard of Canada

for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace.

The plea from first responders is simply three points.

First, employers of first responders implement the 26 recommended

practices and resources for employers, supervisors and workers, created

by the B.C. First Responders’ Mental Health Committee, and to follow the

National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the

Workplace.

Number 2, all first responders receive psychological safety

training due to the traumatic exposures they witness throughout their

careers. This can be accomplished through policy and regulation, as

directed by WorkSafeBC, and mandated to first-responder

employers.

Third and finally, all first responders receive annual, voluntary

psychological safeguard interviews with an occupationally aware mental

health professional.

Our first responders need to be protected, both physically and

mentally, in their challenging workplace.

B.C. BOOK DAY

AND PUBLISHING

INDUSTRY

S. Chant: I rise in this House today to recognize the eighth annual B.C.

Book Day. This provincial designated day is the kickoff to B.C. Creative

Industries Week. It is the opportunity to celebrate B.C. publishers,

authors, editors, librarians and booksellers and to bring attention to

this sector’s important place in B.C.’s creative landscape and its

significant contributions to the province’s economy.

in Canada. B.C. books are sold and translated in over 40 countries,

bringing B.C. culture and literature to millions of readers at home and

around the world. In 2020, books and magazine publishing represented

$132 million in the total GDP, with over 1,600 full-time jobs in

B.C.

The province recognizes the great value of the publishing

industry, but far beyond the economic gains, the true value of our

provincial publishing industry cannot be measured. Books are

foundational to developing literacy skills in our children and those

tell B.C. stories that reflect and amplify our diverse cultures and

history.

Through books, we can explore our world and share, learn and

connect with the unique voices of others around us. Books can also

empower, inspire and expand our points of view to create a better

province and a better world.

In honour of B.C. Book Day, I ask members of this House to join me

in applauding everyone working in B.C.’s book and magazine

industry.

We are enriched by the wealth of literary talent in this province,

and we thank you for continuously providing us with captivating and

imaginative written works of art.

[2:10 p.m.]

ROLE OF POLICE OFFICERS

M. Morris: The police in Canada are the best trained in the world. They spend

their days focused on the very small percentage of our populations who

are the worst-behaved citizens in our communities, people who commit

such unspeakable acts against others that the average person cannot

begin to comprehend, people who lie, cheat, steal and take advantage of

the vulnerable.

They do this under the rigours of a strong constitution and the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms and complex technical investigative

requirements. They do this with compassion, empathy and professionalism.

They do this under extreme scrutiny from the public, from the courts,

from the oversight agencies, tribunals and police boards.

The burden our police agencies carry today is immense, often

placing them as first responders to societal disorder perpetuated by

untreated mental illness and addictions, by domestic frustrations

triggered by unemployment, from housing needs, from health needs or a

myriad of other needs.

Yet they do it. They do their jobs every second of every minute of

every day with undiminished professionalism. They do it by placing

themselves in harm’s way to protect the public.

This is National Police Week, and our police agencies in B.C. are

advocating for a more collaborative approach, a more integrated effort

amongst all police services, social agencies and the public in providing

a modernized approach to address not only the criminal aspects of

policing that comprise 30 percent of a police agency’s file load but the

social disorder that comprises 70 percent of a police agency’s

workload.

On behalf of this House, I would like to thank all the dedicated

police officers across our great province who put their uniforms on

every day, without exception, to keep our citizens safe and to help

those less fortunate navigate through their tragedies and

misfortune.

ASIAN IMPACT SOCIETY

AND B.C. DUMPLING

FESTIVAL

R. Glumac: Tiffany Duff and Gina Chong were going for a walk around Lafarge

Lake in Coquitlam. They came upon a small group that was wanting to find

someone to take a picture of them, so they asked Tiffany and Gina. This

was at the height of COVID, and they didn’t feel comfortable, so they

said no. The reaction was a racist rant against Tiffany and Gina and all

Asians, blaming them for spreading COVID and telling them to go back to

China.

That incident and many others like that inspired the creation of

the Asian Impact Society. Tiffany and Gina and Celia Chiang are founders

of the society and are working together on several projects to help

foster a more inclusive community. The group recently received a grant

to develop a children’s book geared towards elementary- to middle

school–aged children to learn about accepting people from all races and

embracing diversity.

The society is also organizing the very first annual B.C. Dumpling

Festival, because dumplings are a part of so many different cultures.

Apart from Chinese dumplings, the Japanese dumpling is called a gyoza,

the Italian dumpling is ravioli, the polish dumpling is a perogy, and

there are so many more.

This multicultural, family-friendly event will showcase dumplings

from all around the world in order to bring people together from all

walks of life and cultural backgrounds, and the festival is happening

right where that incident occurred at Lafarge Lake on August

I hope you can join us there.

PRONUNCIATION OF

“LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR”

D. Davies: To-may-to, to-ma-to; da-ta, day-ta; ske-dule, sche-dule — these

But one that often flows through this room is the word “lieutenant.” I’m

sure that our Lieutenant-Governor must wander by and when she hears

“Lieutenant-Governor” must stop and glance at Hansard and make note. You

know who you are.

As many of you know, I was enrolled in the Canadian Forces, years

ago, to work with the cadet program, and I was promoted to a lieutenant

in 1998. Embracing traditions, I was happy with the pronunciation

“lieutenant.” However, just a few years earlier the blockbuster movie

Forrest Gump came out, and there was a character in there.

His name was Lieutenant Dan.

[2:15 p.m.]

Well, that term was my nickname for a long time, which promoted me

to be a fiercer advocate for the proper pronunciation. In a statement

from our own Lieutenant-Governor’s office, it was stated: “Increasingly,

we hear Canadians shifting to the American ‘loo’ pronunciation, and

regrettably, we also see folks dropping the “u” in words like neighbour.

Our office, however, will prefer to receive the odd addressed letter to

the left-handed governor, rather than as second in command.”

Why do we say this? After a little bit of research, you can find

loads of information about it, many theories. From centuries ago, when

the British were trying to take a jab at the French, to anglicize a

French word; to the simplest concept that it was the guy that stood on

the left side of the general to protect him.

The earliest example of the “lieutenant” pronunciation was in the

Oxford Dictionary , dating back to the mid-14th century.

“v” and “u” sounded the same, likely leading to the present-day

“leftenant.”

Hon. Speaker — and that is with a “u” in honourable — I could talk

a lot longer on this subject, but the evidence is overwhelming, in

Canada, that the pronunciation is “leftenant” for the word

“lieutenant.”

Thank you, Hon. Speaker, with a “u.”

Oral Questions

AFFORDABILITY ISSUES

AND MUSEUM REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

K. Falcon: Life has never been more expensive than it is today under this

two-term NDP government — a government that I remind you, laughably, ran

on a platform of affordability in both 2017 and 2020.

On Friday, instead of announcing any relief for British Columbians

desperately searching for a family doctor or struggling with sky-high

gas prices at $2.34 a litre, this Premier was busy announcing a

billion-dollar museum that nobody was asking for. A modest upgrade is

one thing, but $1 billion for a new museum is outrageous.

As Site C so clearly demonstrates, we all know it’s going to be a

lot more than $1 billion under this NDP government, because they don’t

know how to deliver any major capital projects.

My question to the Premier is this. Why on earth is the Premier so

tone deaf to be spending over $1 billion on a museum project instead of

helping British Columbians get access to a family doctor and some relief

when they’re trying to fill up their cars?

Mr. Speaker: Premier.

Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you very much.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: I can’t even say thank-you without being heckled.

I do want to, certainly, indulge the Speaker to add any time on. I

do want to acknowledge the arrival of the member for

Vancouver-Quilchena, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Welcome back. We have been waiting. We’re looking forward to the

engagement.

Before I do that, I want to also say, after 12 miserable years in

opposition, it is a vitally important role in our democracy. I know the

good work of the member for Prince George–Valemount

demonstrates….

She has demonstrated that selflessness and understanding of

government from her time in multiple ministries — as well as coming from

the heartland of British Columbia, where she is connected with her

community — that she can add vital commentary and criticisms of

government policies, as we did when some of us had that fortune of

sitting on the other side — growing character, as you are doing right

this very minute.

It is with genuine sincerity in my heart that I thank the member

for her work in the role as the of Leader of the Official Opposition,

and I welcome back the member for Quilchena as he takes on a new role

for himself also.

[2:20 p.m.]

With respect to the content of the question, there’s a bunch

packed in there. You do get two questions. You actually get three. So

you don’t have to put them all in the first one, but let me

start….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: Funny you should say that, Member. We have of bit of material

ourselves.

On the positive side, I want to say that with the recent

announcement of a $400 million giveback to policyholders at ICBC…. Over

the past 14 months, we have given back to policyholders roughly $500 in

rebates totalling $1.3 billion — from the corporation back to

policyholders.

Now, I would argue that that’s assisting drivers by making sure

that their car insurance is as low as it can possibly be, something that

we’ve been striving for, for the past five years, to the point where the

average policyholder now is saving about $500 when they go and re-up on

their auto insurance. That’s a significant decline in costs. When the

former member was on this side of the House, instead of giving money

back to policyholders when there was a surplus, he would take that money

and distribute it throughout government.

I’ll leave it at that on gas policy. We’ll get back to investing

in the cultural sector and others in the second question.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: Thank you, Premier. I thought you went very easy on me.

Premier, nearly half of British Columbians are just $200 away from

being unable to pay their bills at the end of each month. One in five,

almost one million of our friends and neighbours do not have access to a

family doctor. Crime, homelessness and overdose deaths are all at record

levels.

British Columbians need to and want to get to work, but they can’t

even afford the price of gas. The Premier says: “Think before you hop in

the car.” That was the Premier’s response to clamouring British

Columbians concerned about not being able to fill up their

car.

People need help now, yet the priority of this Premier is a

$40,000 pay raise for himself; a huge raise for all the cabinet

ministers, which is totally undeserved; and more than $1 billion on a

new museum in his own backyard.

My question to the Premier is this. Why has the Premier

prioritized his own pay raise and over $1 billion on a vanity museum

project at a time when British Columbians can’t find a doctor or can’t

afford to fill their car up to get to work?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the member will remember tolls on bridges because he imposed

those tolls on bridges. We took them off. Those very same drivers are

now saving $1,500 a year by not having to pay the B.C. Liberal tolls to

get back and forth to work.

The minimum wage was frozen by those on that side for ten years.

Now we have the highest minimum wage in the country, the lowest

unemployment rate in the country, and the economy is rocking.

Now, I appreciate that it’s counterintuitive for those on the

other side…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. J. Horgan: …to look around them and see the benefits of a robust economy that

includes everybody, but that’s what we’ve been seeing, certainly, over

the past five years. There’s a range of other initiatives with respect

to affordability, and I’m happy to lay them out for the

member.

I want to circle back to our cultural sector and the importance of

protecting our collective history. Currently, artifacts and archival

materials are in a building that is below sea level. It is not

seismically safe. It has been, in my opinion, ignored by governments for

the past 20 years. I was briefed as an opposition member back in 2010 —

the member was in cabinet at that time — and it was abundantly clear to

the then CEO of the Royal B.C. Museum that something needed to be done

to protect and preserve our collective history.

We were approached, as governments are…. Again, the member will

remember this. Cabinet meets; cabinet receives submissions. The Royal

B.C. Museum brought forward their case. We spent the past five years

doing our due diligence, finding the best way forward. We believe we’ve

arrived at that point, listening to the board of directors, listening to

the CEOs, putting in place a plan that we believe is achievable to

protect our collective history. I think you should get behind that, not

oppose it.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplemental.

[2:25 p.m.]

K. Falcon: Well, I’m about as comforted by that answer as I was when I heard

that they had everything under control with Site C, which has now gone

100 percent over budget, from $8 billion to $16 billion. And I’ll tell

you that it hasn’t ended. That has not ended.

I love hearing the member opposite go on about bridges. I want to

remind the members over in NDP world there that there would not have

been a ten-lane Port Mann Bridge if you were in government, because you

opposed it every step of the way.

Now, I do want to be charitable, because it is my first day back

here. I know, and I mean this sincerely, the NDP mean well. I would

argue that they even, genuinely, are sincere in trying to get good

results. The problem is that they just don’t know what they’re doing.

The fact of the matter is that there is a huge gap — I would call it a

chasm — between NDP rhetoric and the actual results that they

achieve.

The results — when you look at it, my friends — are terrible in

every measure. We have the highest housing prices in North America, in

spite of the blizzard of new taxes that government put on the housing

sector. We have the highest gas prices in North America — the highest

before the war started in Ukraine and the highest still today at $2.34 a

litre.

Crime is out of control. The Attorney General’s catch-and-release

system has resulted in 40 prolific offenders being involved in nearly

6,400 police interactions in Vancouver alone last year. There are more

than four violent random assaults taking place in the city of Vancouver

each and every day, almost 120 a month.

Sadly, six people are dying every day from an overdose under this

government’s watch, the worst in history.

One in five British Columbians don’t have a family doctor, and

when they try to go to a walk-in clinic, they face the longest wait

times in Canada, right here in British Columbia.

I have a simple question for the Premier of this

province.

Interjection.

K. Falcon: I know simple works.

I have a simple question to this Premier. Will the Premier cancel

this ridiculous vanity museum project and use those dollars to help

British Columbians get access to a family physician and be able to

afford to fill up their cars? Will the Premier do that today?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that you’re from Burnaby, not from

Surrey. So I’m sorry….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: I have to say that if I had known ten years ago the Finance

Minister of the day couldn’t tell the difference between a capital

budget and an operating budget, I would have been more aggressive in my

questions.

I know we’re both just feeling each other out here. You can save

your throne speech debate for another time and use this question time to

be more pointed in your observations. I know you’re just warming up, and

it does take time. It’s a difficult job. My apologies for appearing

glib. I do, genuinely, believe it’s a difficult job, and I wish you all

the best. You’ll keep all of us better by the work that you

do.

Now I’m rambling. I’m chewing up the clock, Member. Do you

remember that?

The Leader of the Opposition is correct. There are enormous

challenges facing British Columbians, wherever they may live.

Affordability is our number one issue, and we have a long inventory. You

can go through Hansard . Your colleagues have heard me

resuscitate that back. I can send you a memo with all of it in one

place, so we can maybe take it as read and move on in these

issues.

I absolutely appreciate and understand the challenges that

families are facing. We also know that we need to be tactical in where

we put money to assist people. It can be inflationary. For example,

through the COVID pandemic, we gave $2.7 billion in direct assistance to

people. That’s not just to businesses but to people.

We put a cap on child care fees. We brought in the child

opportunity benefit, which can return $2,600 to a family of two, of

which you are one. This child opportunity benefit is now available to

families right across British Columbia to help bring down

costs.

[2:30 p.m.]

The housing prices were the highest in the country when you sat on

this side of the House. The gas prices were the highest in the country

when you sat on this side of the House. We have been trying to bring it

down over time.

There was a time when the B.C. Liberals supported…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …a price on carbon so we could address climate change. I’ve got a

message for you, Member. While you were gone, the place has been on

fire…

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. J. Horgan: …if it hasn’t been under a flood, and we have serious challenges

with respect to the dikes that we talked about. The member for Delta

South talked about the diking in his area.

We have profound challenges ahead of us. I know you’re going be

helping us each step of the way by bringing forward constructive

suggestions about improving government.

Mr. Speaker: All questions and answers through the Chair, please.

T. Stone: I don’t mean to be glib, either, to the Premier. But if I just

heard correctly, the Premier just said: “We need to be tactical where we

put money to help people.” I’ll tell you where we wouldn’t put $1

billion in the name of helping people. It’s into a vanity museum project

for the Premier. We wouldn’t do that.

When you have housing prices completely out of control, the

highest that they’ve ever been in this province, when you have gas

prices higher than they’ve ever been in this province, when you have

groceries higher than they’ve ever been in this province, the solution

that the Premier has is to spend $1 billion on a vanity museum project

in his own backyard. That is what is shameful.

The cost of everything has gone up, including the price at the

pumps. Skyrocketing gas prices now at $2.34 a litre. The pain at the

pump is real for working British Columbians — truckers, taxi drivers,

contractors and, of course, lots and lots of families trying to get

their kids to soccer.

Most people don’t have the option not to use a car. But on Friday

the Premier, in another one of his gems of a quote, rejected helping

people and instead told them to just think before you hop in the car and

see if there’s a way that you can do it with a neighbour or someone who

is going by.

Are you kidding me? Maybe that makes sense to a Premier with a

government-paid and government-driven car, who has just given himself a

$40,000 pay raise, but it doesn’t help anyone else in the

province.

Why is the Premier punishing drivers after years of saying that he

would do something about it, and when is he going to actually come to

the table with real relief at the pumps for British

Columbians?

Hon. J. Horgan: As I said at the start to the Leader of the Opposition, $420 in

rebates back to ICBC policyholders who were used as an instant teller

machine by the former government, not as respected and valued parts of

society — that if we don’t have to use the money for crashes and health

care, we can drive it right back into their pockets. That’s what we have

done for the driving public in British Columbia.

When the member goes to renew his insurance, he’ll find that it’s

$500 cheaper than it was the last year. He’ll also discover….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, perhaps the former Finance Minister can talk to the

Government House Leader. Capital and operating are two separate things.

We are doing what we can to bring forward more health care providers.

The Health Minister has been talking about it for the past two weeks. If

you would take the cotton out of your ears, you’d hear what he’s

saying.

We’re trying to fill the gaps that were left behind by a

government that said when the federal government cut the Canada health

transfer…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Order.

Hon. J. Horgan: …the only Finance Minister in the land that said “good idea” was

the one that’s sitting over there right now.

We need more money to invest into health care, and we need it

right now.

Mr. Speaker: If we have less heckling, we’ll have more questions.

Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: So the government goes and jacks up ICBC rates by 25 percent over

four years, only to then reduce them by 25 percent over that same

time.

Somehow in NDP world, that’s like standing up and defending the

drivers of this province. Just like the rebate cheques, which they have

been promising, and British Columbians are still waiting to receive

those, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier can try to dodge and deflect all he wants, but gas

prices are at $2.34 cents a litre today. People need help today. Angie

Rossie from Richmond says: “Food has gone up. Rent has gone up.

Everything in my life has gone up. How are we going to drive to work so

that we can buy food to feed our family?”

[2:35 p.m.]

B.C. had the highest gas prices and costs before the war in

Ukraine, and that is still the case today. Instead of offering people

like Angie help, the Premier only helps himself and cabinet, with a

$40,000 raise for himself and $20,000 for each cabinet member. Then he

has the gall to announce a $1 billion vanity museum project in his

backyard.

How could the Premier possibly expect Angie to hitchhike or

car-pool to get to work or get groceries for her family, and why is he

spending over $1 billion on a new vanity museum project instead of

helping Angie and the thousands of British Columbians just like

her?

Hon. J. Horgan: I believe that protecting the collective assets of all of the

people who have been in British Columbia since time immemorial and right

up to today is money that is well spent to protect and preserve our

collective history. The B.C. Liberals don’t seem to think so.

A capital budget is stretched over time. I feel like this is

budgeting 101.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: The official opposition should understand how budgets are created.

I’m sure they do, but instead, they like to say that we’re spending $1

billion that we could not spend on something else. It’s a capital budget

for a project that’s critically important to the people of British

Columbia and our collective history.

If they don’t want to support it, that’s their business. That’s

their business.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Premier, hold it.

We are wasting our time, Members.

Leader of the Official Opposition, we are looking for leadership

from you today. Thank you.

Hon. J. Horgan: Since we formed government, we have been focused on affordability,

reducing costs for people, making sure that we can get money to those

who desperately need it. The largest increase ever for people with

disabilities and people on income assistance — that helps people make

ends meet at the end of the month.

Making sure that we’re giving back when we don’t need the money

for a core service, which is not what they did on that side of the

House. They looked at our Crown corporations as instant-teller machines.

Whenever they were profitable, they took the money and gave tax cuts to

those who didn’t need it. We have tried to level that out. We’re going

to continue doing that work.

Here’s a note for the Leader of the Official Opposition: it’s

working. We have challenges ahead of us, but working together, British

Columbians can overcome this. To suggest somehow….

Again, we can read back the quotes to the Leader of the Opposition

if he wants to hear himself again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: He said, not that long ago, that there was nothing the provincial

government could do about gas prices. I don’t know what happened on the

way to Damascus, but he seems to have changed his mind on it.

TRANSIT SERVICES AND FUNDING

S. Furstenau: This has been a fascinating debate to watch. The Premier touts his

government giving money to the people who can afford to drive cars right

now. It would actually be a relief to hear about solutions for people

who can’t even afford that.

Last week the Premier told people to drive less, car-pool or use

alternative modes of transportation as gas prices continue to rise. He

could take a step today to help British Columbians save money and get

cars off the road.

A monthly adult TransLink pass can cost $180. For B.C. Transit,

it’s $85. For Cowichan commuters, it’s over $200. If public transit were

free for the next four months, he could help millions of British

Columbians save as much as $800, and that could help a lot with the cost

of food.

My question is to the Premier. Will he make public transit free

while gas prices are at record-breaking levels?

Hon. J. Horgan: We have made public transit free for kids under 12, which has a

significant impact, a positive impact for families right across British

Columbia, and we’re going to continue to look at ways to expand our

public transit system to meet the objectives, which I believe the Leader

of the Third Party and I share, with respect to reducing our GHG impact

by making sure that there’s accessible, affordable public transit across

British Columbia.

You can’t do that by snapping your fingers. The member knows that.

We’ve been working on it from day one, and we’re going to continue

working on it to lift up all British Columbians, wherever they may

live.

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

S. Furstenau: I often point out that you can understand a government’s

priorities by where they put their money. We certainly didn’t see an

enormous amount of money invested into public transit infrastructure

outside of the Lower Mainland, where communities that currently are

deeply underserved by transit cannot expect to see a particularly

significant increase in that infrastructure, which is essential, yet

this government continues to subsidize the oil and gas industry to the

tune of almost $1 billion a year.

[2:40 p.m.]

British Columbians need to have easy access to alternative modes

of transportation. This government has had five years to build out the

transit network across B.C. so that that can actually be available to

the public.

My question is to the Premier. While there have been investments

in transit in the Lower Mainland, the rest of the province lags behind

in that infrastructure. Can we expect at least $800 million in

additional transit investments in the 2023 budget?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, it’s good to know that all of the parties on the opposite

side of this House don’t support our cultural industries, don’t support

investing in our collective history. That surprises me. It disappoints

me. It shocks me, but there you go.

Again, we have been making significant investments in transit. The

minister responsible is not here today. I know that he would be

delighted to give you a briefing if you want to see where we’ve made

these investments over the past number of years.

We are focused on reducing our GHG emissions. The Environment

Minister has got the most progressive plan in the country that was built

on a foundation created by the former government, I might add, and I

continue to add whenever I get opportunity. The fact that they have

fallen off that bus is a surprise. Maybe we should get them back on

public transit. We can make some impact on GHGs right around

B.C.

ACTION ON GAS PRICES

P. Milobar: Just like the Surrey Hospital, the Premier’s vanity museum project

doesn’t appear to be in this budget either. Strange how that works when

he wants to talk about where things are in their budgets.

In 2018, the Premier said that if gas prices stay high in the

coming weeks — back in 2018 — he would take action to bring down prices

at the pump. Well, Mr. Speaker, here we are 220 weeks later, and British

Columbians continue to pay the highest gas prices with the highest gas

taxes in North America.

In fact, we’ve offered the Premier three solutions. He could

suspend the provincial gas taxes, which actually has worked in Alberta,

contrary to what the Premier wants to say. He could give a one-time

rebate through the climate action tax credit, which gets distributed

based on incomes and would help low- and middle-income families the

most. Or he could stop having fuel taxes hidden on fuel being imported

in from Alberta at 25 cents a litre as of January 1 — his government

policy.

All three options we’ve offered up. All three options would

provide immediate relief at the pumps for the people.

Why will the Premier not action any one of these simple solutions

and give people price relief today?

Hon. B. Ralston: I think that everyone acknowledges and recognizes the impact that

the war in Ukraine has had upon not only gas prices here in Canada but

in the United States and, indeed, around the world. Oil is a global

commodity and driven by a global price. I think that reflects here in

the local price.

The B.C. Liberals have put forward some suggestions, and let me

deal with one of them. The member speaks of an import tax on gasoline

coming from Alberta. That is just factually wrong. There is no import

tax whatsoever.

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND FUNDING FOR AUTISM SERVICES

K. Kirkpatrick: Governing is about choices, and it is sickening to families who

will lose their funding to see the Premier choose a pay raise for

himself and over $1 billion for a museum instead of supporting families

with children with autism.

Louise Watson is one of those impacted families, and she says: “It

is wrong to take this money away from autistic children.”

Why is the Premier clawing back funding from autistic children

when he has money for cabinet pay raises and more than $1 billion on a

vanity museum project?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. As the member is aware,

what we’re actually doing is building a provincial system, a needs-based

system, to serve all children and youth with support needs. That does

include families with children who have a diagnosis of

autism.

[2:45 p.m.]

What we’re doing is building a system that actually matches

services to the unique needs of all children and youth with support

needs.

We have had many recommendations from the Representative for

Children and Youth that we need to move towards a needs-based system. In

fact, there was a select standing committee of this very Legislature

that gave a report that was approved by all parties of the House that

also recommended that we move towards a needs-based system.

That’s what we’re doing. We’re building a system so that children

and youth across the province will be able to receive the services that

meet their needs, and the families will be able to work with service

providers to build a circle of care around their children and

youth.

At the moment, too many children and youth are being left behind

as services are locked behind a diagnosis. Children are at risk of

missing their milestones, and especially at early ages. By building a

system, we’re going to be serving more children and youth, and sooner.

What that means is that children and youth with support needs across the

province will be much better able to thrive.

AFFORDABILITY ISSUES

AND MUSEUM REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

S. Bond: It’s time that minister actually went and had a conversation with

parents across British Columbia who are devastated by the decision to

claw back their funding.

The bottom line for the Premier is the fact that he promised

British Columbians, not once but twice, that life would be more

affordable under his government. That is simply not true.

Can he imagine the shock that British Columbians felt — when

they’re worried about trying to fill up their gas tank or buy their

groceries or just get their kids to school every day — when he announced

a $1 billion vanity museum project in his backyard?

British Columbians need help now. They need it today. They

certainly weren’t asking the Premier for a museum project.

Today will the Premier do the right thing? Will he get up on his

feet, will he recognize and acknowledge that British Columbians are

struggling to get by, day after day after day? Will he cancel the

decision to build a billion-dollar museum and give British Columbians

the help that they need and deserve?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, there’s a difference between operating budgets and capital

budgets. This is…. I mean, the official opposition can go, “Oh my,” but

this is not something that just happened yesterday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: This is not something that happened five years ago.

Interjections.

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

Hon. J. Horgan: This has always been the case. Now, I appreciate that the member

beside the leader wants to answer the question. You guys can talk in

caucus about that.

Since we were sworn in, we have focused on reducing costs. We

eliminated medical services premiums. The Leader of the Opposition — not

only did he not eliminate medical services premiums…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …he decided, when he was Finance Minister, to index annual

increases in the MSP. We did away with it.

Tolls on bridges — again, this is a point of pride for the members

on the other side. That’s 1,500 bucks back into the pockets of people

who go back and forth across bridges in the Lower Mainland to move

around. We capped…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …the built-in rent increases. They keep talking about the rent

increases. There was a 2 percent automatic give-back to landlords. That

works out to about $850 a year in Surrey — not Burnaby but

Surrey.

Again, if the official opposition wants a briefing on budgets, I

know that the hon. Finance Minister would be happy to teach them the

difference between building for the future and providing for the needs

of today. We are working every day for the needs of all British

Columbians, but we have to have a vision, going forward. Maybe that’s

another thing absent from the list of things that the B.C. Liberals left

at the doorstep.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply debate, estimates of the

Ministry of Finance.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 22, the School

Amendment Act.

[2:50 p.m.]

In the Birch Room, the small House, I call Committee of Supply on the

estimates of the Ministry of Health. When the estimates of the Ministry of

Health are finished, we’ll be calling the estimates for the Ministry of

Forests.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:54 p.m.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $318,847,000.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’d like to just make a few opening remarks as we head into

Ministry of Finance estimates, if that’s okay with the Chair.

It’s certainly, I believe, worthy of recognition that we’ve had

another year of ups and downs and trying times, frankly, for the people

of British Columbia and for people right around the globe.

[2:55 p.m.]

Through it, I know that we are all proud of how we have taken care

of each other. We pulled together as a subnational group of people of

five million souls. We lend strength to each other and ensure that we

have a strong future together. It has been our government’s approach to

managing people’s finances from day one with that in mind.

We’ve been steadfast in the approach throughout the pandemic — I

think people have certainly seen that — the war in Ukraine, as well, and

through the resulting and extraordinary cost-of-living pressures that we

are facing today.

I look forward to the questions and the discussion that we will

have this week, over the next three days, but first, I want to thank the

many people who support the budget process and these estimate

proceedings. There are a few of them here with me today, but over the

next number of days, we’re going to see people rotating

through.

I’m grateful for the support that I have as a minister. I want to

acknowledge my team today and the remarkable dedication that they

demonstrate every day when we ask them to do things, often on a dime,

turning around and delivering our new programs. They have been

extraordinary in helping to us improve the lives of British

Columbians.

Our deputy minister, Heather Wood, and the secretary to Treasury

Board, Tiffany Ma, are here on either side of me; as well as B.C.’s

comptroller general, Carl Fischer; the head of our revenue division,

Jordan Goss; our policy and legislation lead, Renée Mounteney; Jim

Hopkins, at the provincial treasury branch; the distinguished and

ever-colourful assistant deputy minister, Doug Foster; Bobbi Sadler of

the Public Service Agency; John Davison of the Public Sector Employers

Council; GCPE’s Don Zadravec; Crown agency secretary and ADM Cheryl May;

and our Crown agency leads — Blain Lawson of the Liquor Distribution

Branch; Linda Cavanaugh with B.C. Lottery Corp.; B.C. Assessment’s Jason

Grant; BCIB’s Irene Kerr; Erin Seely with the B.C. Financial Services

Authority; and Brenda Leong of the B.C. Securities Commission; as well

as Infrastructure B.C.’s Mark Liedemann.

Each of these leads will be rotating through at some point, so I

just wanted to acknowledge their hard work and their teams that they

lead and to thank everybody that works with them to help with all the

preparations. Like me, each of the leads I’ve mentioned has an

incredible team of people working hard alongside them every

day.

There are two, in particular, out of my office that I’d like to

make special mention of. They take care of me, my

schedule and my

workload: my administrative coordinator and my administrative assistant,

Christine White and Lori Larson. They make sure that I’m watered, fed

and rested. I want to express tremendous gratitude for their efforts in

making sure that we can continue to do this important work on behalf of

the people of British Columbia.

I’m grateful for everyone’s work over the last year to support the

choices our government has made and the actions we have taken to protect

and support the people of this province. Through caring and hard work,

we have been able to adapt to people’s changing needs and support those

who need it most.

While global economic shifts impact the cost of living here at

home, we’re continuing to look at ways to keep bringing costs down for

families and improve the services that they rely on. We’re also building

on progress that we’ve made by continuing to cut child care costs,

building more affordable homes than ever and strengthening health and

mental health services.

Our budget makes investments to fight climate change and protect

people and communities from its effects, while creating a sustainable

plan for clean and inclusive economic growth that works for everyone,

not just for those at the top. The global transition to climate action

and a low-carbon future will create new social, environmental and

economic opportunities.

We certainly have lots more work to do. With Indigenous peoples,

we are working to increase access to culturally appropriate health care,

mental health care and justice, to forge a new fiscal relationship and

to bring the provincial laws into harmony with the UN declaration on the

rights of Indigenous peoples. There are opportunities within all the

work that lays ahead. We’re not through difficult times yet, but we are

making progress together.

We continue to be a leader in Canada’s economic recovery. We’ve

had over 100,000 jobs created in the province last year, and we topped

the nation’s credit ratings. We will continue to use the economic

strength, the diversity, the energy that comes with the people of this

province.

I want to say that I look forward to the questions from my critic

today. I know that he has been busy preparing, because I, too, have been

on that side. He’s been busy preparing. This is part of the democratic

process, when the opposition gets to ask questions of a government so

that everybody understands the efforts that we are making to deliver for

the people of British Columbia.

With that, I look forward to questions from the members

opposite.

P. Milobar: Well, I thank all the staff that will be filtering in and out. It

seems like a lot of time over the next three days, but it seems to

always go by very quickly, so I will try to keep my questions short and

tight and concise. Hopefully, we can get through a lot of material,

because as the minister said, there’s a lot of public good that comes

out of everyone getting a better understanding of the thought process

and implementation of what’s actually in the budget, as it’s effecting

their daily lives.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’m going to start off with just a few generalized questions, and

then we’ll kind of meander a little bit from there. I’m just wondering

if the minister can give us a sense of the dates. Putting this budget

together, what was kind of the cutoff point for ministers and ministries

to have their expense requests submitted? What was the cutoff for those

expenditures that were approved? What was the final date that revenue

projections were locked in, as well, with this budget?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for the question. It sounds like he’s

well aware that the process for developing a budget starts very early,

and it evolves over time. I would actually argue that it’s always top of

mind, as a Finance Minister, about what next budgets are going to look

like. We do have a process, and it’s important to acknowledge that it

does go through a process.

Our expenditure side of the ledger gets resolved by December.

Within that month of December is when we identify what the expenditure

sides are going to look like. Certainly, within reason, there is some

fine-tuning that will happen, but generally speaking, December. Then our

final revenues: the second week of January is when the Economic Forecast

Council sends in their latest projections. That’s when we make sure that

everything works in the way that we need it to work.

P. Milobar: With the high level of contingencies in this budget this year, on

COVID as well as potential emergency climate-related spends, I have a

few questions around here.

Could the minister identify for us what the overall global COVID

spend is within this year’s budget in additional costs that are being

applied — through Health, or you name it — to business recovery supports

for people? I’m not talking about the $2 billion in contingencies,

because that’s very clearly not a part of that. I’m talking about the

things that would have been engrained in other…. What would that global

dollar figure be for expenditures on the COVID side of this

budget?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I neglected to introduce Steve Hawkshaw, who’s here as the

executive director of policy and legislation. I want to welcome him as

well. As soon as there’s a question that he’s able to help me with, I’ll

be able to hear what he has to say. He sits behind us.

The member had asked the question about COVID spending and how

that gets accounted for. Ministries are asked to identify any spending

that they do on COVID. I want to remind everybody that we’re not out of

it, and there are still some resources that are being directed to

support people, whether it’s for testing or additional supports that are

needed as a result of COVID. Particularly in health care is where we’re

seeing it.

Any spending that is related to COVID gets pulled out, and that

gets counted and reported as part of the contingency spend. The members

and the public will see it as part of our quarterly reports, as well as

at public accounts.

P. Milobar: Is the minister then saying…. We’ll use Health as an example. If

Health identifies $500 million of COVID-related spending for this

fiscal, for what this budget year is covering, that will be covered off

out of the $2 billion in contingencies that are unallocated right now,

or has that initial spend already been built into the provincial Health

budget, and the contingencies are so that if Health needs $600 million —

as opposed to the original $500 million they budgeted for — the $100

million would come out of contingencies?

Hon. S. Robinson: When building a budget, we take a look at what we would call sort

of an annual spend. Particularly, I’ll use it for…. You used health

care; we’ll talk about that. We understand — based on history, based on

growth, based on new programs — what the anticipated spend is going to

be. That’s considered part of the base budget and how that gets

accounted for.

COVID has been one of those things where we don’t know how long

it’s going to be here with us. We don’t know what the overall challenge

is going to be. We don’t know how big or how small…. It’s going to

impact service delivery, for example. We don’t know, for example, how

many boosters we’re going to need over the year, in anticipating what

the plan is. That’s why all of this COVID-related spending has been put

into contingencies.

For example, whether or not we would — God forbid — need to

eliminate the amount of activity in our lives…. We’re just starting to

open up, but history has shown us, just six months ago, that a new

variant could change the trajectory of how people are moving about. So

we built in a contingency to prepare us, should we need those

resources.

We’ve done that with Health as well, because we don’t know how

much resource is going to be needed for Health. Within the $2 billion,

we’ve set aside $875 million for Health. That’s identified as health

spending, potentially. We don’t know. Again, this is why we have

contingencies. It’s the just-in-case funding that we have in

place.

[3:10 p.m.]

What I hope is that we don’t need those resources, that we don’t

need as much of that, but we believe that it’s important to be ready.

Especially given what we saw, certainly, last fall and how things

changed so quickly, we felt it was really important to make sure that we

had those resources available.

P. Milobar: I appreciate that. I’m not taking issue or questioning the fact

that there’s $2 billion for COVID contingencies.

I guess I’ll try this a different way. On page 1 of the budget,

where we have the

summary of the budget and fiscal plan for this budget

estimate, ’22-23, there’s $71 billion in expenses, plus the $2 billion

of COVID contingencies. Is any of the $71 billion for COVID spending and

COVID supports, and if so, how much?

Hon. S. Robinson: The ministries have been directed that if they need spending for

COVID-related, whether it’s in Education or Advanced Ed or any of the

ministries, they are to identify that spending, and it’s to be allocated

from this contingency, the COVID contingency area. The rest of it is for

base budget to deliver the services that British Columbians count

on.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that. I’ll take that as the 71 is just the regular

spending, then.

In terms of other contingencies, we have the “General programs”

contingency, which has CleanBC contingency dollars in it. I’m assuming

all these contingencies would have some method to their madness in terms

of the staff and the experts projecting roughly how much might be

needed, based on an educated guess. How much of the general programs

contingencies are allocated towards CleanBC?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to say that it’s more than an educated guess

that is used. There’s a rigorous process for any new program. We have a

tremendous staff. The Treasury Board staff are pretty sophisticated and

talented folks who take a look at any program to make sure that,

certainly, the return on investment and the impacts of any spending are

going to deliver for the people of this province. It’s very important

for our government.

For CleanBC — the member asked very specifically — it’s $48

million specific to that program.

P. Milobar: In terms of other contingencies around population growth, school

district growth, school districts start to model themselves and things

of that nature. So I’m assuming the treasury folks and them would have

had similar…. What would have been the estimation within contingencies

for those kinds of population growth, disability payment, potential

out-of-the-blue scenarios that weren’t already anticipated in the $71

billion?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to recognize the role that contingencies

play in budgeting. They’re used to accommodate the financial impacts of

unanticipated or, I guess, contingent events. We have experienced

significant uncertainty over the last couple of years, and as we enter

this ’22-23 fiscal year, I am hopeful, really. I am very hopeful that we

have a bit of normalcy and we don’t have unexpected events. It just

feels like ever since I have been Finance Minister, there have been

significant challenges that are extraordinary, and I’m looking for

ordinary.

We do remain committed, of course, to supporting people,

supporting businesses, supporting communities during the pandemic and,

of course, the aftermath of recent climate-related disasters that we

have seen. That has created significant challenges.

In ’22-23, we’ve budgeted $2.8 billion; in ’23-24, $3.4 billion;

and in ’24-25, $4 billion — in the general programs contingency subvote.

And that, of course, includes flood recovery. Other items that are in

there are caseload, wage mandate and new pressures.

There’s a range of items that we have considered as part of

contingencies. Again, it’s hard to know ahead of time, but this is why

we build in contingencies, of course — to make sure that we are prepared

for the things that we might not be completely prepared for.

I’m really hopeful — again, if I can reiterate — that we don’t

have an extraordinary year. I’d be very happy with an ordinary

year.

[3:20 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Well, I would be too, but some of these contingencies are based on

normal years. They’re based on population growth, K-to-12 expansion,

people on disabilities, expansion of those programs, in terms of numbers

of people accessing, which weren’t maybe anticipated when the budget was

first put together, by mid-January, on the expense side. Oh, actually,

December, I guess, on the expense side.

Also, on flood recovery, as the minister pointed out…. There’s

$1.1 billion, over the three years for flood recovery. As much as we

want to hope that this is a good year, the reality is that flood

recovery is ongoing from last year in this fiscal.

I guess my question is…. Out of that $1.1 billion or any of the

other makeup of the $2.8 billion in contingences for flood recovery this

year as well as those general population growth-type issues that may

have arisen from December, when expenditures were first being locked in,

which is why these contingences would start coming into place…. How much

were those a part of the $2.8 billion for this fiscal year?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I’ll just reiterate that for ’22-23, the fiscal plan, which

is a three-year plan…. We have $2.8 billion for this year, $3.4 billion

for ’23-24 and $4 billion for ’24-25 in the general programs

contingencies subvote.

These levels are elevated due to the allocation of $1.1 billion

over the fiscal plan, the three years, for the flood response and

recovery. We recognize it’s going to take several years to do that. At

the time that we were putting together the budget, we didn’t know

exactly what the impact…. Well, we knew what the impact was, but we

didn’t know exactly, in terms of rebuild, what it was going to look

like.

Remember, this flooding happened in November. We were putting this

together in December, January. We needed to make sure that we had

sufficient room to do the important work.

In addition, we also are preparing for a growing demand for

government services, whether it’s K to 12, income and disability

assistance, as the member said, as well as to fund collective agreements

once they are completed. As in previous years, these are for contingent

costs, and final details will be disclosed as part of the regular public

accounts financial reporting process, as we do and governments have done

every year since I was sitting on that side of the House.

P. Milobar: I don’t take issue with the dollar values of the contingencies or

the escalating factor.

In my part of the province, there are a lot of elected officials

and citizens that are wondering what’s going on with flood recovery,

where the dollars are coming from, how much is in the budget. One of the

number one things I get asked is: what is in there for flood recovery,

for disaster recovery? Things like that.

When I’m reading page 41, it very clearly says: “This includes

more than $1.1 billion, over the next three years, for disaster recovery

costs to reflect the one-time nature of these costs.” I don’t take issue

with that at all. I don’t think people do either. I’m simply asking, all

three years — the 2.848, the 3.412 and the 3.987…. Those weren’t just

pulled out of thin air. There were various inputs for each of those

three years that went in to make the sum total of those

amounts.

I’m specifically asking: out of the $1.1 billion that has been

spread out over those three years for flood recovery and disaster

recovery…? How much is in, for this year, of that $1.1 billion…? How

much is in this year’s budget, of the $2.848 billion?

[3:25 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Welcome to the chair, Madam Chair.

I also want to acknowledge Sean LaGuardia, who’s here with me

providing support. He pulled up the budget book and said that, on page

33 of the budget, it is broken out. The contingencies flooding recovery

— $400 million, then $500 million and $250 million. That makes a $1.15

billion total for the contingencies flood recovery. It’s right there in

the budget book.

P. Milobar: Okay. Just to be clear, then, table 2 on 33 is those, at least the

top of…. The flood response recovery is supposed to be a carryover to

the general contingencies on page 40. I just want to make sure that

we’re not double-counting any of the contingencies and that those are

the same carryovers.

The $1.15 billion — the $400 million, the $500 million and the

$250 million, as the minister just said. That would mean $400 million of

general program contingencies is in this year’s budget.

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, that’s correct.

P. Milobar: The minister touched on collective agreements. I recognize that

she can’t talk about bargaining mandates specifically, but I’ve seen

several different numbers bandied about in the media, in terms of the

cost of a settlement to government. So could the minister

clarify…?

Now, I’m assuming this is predicated…. When this government took

over, there were around 380,000 public service employees. There are now

about half a million. I’m assuming that any numbers being talked about

would be in the half a million, but the minister can clarify based on

how many employees a 1 percent wage increase would equate to, to the

provincial treasury.

Again, I’m not asking what the bargaining mandate is. I’m not

asking anything like that. I’m just simply asking what a 1 percent lift

to the overall public sector wages would equate to, moving

forward.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I wanted to make sure we had the correct number, so I appreciate

your patience. A 1 percent increase is $386 million.

P. Milobar: Does that amount, that $386 million, include status quo on the

benefit package, or is that independent of any benefit packages

whatsoever, and it’s just 100 percent wage and salaries of the public

sector?

Hon. S. Robinson: That’s just wage and salary.

P. Milobar: It looks like, in general program contingencies, there’s about

$2.4 billion left this year for negotiations. Is there any remaining of

that $2.4 billion for population growth, K to 12, or all misc income and

disability assistance and things of that nature within that contingency

fund?

Hon. S. Robinson: It includes all of the above.

P. Milobar: I guess we can always go back and look at what those other things

generally do, but it would appear that there is a fair bit of constraint

in terms of the ability to expand to cost of living. But I’ll leave that

for another day.

I want to touch base again on the revenue and the expense side.

The minister made clear that of the $71 billion in spending for expense,

none of that is pandemic-related impacts, because it’s all captured

within the $2 billion of contingency spending. Were revenues projected,

in any significant way, to be impacted because of COVID in this year’s

budget?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to welcome Dave Riley and Sadaf Mirza.

Taking me back to the time we were building the budget, the member

had asked the question about what we were predicting around revenues,

given COVID. It feels like a lifetime ago, but it really wasn’t. In

December, we were dealing with omicron, and that was very much top of

mind. It’s with that in mind that we looked at the revenue

projections.

We didn’t build in specifically how COVID would impact revenues,

mostly because we’d learned so much the previous year about how

resilient British Columbians are, how the supports that we provided to

businesses, to communities and how the federal government transfers sort

of helped to keep things going as best we could. We were starting to

open.

So much of the pivoting had happened, in terms of consumer

behaviour — where, certainly in my community and, I’m sure, the member’s

community, restaurants and such went online. People were familiar now

with takeout and how to do that if things were to slow down.

I will point out that we also looked at…. From a recovery

perspective, the thinking in December was that it might take a little

longer than we had perhaps hoped for in November — just a month, two

months earlier — given that we didn’t know that omicron was going to

visit us in the way that it has. We were cautiously optimistic that the

recovery would continue, but perhaps it wouldn’t go as quickly as we had

hoped. That was certainly part of the thinking as well.

P. Milobar: Well, I asked that because, as the minister has touched on…. I

agree with her that the staff within the treasury — it’s a very

sophisticated modelling they use. It’s not an educated guess. It’s much

more than that. But that would have held true for previous years’

budgets as well.

We’re supposed to put a lot of faith in this year’s budget book,

with the plan moving forward, because as the minister related, it’s a

three-year planning budget. Revenues are a bit of a finger in the wind,

a little bit, when you’re looking three years out, but it’s still, to

the minister’s point, a sophisticated way of looking at

budgeting.

[3:40 p.m.]

I decided to go back to the budget and fiscal plan

2020-21–2022-23, because this was the budget that was presented in

February, just before COVID hit. All of these assumptions were done

without COVID. In fact, when you read through and you read the fiscal

risks to this budget, COVID’s not mentioned anywhere in this book. It

wasn’t on the horizon. This was presented in February. I’m assuming it

was developed in the same timeline as this year’s budget, which means

that expenses would have been in December; revenues, late January. Still

no COVID.

Yet the spending and the revenue coming in are dramatically

different — both those items — in this budget than this current year’s

budget, and not in a good way. One could argue, I guess, on the revenue

side. But the revenues in the budget that was tabled right before COVID

for the fiscal year 2022-23 were for $64.2 billion.

The revenues in this year’s budget under the backdrop of COVID are

$68.5 billion. There’s actually been a growth in revenue of $4.3

billion, despite COVID, over what was projected just three years ago,

pre-COVID. One-third of that is actually even taxation, $1.5 billion.

All sorts of taxes are going up in their collections.

I guess I’ll ask the minister how she can explain a deficit budget

when you’re collecting $4.3 billion more than you were pre-COVID. I’ll

get to the expenditures after. But I’ll remind the minister that

apparently COVID’s not in those expenditure numbers.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’d like to welcome Fisnik Preniqi here as well, who’s helping

answer some of these questions.

When you’re budgeting on a three-year time frame, your predictions

are less specific and harder the further away you are. Trying to

anticipate what revenues might be and what expenditures might be three

years from now is less specific because you’re several years

out.

As responsible budgeting, part of what we do is we’re very modest

in our predictions. We build in prudence into anticipating what revenues

are going to be, what they’re likely to be. As you get closer, of

course, you get better at predicting that. We certainly consult with the

Economic Forecast Council. Our staff, as well, do their own predictions

to try to identify what they expect growth to be like, both on the

expense side as well as on the revenue side, in particular.

As we get closer to the year at hand, we do get better at

predicting our revenues. That’s why you see that difference in trying to

anticipate what growth might look like for ’22-23 three years ago and

where we’re at now in terms of understanding what revenue projections

would be, accordingly.

P. Milobar: Revenue projections are one thing. I will point out, though, that

the revenue projections…. The bulk of the growth of the $4 billion is

actually taxation and natural gas royalties.

Now, I get natural gas royalties would fluctuate, depending on

what world markets are doing. You can’t reasonably anticipate that a few

years in advance. But for a budget that purports to be all about clean,

it sure doesn’t mind pulling in a whole lot of extra money in natural

gas and other natural resources for royalties. There is $1½ billion

extra of taxation, of actual taxation revenue.

[3:50 p.m.]

Governments do have a choice as they create a budget. They can cut

taxation at times of record inflation to provide a little relief for

people, or they can keep collecting it. The one thing that you can

actually project fairly well, a couple of years into the future, is the

expenditures of government. The budget pre-COVID for this fiscal year —

at $63½ billion of expenditures. Yet fast-forward to this year’s budget.

The same line item that the minister has confirmed has no COVID

expenditures in it — none — is $71 billion. That is an extra $7½ billion

in spending that has absolutely nothing to do with COVID.

The problem we face in this province is that, for the last couple

of years, every answer from government has been COVID. “COVID’s the

reason for this. COVID’s the reason for that. That’s why we can or can’t

do certain things with our budget. That’s why we’re constrained with our

budget.” Yet their pre-pandemic budget for this fiscal year projected

that they would be spending $63½ billion. Instead they’re spending $7½

billion more.

Now, surely knowing, and again, I take the minister…. I have

absolutely no reason to think that we do not have the highest-trained

and most professional staff projecting things possible. Surely they

would have realized when the pre-pandemic budget was presented, and

fiscal ’22-23, that a collective agreement was going to need to be

renegotiated. Surely that had to play a

part in the $63½ billion. There

had to be some sort of notional money put in there. If not, I don’t know

how you could possibly project, when everyone knows that ’22-23 is the

year that all the public service contracts come up.

That can’t be the reason for a $7½ billion increase — maybe a

slight increase with an updated projection based on cost of living but

certainly not the lion’s share of the $7½ billion.

I guess the question to the minister is: if COVID hasn’t impacted

revenues at all — in fact, we’re collecting almost $4½ billion more than

was projected pre-COVID, and we’re now spending $7½ billion more that

has absolutely nothing to do with COVID — how does the minister account

for, essentially, a $12 billion swing in a budget two years after the

last one was presented that was based on pre-COVID numbers?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I understand there is some other House business that needs to

happen, so I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:57 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Bill 22, School Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. S. Robinson: In

Section A, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 10.

In this House, I call the estimates of Finance.

[4:00 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FINANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Tegart in the

chair.

The committee met at 4:03 p.m.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $318,847,000

(continued) .

Hon. S. Robinson: I can see that there are some students here in the chamber. I want

to welcome them all and let them know what’s happening here.

I’m the Minister of Finance, and I’m here with my staff. The

member opposite, the Finance critic, is asking me questions about our

budget and how we put it together and how we made decisions. I hope you

find this back-and-forth absolutely riveting as he asks me fascinating,

well-thought-out and creative questions and I turn around and talk with

my team as we provide an answer that satisfies the member

opposite.

I’m going to answer the question that he asked me before we took

the break. I think it’s important to acknowledge the impact that COVID

has had.

[4:05 p.m.]

The member had asked me a series of questions about how we’re

accounting for spending that’s COVID-related in this budget. I mentioned

to the member that we have a pandemic contingency set aside and that any

spending that is related to COVID spending comes from that.

But I also think it’s important to acknowledge the experience that

the pandemic showed us around where there were significant gaps in

services and in programs. We made the decision…. As the member rightly

said, governments make choices. So we made the choice to increase income

and disability rates for people, because we saw, through the pandemic,

the absolute devastation it had for folks who had difficulty finding

places to be safe. We made the decision to increase those rates

significantly. It was the largest increase in income and disability

rates.

We also saw, as a result of the pandemic, how child care was

critical to continuing the operation of services to keeping our economy

going. We’ve known that as a government since we started this largest

social program in a generation to build it out. We knew that we needed

to continue to do that work, so we have been, and we’re accelerating

that work to grow the ability for families to find accessible,

affordable and quality child care. There was, I think, a real and deeper

appreciation for how critical that is for our economy. And really, again

COVID showed us that, and that’s why you see that in our

budgets.

You also see the complex care, which is a new line item, given the

fact of homelessness and how it’s been an ongoing challenge. Certainly,

it’s the very thing that got me interested in politics in the first

place, back in 2007, when very little was happening, from my

perspective, on the homelessness front, and we were seeing more and more

homeless people.

Over the years, there has been some action being taken. We brought

forward a significant plan back in 2018 to do supportive housing, but we

saw, certainly through COVID again, that there was more of a challenge

with a subpopulation in the homeless population that needed even more

than what we were able to provide with supportive housing. Again, even

though it’s not specifically COVID-related, it really showed us some

serious cracks in our social infrastructure and our economic

infrastructure, so we’ve made the choice to fill those

cracks.

The last one — well, there are a couple more. I think I’ll just

read them into the record because I think it’s important, and it becomes

a wholesome answer for the member and anybody who’s watching.

We certainly saw gaps in long-term care through COVID. It’s

significant. We chose to make the investments needed in long-term care

because those seniors and others who were in long-term care suffered

significantly. COVID, again, laid bare for all to witness the impacts.

So we made the choice to address some of that as well.

Two more things I want to identify. We have had population growth,

surprisingly, in some ways. I mean, 100,000 people came last year to

British Columbia. Again, that’s because people want to live here. They

want to invest here. They want to raise their families here. I think

that’s a compliment to all of us here who have represented government at

different times. This is a desirable place to be and to live.

The final thing that I want to say, specific in this budget, is

our decision to make sure that we have a full-time wildfire service,

making sure that we are better prepared for climate disasters and having

a response at the ready. I’m sure the member knows — and I’m sure that

Madam Chair knows full well — that we are better off to prevent those

things ever happening in the first place and that investing in

protecting our communities, protecting our assets, protecting our people

is money well spent.

For that reason, you see significant spending that requires a

sustained response built into our budgets.

[4:10 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Be that as it may, a sustained spending response can only happen

if, at a certain point, a budget actually gets back to balanced. You

cannot just go to a bank or a credit card or any lending forum unlimited

number of times and expect that the bills will still get

paid.

The reality is that this budget has $7½ billion more spending than

was projected to be spent pre-pandemic for this year. It’s $4½ billion

more than last year’s spend. So the bulk of it was actually

transitioning from last year to this year, when the effects of pandemic

revenues were clear. In fact, based on the budget estimates of revenue

for this year of $68½ billion, which is $4½ billion more than

pre-pandemic times estimate, the minister still could have added about

$2 billion of spending and still been in the clear.

But that’s not what happened, so as a result…. I guess it’s no

surprise that we saw the Budget Measures Act change to remove the

holdback, to ensure less cabinet accountability to the overall budget,

because if you look at ’22-23, ’23-24 and ’24-25, the revenue and the

expenses keep going up by about the same amount each year. There is zero

attempt, despite ever-increasing revenues, from this government to rein

anything in whatsoever.

That’s on a backdrop of very light on deliverables and targets

that we can track. I think of things like the jobs plan or the economic

plan — which has no detail to it, because that’s all being developed;

we’ve got to figure out how to have the data — lagging indicators for

emissions on the climate, yet by every measure, every single year,

emissions are increasing, and the revenues are increasing as a result.

So on the one hand, you have a spending budget built on the backs of

ever-increasing emissions, yet a document whose words say it’s all about

greening the environment.

I guess the question is, to the minister: when I look at where the

revenues are coming in, when I look at the increase in revenues that

could have offset a great many of the programs she was talking about,

why was there not more of a focus recognizing that there was still extra

spending that could happen this year?

I’ll point out that even if the minister just stuck to what the

revenues were projected to for this year — without COVID money, without

the $2 billion of pandemic contingencies — there could have been an

additional $5 billion worth of spending this year over what they

projected to spend just a couple of years ago, pre-pandemic.

Why is not only this year not closer to being in balance but…? I

guess the real question is: how much faith should we have in any of

these numbers, then, given that it doesn’t seem to have any semblance of

what is actually happening in terms of revenues coming in? I say that

because the updated forecast allowance is $70 billion of revenue coming

in this year, yet we have budget estimates of $68 billion. And there is

language in this from the rating agencies that they’re concerned that

maybe there was a little bit of — how do they call it? —

overconservative estimates, especially on the revenue side of the

equation.

Again I ask the minister: why, especially in subsequent years, is

the spending going to continue to keep track with revenue growth? At

what point does trying to get back to balance matter to this government?

They were saying it in all of their other budget documents. They were

heralding it, under the previous Finance Minister, non-stop. It seems,

under this Finance Minister, that focus has disappeared.

[4:15 p.m.]

It’s one thing if it disappears because revenues are struggling.

But at a time of record costs and record inflation — we see taxes

increasing $1½ billion; we see overall revenues going up $4 billion more

than they thought they were going to, which has absolutely nothing to do

with COVID — I think people deserve to know what has happened to try to

at least reasonably get back to balance, when they’ve all been making

sacrifices.

They’re making current sacrifices in their homes, and they’re not

asking for the government to do everything for them. Yet that’s what

this budget and future budgets seem to be trying to

accomplish.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, first of all, I just want to correct the record. The

previous Finance Minister was in balance every single budget that she

delivered. So I think it’s really important to acknowledge that when we

headed into the pandemic, the last budget presented was a balanced

budget before the pandemic.

We’ve always said that our path to balance would be over time,

that we would not only protect the programs and services in a way that

addresses the gaps that I just noted that were laid bare by the

pandemic, but that we would also get back to balance, and that we would

do it over time.

I think it’s important for the public to know, and certainly, the

member can read on page 46…. That talks about all of the reporting that

we do on all of our strategies; that there are accountabilities built

in. Some of them…. I believe there’s actually legislation to deliver

here in the House.

I think it’s really important to acknowledge that any government

has a responsibility to do more than balance books. To have balanced

books in abject poverty and homelessness and seniors living in squalor?

That’s not a healthy jurisdiction, Madam Chair.

To have environmental degradation in your jurisdiction but have

balanced books doesn’t mean that it’s healthy by any means. It’s for

that reason that we look at a whole range of issues, a whole range of

programs, a whole range of services, including having a balanced budget,

simultaneously to determine the overall health and well-being of our

jurisdiction.

[4:20 p.m.]

In fact, Moody’s is starting do that right now in our latest…. One

of the rating agencies recognizes how important it is to think more

broadly about the health and well-being of any jurisdiction.

As a government in British Columbia, I’m proud of the fact that we

have a poverty reduction strategy and that we’re reducing poverty. We

have fewer children living in poverty. That makes me proud as a British

Columbian, and I imagine it makes everybody in this House proud — that

we have fewer children living in poverty; that we’re making headway on

Indigenous rights and governance here; that we’re acting on DRIPA. We’re

working government-to-government more and more.

That’s important work that speaks to the overall health and

well-being of a jurisdiction. It provides more certainty for everybody,

including investors. That’s good for everybody.

Making sure that we’re doing our part environmentally, making sure

that we are working to help transition people off fossil fuels — that’s

another piece of work that’s absolutely critical. An obligation to let

British Columbians know how we’re working on that is also critically

important. It’s for that reason that we’re working on all of these

areas, all at the same time.

P. Milobar: Just to clarify — the minister missed my point — I didn’t suggest

that the former Finance Minister did not have balanced budgets. In fact,

I was saying the exact opposite, just as the minister just said. She had

balanced budgets every time. So the former Finance Minister either just

didn’t care about those things as well and didn’t run a deficit or saw

the value in trying to balance out that there is always going to be more

need than dollars available for the public.

Now the reality is that this minister has made statements, up

until this year, about the need to get back to balance and assuring

people that due to COVID, we’ve had to do these extraordinary measures,

but as soon as possible we’ll get back to balance. Yet none of the

expenditures are directly related to COVID. None of the revenues have

been impacted based on projections because of COVID. Programs will

always be in want, and the thing that the public cares the most about is

the actual end result for the dollars spent.

When homelessness is at an all-time high, when social disorder is

at an all-time high, when access to mental health supports is lower than

ever before, when that’s spiralling out of control, when the opioid

crisis is spiralling even worse and more out of control than ever

before, when inflation is spiralling out of control, when costs to

businesses are spiralling out of control, I think people, rightfully so,

want to get an insight into where the prioritization of the government

is, to try and balance both out.

You can’t have a healthy economy, you can’t have a healthy society

with a bit of balance…. Businesses did take it on the chin during COVID

in terms of having to change and pivot and do all of those things. Three

years ago, the pre-pandemic budget was built around collecting $200

million less in employer health tax premiums than is in this current

year’s budget.

I guess the question I have for the minister is: why was there not

consideration given to the request from the business community to either

change the threshold up so that you had to have a higher payroll before

you triggered the employers health tax or to bring the upper-end

percentage down to reflect back more to what was projected?

As wages increase, it seems that there will be more and more

people needing to pay the employer health tax as a small business,

because their payroll — not that they’ve added any extra staff — will

have gone up to hit the threshold. Was there any consideration to try to

adjust the employers health tax back to what it was projected to be in

the first place instead of raking in the extra $200 million?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First off, I want to just address the earlier part of the member’s

comments around our responsible approach to budgeting and fiscal

planning and our commitments to a declining deficit over the three years

of the fiscal plan. We had consultations with the Economic Forecast

Council, and the members noted that adaptive and targeted government

supports are needed through the pandemic, with careful consideration

about when and how they are withdrawn.

It was agreed that in the long term our government should remain

disciplined in fiscal planning to maintain the solid fiscal position

with which we entered the pandemic. In alignment with that consultation,

we implemented fiscal guardrails to guide ongoing financial planning.

That included year-over-year declining deficits. In this Budget 2022, we

have declining deficits over time, from $5½ billion in ’22-23 to $3.2

billion in ’24-25. Over time, the deficits decline.

We also built other components into this planning — targeted

spending criteria so that it’s very defined, limited-budget invitations

to various ministries — so that we could just identify our highest

priorities. I listed some of those earlier, around fires and flooding

and making sure that we could keep communities and

people safe, and keep businesses and assets

safe. That was very much top of mind for our government.

Seeing the impacts in the health care system itself, particularly

around long-term care, certainly drew some attention. The member talks

about the activities of some on our streets whose needs are yet to be

met, who have very complex issues — mental health challenges, addictions

challenges, perhaps some cognitive challenges as a result of a poisoned

drug supply. That continues to create some challenges on our streets.

That’s why, in this budget, you see a response that is very targeted in

addressing those very issues.

We also have prudence levels built in with our forecasting. We

have significant contingencies. We’re looking at debt metrics, debt

affordability and regular reporting. All of these things factor

together. It’s really about our commitment to get back to balance but to

do it in a way that doesn’t hurt people, that doesn’t hurt the programs

and the services that they depend on in order to be safe and in order to

be healthy, because that is also incredibly important to British

Columbians.

[4:30 p.m.]

Now to get on to…. The member had asked about the EHT. I want to

remind the member that the majority, more than 90 percent, of businesses

in B.C. don’t pay EHT. Less than five percent of businesses will pay the

full EHT amount, because it’s a graduated amount. Certainly, for

charities and non-profits, we set the payroll threshold at $1½ million

per location to ensure that the vast majority do not pay this

tax.

I also want to say that our largest employers, in fact, pay the

lowest rate among provinces with the payroll tax. Even with the

implementation of EHT, we continue to have a strong competitive economy

with some of the lowest income taxes in the country.

The last thing I just want to say about this is that when we

engaged with businesses about what they needed and about what would help

them through COVID, as we’ve had the various challenges, as different

strains have brought to us, they have told us what they needed. What

they needed was wage support through the B.C. increased employment

incentive. They needed recovery grants, which is what we provided — the

small and medium-sized business recovery grant. They asked for a PST

rebate on select machinery and equipment, which we delivered.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

We provided a circuit breaker business relief grant, because

that’s what was needed when Dr. Henry really, overnight, just basically

shut down some businesses — restaurants and gyms and such. We’ve also

extended filing and payment due dates for employers.

So we’ve been very responsive to the business community, and we’re

going to continue to do that important work of listening to their needs

and responding accordingly.

P. Milobar: Well, none of that is in the $71 billion of spending. The minister

made it very clear at the very beginning that the $71 billion of

spending has nothing to do with COVID. There are no COVID measures in

there. It was an open invitation. I clarified. It’s all in the $2

billion.

When the minister says that we have an ever-reducing deficit,

that’s because of COVID contingencies. There is a $5.4 billion deficit

this year because there’s an extra $2 billion in pandemic recovery

contingencies and the forecast allowance got pushed up an extra $700

million. That forecast allowance continues on for the next few years at

the same level. The pandemic recovery drops to $1 billion next year. The

deficit drops only by $300 million.

There are no pandemic recovery contingencies. It’s all in the

third year of this plan, and the deficit’s still at $2.4 billion if you

take out the added $700 million in the forecast allowance — even if you

don’t take it out. It’s pandemic-related deficit that no one takes issue

with.

It wasn’t just up until the pandemic that the government was

budgeting for surplus. In fact, it was 2021-2022 and

2022-2023.

Under the previous Finance Minister, things were staying in

balance. Programs were being delivered. This minister is making it sound

like obviously they weren’t very happy with their first three years in

government, so she’s decided to go a different route, which she’s

entitled to do. It would just be nice if it were a little more

forthright about that, because there are all sorts of things that you

could spend money on that aren’t in this budget.

[4:35 p.m.]

If the minister would just dispense with the guise of trying to

even be remotely fiscally responsible, think of what she could do. This

leads me to my next question.

In the minister’s mandate letter, it very clearly says: work on

and deliver a $400 renters rebate, income-tested, for those that aren’t

collecting government supports already. This is the minister’s second

budget under that mandate letter, a budget where, apparently, spending

is no object. You can go to any dollar figure you want, especially with

the holdback removed. My understanding is that it’s been costed at $163

million, and it was costed in advance of this budget being presented.

Yet I don’t see it in here.

Can the minister clarify if there’s a renters rebate anywhere in

her budget for this year?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to point out to the member, on his initial

preamble, I guess I’ll call it, that our government has made choices

based on significant challenges that COVID laid bare and that I can’t

imagine not having a response to. I have read it into the record, and

I’m happy to do so again. When we saw the impacts of COVID on those who

are most vulnerable in our society — seniors in care, those on

government assistance, those who are on our streets — we had to, as a

government, make significant decisions through COVID to respond

accordingly, and we did.

It also meant that we house people who previously weren’t housed.

And although we no longer needed to do that as a result of COVID, I

can’t imagine any government saying: “You now need to leave, because the

pandemic is almost over. Out you go.” That’s not the kind of government

we are. We care about people, and we care about vulnerable people, in

particular, so that means that we had to take action. We had to build in

more supports for those people who are vulnerable, so we did

that.

The same thing for those with complex care. The members talk about

some of the street disorder and how disturbing it is for people. For

those on the streets, it’s also a hard life. Those who can’t settle into

supportive housing or continually get kicked out of housing need more

supports. They need more care. So we’re delivering that with this

budget. The member suggests somehow that that’s not important or ought

not to be a priority of government. It’s a priority of this

government.

And, of course, child care. We saw exactly how critical it is to

the economy in a way that I don’t think…. I think most of us knew that

it was critical, but seeing it through a COVID lens really sort of

reinforced that.

Again, I want to talk about the wildfires and keeping communities

safe and people safe and how critical it is to invest in

that.

[4:40 p.m.]

I want to draw the member’s attention to pages 54 and 55 of the

budget document. It shows the budget estimate on the expense side at the

bottom: $73 billion and change, then $73.359 billion, and then $74.506

billion, as the track of expenses over the three years. Then to look

over at the revenues: $68.5 billion and change, then $70.177 billion and

then $72.325 billion.

We’re preparing for a shrinking deficit over time, recognizing

that there are always difficult choices for governments to make —

always. It’s always the case. We’re making the choices that we think are

absolutely needed, and we’ll continue to listen to our communities,

continue to listen to the people that we serve, and that will help to

guide us in those choices.

Now, the member then asked a question about the renters rebate and

what the status is of the renters rebate. Having had been the Housing

Minister for three years, I can assure the member that we’ve been taking

action for renters ever since we formed government. Everyth