Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, June 17, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 98

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill Pr401 — United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021

K. Paddon

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. S. Robinson

T. Wat

B. Stewart

P. Milobar

G. Kyllo

Estimates: Other appropriations

Estimates: Legislative Assembly

Estimates: Officers of the Legislature

Supply Motions

Reports of resolutions from Committee of Supply

Funds granted for public service

Funds granted for capital, loans, investments and other financing requirements

Funds granted for revenue collected and transferred to

other entities

Hon. S. Robinson

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2021–2022

Hon. S. Robinson

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2021–2022

Hon. S. Robinson

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2021–2022

Hon. S. Robinson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2021–2022

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 4 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2021

Bill 6 — Accessible British Columbia Act

Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021

Bill 8 — Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Bill 10 — Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Bill 11 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2021–2022

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Hon. A. Dix

R. Merrifield

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

B. Stewart

Hon. R. Fleming

G. Kyllo

T. Shypitka

M. Lee

B. Banman

THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2021

The House met at 1:03 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL P r 401 — UNITED CHURCH OF

CANADA AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

K. Paddon presented a bill intituled United Church of Canada

Amendment Act, 2021.

K. Paddon: I move that a bill entitled United Church of Canada Amendment Act,

2021, standing in my name on the order paper be introduced and read a

first time now.

The United Church of Canada was incorporated by

an act of the

federal parliament in 1924. Certain rights and powers, specifically with

respect to property of the United Church of Canada and United Church

congregations in British Columbia, are governed by the United Church of

Canada Act, which was enacted in 1924 and amended once in

In 2015, the United Church of Canada’s 42nd General Council, the

national governance body, adopted a motion to initiate a consultative

process with congregations across Canada, called a remit process. The

question at issue was the restructuring of the national church from a

four-court structure to a three-council structure. The remit was

undertaken, and the results of the remit were in favour of a

restructuring.

The remit and resulting restructuring were confirmed by the United

Church of Canada’s 43rd General Council on July 22, 2018. This

restructuring and governance modernization process required amendments

to the federal act and now requires concurrent amendments to the

provincial act in British Columbia, as has been sought in other

provinces.

Specifically, this United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021,

amends certain

definitions to allow for the new three-council structure

and amends a certain

section of the

schedule A to the act, the trusts of

model deed, to reflect the changes in governing bodies that have

oversight over congregations on matters of property.

[1:05 p.m.]

The act is nearly a century old, and to preserve its integrity,

the proposed amendments modify only the bare minimum required to effect

the change in the governance structure of the United Church of

Canada.

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

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Members, pursuant to Standing Order 105, the bill stands referred

to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical

Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401, United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021, introduced,

read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills.

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: In this House, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Finance, followed

by the estimates of the Legislative Assembly and the officers of the

Legislature.

In

Section A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

in

Section C, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FINANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:08 p.m.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $307,466,000

(continued) .

M. Bernier: I was just waiting to see if the minister was going to start off,

but I guess we’ll just jump right into it. I only have a few more days’

worth of questions for the minister. I don’t know if I’ll have time to

get through them all, though. I hear the disappointment that the

minister has, as well, in the fact that I won’t have enough time to get

through all of the questions that I have.

But in saying that, I want to jump in to a few specific points

today. I have a colleague from Richmond North Centre who will join us in

a moment. But I just want to set the stage here. This topic is around

the speculation and vacancy tax. I want to talk about that a little

bit.

[1:10 p.m.]

It’s been around for a couple of years. Obviously, when the

government brought this in, it was really about…. I think the way it was

presented was about speculators. It was, really, targeting a lot about

foreign money that might be coming in and helping curb or shape the

supply and demand in raising the costs of homes, and homes being used

for a speculative purpose.

Unfortunately, what we’re seeing now, in this year specifically,

is…. We have a lot of British Columbia residents, people who live in

their homes and for different reasons…. Due to the format and the

application criteria that this government has put in and has not really

changed, it’s now targeting a lot of British Columbians — people who

have lived in their homes for years, people who have owned their homes,

in some cases for decades, some who have now vacant land — that are

being charged a speculation tax, and on vacant land.

I want to read one quote just to kind of set the stage here. Some

of the things that we are hearing…. And I know the minister is hearing

these issues as well — and why we’re pushing, challenging, asking the

minister to really take a closer look at this tax, what the intent was

to begin with. And then also on that, is it still achieving those goals,

or is it actually disproportionately now affecting British Columbia

residents who, through no fault of their own, are being forced to pay a

tax that most people…? Most rational people, I think, look at the

situation that those people are in. They should not be having to pay

that tax.

We have a multitude of examples that we could present in this

House. A lot of them have a similar issue, which is that people are

living in their houses, or because of where they receive some of their

funds, they have to pay a spec tax. I have one from a woman in North

Vancouver who is very distraught. She’s on a pension, but because she

moved to British Columbia and her pensionable earnings are coming from

Alberta, she cannot show on the documentation that her revenue comes

from B.C. So now she’s a speculator.

These are the kinds of weird loopholes that I think the ministry

needs to take a closer look at it so we’re not negatively impacting and

penalizing British Columbians.

I do want to read this one. I’ve got pages and pages, but I’m only

going to read one for now. This is a quote from a person in

Nanaimo.

“I am disgusted. I just completed my speculation tax forms, and I

have found out that you are making me pay a speculation tax on a bare

piece of land. We are citizens of B.C. We’re told that the speculation

tax was to deter foreign investors from purchasing homes and leaving

them vacant and driving up the prices of real estate. That is how this

government presented it. But now, because I have a piece of property

that I have been trying to sell for a number of years, a vacant piece of

land, the NDP government is making me pay a tax.

“This is sneaky. It’s a dirty cash grab, and what an underhanded way

of handling this tax and penalizing British Columbians. You are

targeting the middle class, and you are making us suffer.”

Now, that was Catherine from Nanaimo. As the minister can

appreciate, I have stacks and stacks of these, and most of these have

been delivered to the minister and to her ministry, but I have yet to

hear the minister really talk about how they’re going to look at

changes. So I’m going to give her that opportunity today to talk about

how they’re going to maybe relook at this tax or, on the record, say,

“No. We’re satisfied with it, and we’re going to keep it exactly the way

it is,” which will continue to penalize British Columbians.

Maybe before I turn it over to my colleague, I will ask one

question just to start this off. How much is collected for this budget

cycle, earmarked to be collected? How much was collected in the 2020-21

budget from the spec tax, and how much is budgeted to be collected in

the ’21-22 budget — on the speculation and vacancy tax?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: When we introduced the speculation and vacancy tax, our province

was at a very significant point of real estate crisis, and moderation of

the market was very long overdue. It had been ignored for far too long.

Certainly, the next generation…. I believe that the member’s children….

I think the member, in fact, was talking about his daughter who is

living now in Vancouver and the challenges of finding an appropriate

place to live and just how significant that has been for far too

long.

[1:20 p.m.]

We brought in a speculation and vacancy tax, part of our 30-point

housing plan, to help make housing more affordable, to make sure that

we’re addressing the speculation in the market. Some might call it

holding on to land in order to wait for the prices to go up so that you

could cash out, so to speak. In order to help incent those to either, if

there was a place to live on the property, at least rent it out or, if

it was vacant land, to start developing it or sell it to someone who

would develop it.

Because that was hurting people. It was hurting our children. It

was hurting, certainly, the next generation. And they’re still

continuing to hurt. I think the member would agree that they’re

continuing to be challenged with housing so it’s with that in mind. But

we also certainly recognize that speculation by those not paying taxes

here was a particular problem, so we structured this tax to address that

as well.

The intent was to turn empty houses into homes for people, to

discourage real estate speculation and ensure that homeowners who report

the majority of their income outside of Canada pay their fair share of

taxes. So it was designed in all of that capacity. It exempts 99.9

percent of British Columbians. It’s a very small percentage of British

Columbians that do get captured here.

After reviewing the data from the second year and from hearing

from local leaders and communities and those impacted by the housing

crisis, we made some additional improvements to build on the success of

our first two years. So making some adjustments has been a part of how

we have operated as a government. I just, in fact, tabled a report

yesterday about some other feedback. We consult with the mayors, so that

report was tabled yesterday as part of understanding the impacts in

communities. We continue that process, and we will continue that

process.

Now, what I will share — the specifics of the member’s question

were wanting to understand how much was collected in 2021 and how much

is budgeted for this year. In 2021 in the first quarterly report, the

revenue forecast was revised from $185 million to $80 million,

reflecting a decline in observed revenue. We saw, certainly, the

filings, because of the timing of when people file and when budget is

done and when Public Accounts comes in. There’s a bit of a challenge

around the timing. But certainly, what we were seeing is that more and

more people are choosing not to pay the tax. They’re choosing to rent

out their homes.

We saw thousands and thousands of liveable units come onto the

market so that people can rent a home. So instead of them sitting empty,

collecting dust, we are seeing that when we actually change the rate

from 0.5 percent of assessed value in the first year of the tax, we

didn’t see as much rental come onto the market. When it went to 2

percent for foreign owners, it had a behavioural effect, and we saw,

certainly, more homes come available for people like the member’s

daughter, so that they’re actually lived in. That’s made a

difference.

As a result, we are recognizing that there are lower revenues. We

see this as a good thing. I know that that’s really hard for some folks

to believe. As the Finance Minister, we really prefer to see revenues.

But in this case, this is really about making sure that safety deposit

boxes in the sky are lived in, at a minimum. At a minimum.

Our rental vacancy rates had been severely challenged in the Lower

Mainland. I know that the Chair is well aware of that, given his role

with the Rental Housing Task Force a number of years ago, and making

sure that we were using these investments for a good purpose. That’s so

that people can have a place to live, and there’s certainly more work to

do on that file. But this is making a difference in so many

lives.

[1:25 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Thank you. I’m going to turn things over right now, then, to my

colleague from Richmond North Centre, just to give another example of

some of the struggles. I will then, after her, come back to some of the

comments. I didn’t quite get the full answer from the minister of what’s

projected in the budget for 2021. I’ll give her an opportunity

afterwards to do that, maybe.

To the Chair, maybe I’ll turn things over to him to recognize my

colleague.

T. Wat: I’d like to thank my colleague from Peace River South for giving

me my time to talk about my constituent’s situation, knowing that there

are so many of my colleagues that have been unfairly taxed by this

so-called speculation tax.

Before letting the minister know about the plight of my

constituent, I’d like to quote a sentence from him in his appeal letter

to the ministry dated June 10, 2021. He said, and his name is Tony Chan:

“If the intent of the tax is to improve the life of British Columbians,

then this has failed miserably and in fact has likely imposed additional

hardship to many unsuspecting citizens besides me.”

Let me talk a little bit about my constituent, Tony Chan. He is 64

years old; he’s a retiree. Tony approached me in March 2020 regarding

his speculation tax assessment. He owns and has lived in his Richmond

townhome for the past 20 years — two decades. He has been constantly

corresponding with my CA and talking to her, and I’ve talked to him a

couple of times, for more than half an hour each time.

His wife is an American citizen and owns her home in the States.

They are not on title to each other’s property, but the ministry has

asked him to pay almost $15,000 in speculation tax, in spite of the fact

that he has lived in his Richmond townhome for the past 20 years. Tony

was married long before this tax was even considered. He has owned his

own home, like the majority of British Columbians, for many years before

this so-called speculation tax came to light.

Tony cannot direct his wife to not make more money than he does,

and he certainly will not divorce her. He cannot simply go out and get a

high-paying salary at his age of 64. So how can he afford this $15,000?

Tony told me that the only alternative for him is that he would be

forced to sell his home of 20 years in order to pay an annual tax of

$15,000. That should not be required of any average citizen who has

lived in his own home for two decades.

I really feel for the plight of Tony. On behalf of Tony, we have

asked the Ministry of Finance, twice, for a reconsideration, but the

answers remain the same. Tony just wrote another letter, dated June 10,

to appeal the ministry’s decision. I would really appreciate it if the

minister can explain why a British Columbian — a Canadian citizen and

not a speculator — has to pay speculation tax, when he owns his home and

has lived there for 20 years.

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: My understanding is that there is an appeal in progress, so I

can’t speak to any specific taxpayer. There is, however, an annual

review of this tax to see how it’s working, to see how we can make it

work better and to identify where there might be loopholes. So this is

an ongoing process that we are committed to continuing to

review.

We have a situation where 99.9 percent of British Columbians do

not have to pay this tax. That’s a very important thing for us all to

remember. That was how it was constructed. Because this very specific

case is under appeal, I can’t comment about any specific one

taxpayer.

T. Wat: Before I pass the floor back to my colleague from Peace River

South, I just want the minister to know that Tony Chan, in his appeal

letter, did say: “Your letter” — meaning the Minister of Finance’s

letter — “actually acknowledged that this tax is unfair to me, yet no

relief is offered.” The minister should know that the minister’s staff

admitted that the tax is unfair to my constituent. So I appeal to the

minister. She should take a look.

[1:35 p.m.]

I know that it’s under appeal, but if this creates hardship on my

constituent, I’m sure it will create hardship for many other

constituents, which is not the intent of this speculation tax at all.

I’m sure the minister must fully agree with me. So thank you for the

minister’s attention, and thank you for the time.

M. Bernier: Thank you to my colleague for bringing that example forward. As

she said, there are lots of others like that. I’m hoping that the

minister, since the minister acknowledged…. In this specific case, this

constituent has appealed and got what appears to be a form letter back

saying: “Thanks for the appeal. We’re not changing our minds.” So he’s

now written to the minister and said, basically: “Yeah, I’d like to

appeal this appeal on the fact that it’s not only a hardship.” But in

this case, it’s a perfect example of, I think, the unintended — I would

use those words — consequences of the policies that this government put

forward around the speculation and vacancy tax.

Since the minister’s staff appear to be aware of it, from the

commentary that I heard there, it’s my hope, then, and my ask that when

we are done here, the minister can direct her staff to maybe look at

this one a little bit more closely and hopefully, if nothing else,

report back to my colleague from Richmond North Centre on what the

process will be. This constituent has been very active in explaining

their hardship, their concerns with this tax. I know that the

constituent and my colleague would really appreciate this one being

looked at a little bit more holistically. I hope the minister will

consider doing that afterwards.

I was going to continue on, on this. I’ll come back to talking

about the speculation and vacancy tax. But I just want to say, first of

all, I’m quite surprised. Here we are on the last day of session. We’re

in the House on Finance estimates. While we’re in this chamber, the

government, on the last day, just now, puts on the government website a

report from the panel around affordability. This is the panel that was

chaired by NDP’er Joy MacPhail, where the government appointed her to

work on this panel to come back with recommendations.

I think the minister will agree that since this was just put on

the website, I haven’t had a chance to look at the entire report. As she

was just answering the last question, I was quickly looking at it. But I

can tell you I’m quite surprised, and I want to bring some things to the

attention of the minister.

This is a panel that the government has put together around

affordability. I get that. But I think it’s really important today,

since the Premier’s not available to answer these questions, that the

minister, on behalf of government…. I think it’s really important that

the minister does.

One of the very first things that this panel is recommending,

which goes to the heart of almost what we’re talking about right now,

whether it’s homeowner’s grant, speculation and vacancy tax, all the

different tools the government has that are helping people get into or

stay in housing…. Let me just say how shocked I am to see that some of

the first two recommendations that have come forward are to review and

eliminate the capital gains tax exemption on principal residences and to

phase out and eliminate the homeowner’s grant. Those are two of the top

recommendations that this panel has put forward.

Now the minister has stood up in this House in the past when we’ve

been debating and taking about these specific issues, especially the

homeowner’s grant. When we were talking about this one, the changes were

made in December. The minister was on the record saying that there were

no intended changes and they were not doing anything to get rid of the

homeowner’s grant. The government and the minister’s own panel is now

recommending they get rid of the homeowner’s grant and get rid of the

capital gains tax exemption on principal residences.

[1:40 p.m.]

Real easy to solve this today, because this goes against pretty

well what we’ve heard in this House. Is the minister able to stand up

today and acknowledge — first of all, this report is just out — that

she, too, would be surprised by those recommendations, since that goes

against some of the comments we’ve heard in this House, and that she’ll

today publicly say that they will not be accepting those

recommendations?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to understand just who this panel was. I

believe it’s an expert panel that was put in place. It was before my

time as Finance Minister. I believe it was — I want to say — maybe 18

months, 24 months ago. It was to the previous Finance Minister

federally, Bill Morneau, and to the previous Finance Minister, Carole

James, here in this chamber. There has been significant change. Chrystia

Freeland is now the federal Finance Minister, and I am here.

So this report has come to us to help identify what more we can do

in addressing the housing crisis. It’s not just here in Vancouver. We

know that Ontario is having a significant challenge as well. So the

report was delivered to the federal government as well as to our

government. They’re an independent group that was tasked to go out and

come up with some ideas.

I haven’t had a chance, either, to dig into this report, but what

I can absolutely assure the member is that we are not interested in

making any changes to the homeowner grant. I have said that before, and

I am saying that again today. My understanding is that the federal

government, CMHC, has also just issued a release that says that they are

not interested in making any changes to capital gains either.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that and thank the minister, because we have had that

discussion in the House. I wanted to ensure, obviously, as I am just

getting the report now. It’s one of those surprising things. I know what

happens when it comes on the last day of session when you don’t have

time to dive into it holistically to look at the rest of it, but of

course, that flagged for me right away. This is one of those things

where the Premier and the Minister of Finance, I think, can stand behind

their commitment.

[1:45 p.m.]

Obviously we all, in this House, want to ensure that we have

opportunities for people to get into the housing market, but that also

shouldn’t come as a penalty to those who have been fortunate enough to

already be in the housing market. The minister has acknowledged in the

past, when we debated the homeowner’s grant…. So I’m encouraged to hear

from the minister today that they have no intention of accepting those

recommendations. I’m paraphrasing what the minister said, but I

appreciate that.

With that, Mr. Chair, if I can, I’m going to, through you, hope to

acknowledge my colleague from Kelowna West, who has a few questions on a

different subject for the minister.

The Chair: Happy to acknowledge a member when they rise.

B. Stewart: I hope that this question…. Because of the changes that have been

made by the government in terms of responsibilities around liquor

control, liquor licensing, the LDB and taxation, there’s a very

specific…. And this is probably something that is not necessarily on the

minister or the minister’s staff about taxation. However, when an

importation of wine is brought into the province of British Columbia,

the CBSA does its job and collects tax. They see it as alcohol. There’s

a tax that is put on all alcohol imported into the province.

So the confusion and the opportunity that is missing or needs to

be addressed is that there are laboratories that have developed as part

of the wine industry in British Columbia. From the time, the early

days…. I say that meaning when most laboratory work was done in-house.

Now with the numbers and the number of small wineries, they rely very

heavily on a particular company that’s set up in Kelowna called Supra

laboratories. They do analysis of work. Of course, you will perhaps

remember that there are different things that can affect the flavour and

taste of wines. One of them happens to be smoke taint.

Now, what happened in the last couple of years, in California, is

that they’ve been overwhelmed. Their laboratory system has consolidated

down to one main specific laboratory, and this particular company went

out to attract business into British Columbia, and it is literally

hundreds and hundreds of samples that they need to analyze. But the

problem is that they’re now being assessed as if they’re importing wine

samples.

What Rob O’Brien, who owns this laboratory, is asking for is: how

do we navigate through the taxation system to find a way for analytical

purposes being able to exempt these wines that are coming in for an

analysis? They’re not for resale. And being able to make it clear.

Because this confusion, which happens around this tax that often gets

punted around in government…. How can we help Mr. O’Brien find a

solution — and other laboratories that have that opportunity to

capitalize on the opportunity here in British Columbia, all

over?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for bringing this to my attention. I

don’t have an answer for him just yet. But it would be helpful — because

I’ve got a bunch of different people talking to me — understanding which

tax specifically he’s speaking to. That would be really

helpful.

B. Stewart: I can only assume that it’s the same tax on any wines that are

imported into British Columbia for the sale, whether it’s private or

through the BCLDB.

[1:50 p.m.]

The taxation, as far as I can recollect, is about 110 percent of

the landed cost. That tax is assessed. If you’re bringing it across a

land border or you’re flying it in as a personal importation, it’s all

the same, as far as I know. I just would like to have been able

to….

I wish I could unravel and figure this out myself. I’ve been

confronted with this many times — the fact that I’ve had an entire

lifetime in this business — and it’s always complicated. I just pay the

tax and don’t bother fighting it. But these guys are trying to make a

business out of this and create an opportunity to take well-educated lab

technicians and specialists in this area. It would be great if we could

become the leading place in North America for this

assessment.

Hon. S. Robinson: After a bit of bouncing around and trying to figure out what the

likely tax is, there is some suspicion that it might be the federal

excise tax. But what would be helpful and I’d like to offer the member

is that perhaps we should talk outside of this venue to understand more

fully what’s going on so that we could help navigate the exact tax and

the exact department where we can try to problem-solve this together. I

want to extend that invitation to the member to reach out so that we

could sort this out.

I look forward to learning a little bit more about what this

business is doing. It sounds absolutely fascinating, and we’ll see how

we can be helpful to fix this.

M. Bernier: Before I move on, I just want to maybe go back, if I could for a

second, to the report. What is the role of the minister? As she said,

it’s gone to the federal government. What is the role of the minister,

then? Does this report go to her directly? Does it go to the Premier?

Does it go to cabinet? Who is the one…?

I apologize if the minister already said it in her initial

response — just to have a further discussion on this. I think it’s

really important that we get some of this on the record just to, if

nothing else, ensure that people who might read this report understand

the direction that government chooses to go, which we understand is

obviously around affordability. But there are, as I mentioned, some

recommendations in here, at first glance, that people could be very

worried about, very concerned about. I think it’s an opportunity just

for a respectful dialogue, if I can say it that way, for the minister so

we understand what the minister’s role is.

Again, I will understandably acknowledge that this took place

prior to the minister having the present role that she has. But she’s

now in the role as Finance Minister, so is this going to the minister?

Has she been briefed already? Has she already been briefed on this

document? If so, was she aware of these recommendations, or are there

further briefings coming? Then who is going to be having the final

decision on what recommendations to consider and how this report will be

utilized?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to remember the context again. You know,

there has been a significant housing affordability challenge. When we

formed government in 2017, we tackled it head-on, and early in 2018, we

came out with the 30-point plan. The work always continues. We’re always

looking to do more.

government that commissioned the Expert Panel on the Future of Housing

Supply and Affordability to identify additional measures that could

build on our investments that we were making and initiatives that were

already underway to help more people find affordable housing in British

Columbia — and in Canada, frankly. I know there are some ideas in there

that I believe other governments might be interested in taking a look

at.

The expert panel has been chaired by Joy MacPhail, and there were

other members as well — Jill Atkey, Jock Finlayson, Brian McCauley, Sue

Paish and Helmut Pastrick. These are well-respected people in their

fields. I see the member from Kelowna nodding. These are people who know

a little something about this. I want to thank them. I want to take a

moment to thank them for their hard work in engaging with everyone, from

the financial sector to the housing sector, recognizing that we all need

to be working together to address housing affordability.

The member may not be aware, but they did release, in December

2020, a what-we-heard report that was available, in terms of

understanding what they were hearing. Then they continued to go and do

their work. The report, I understand, was released earlier today. The

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. was releasing the report. Because it

was a joint report, it required, certainly, working with the federal

government. I know that the member has been on this side of the House.

It’s not always easy to coordinate, so they release the

report.

I haven’t been able to roll up my sleeves. I’ve been busy

preparing for estimates, so there is a pile on my desk. It’s not just

these binders. There’s a whole other pile, and that is on a pile. My

understanding, in a very cursory review, is there are a number of

recommendations.

I think it’s clear, just from recent economic factors that we’re

seeing, with historically low interest rates and the impact of the

pandemic, that we’re continuing to see volatility in the market. In some

parts of the market, there is a settling out, but in other parts, it’s

not the case. We all know, and I think we can all agree, that all orders

of government have to work together in order to make it work

better.

I keep coming back to it, and it rings true for my kids as well. I

heard the member from Peace River talk about his daughter moving to the

Lower Mainland and having a hard time finding housing. I agree, and my

heart goes out to them, but my heart isn’t good enough. We have to be

doing more to support this next generation in finding ways that they can

find the housing that meets their needs but, more than that, that they

could settle into, whether it’s home ownership, something that they can

afford. Even when they have decent jobs, it’s really hard for them to

do.

I also want to take a moment, if I can. Since we launched Homes

for B.C. in 2018, we’ve made significant progress in some significant

key areas. We’ve cracked down on tax fraud, and we closed loopholes. We

have about 30,000 publicly funded homes that are complete or underway,

with more to come. Every day I see more and more housing that is

affordable, that we started building two years ago and that is now homes

to people.

That’s what this is about. It’s about people. With this budget,

we’re building an additional 9,000 homes for middle-income people, and

some of that is home ownership. We’re looking at different models in

order to make that available for people.

[2:00 p.m.]

We’ve brought back a number of rental units — 18,000 is what we’ve

been able to do and what our analysis indicates — because we’ve

implemented the speculation and vacancy tax. That’s made a significant

difference to renters, being able to ease some of those

pressures.

Other work that is underway, which I’m very proud of — I was the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, and we started this work; and I know that

under the new minister, it will be ably stewarded and we’ll see more

results — is improving and streamlining the development approval

process.

We’ve certainly heard, in some communities, not in all

communities…. I believe Langford has the fastest turnaround time, but

there are other communities that really are very slow. They’re very

bogged down, and it creates a tremendous backlog, not just on

government-funded housing but on the private sector. That’s the number

one issue that the private sector has certainly complained about when it

comes to building housing: things need to move faster. Time is money,

and the faster they can move on getting housing built, the lower the

costs, but also, the sooner people can move into homes.

These are the kinds of things that we’re doing. In March we

launched a $15 million local government development approvals program,

encouraging local governments to look at best practices, innovative ways

to support non-profit housing organizations, developers and others to

deliver essential housing to people around the province.

It’s going to take a sustained level, frankly, of action to tackle

the crisis. We know it won’t be solved overnight. Here’s one more piece

for us to roll up our sleeves and dig into, to see what more perhaps we

need to be able to do. We brought in legislation early on to require all

local governments to do a housing needs assessment, all local

governments of a certain size. Small communities don’t need to. They

sort of…. They can count how many homes they have; they don’t need,

perhaps, a full assessment. But again, it’s so that we understand what

the housing stock is and what anticipated needs are.

We’ll certainly be taking a look at this expert panel. They were

tasked to go out and find what more we should be doing, where we should

be prioritizing, how we should be thinking about what we need to do,

because it is critical. It’s absolutely critical that we continue to

address housing affordability. Our economy depends on it.

We’ve certainly heard from employers who can’t find employees

because employees can’t afford to live in their communities. The example

that I’ve used before in this House is with the North Shore and the

Lower Mainland, particularly when it comes to building housing. They

can’t find workers, because workers tend to only be able to afford to

live, perhaps, in the Fraser Valley or elsewhere, and they don’t want to

deal with the traffic to come. There are other projects for them to work

on in the Fraser Valley, and so as a result, it’s really hard to find

workers to work on the North Shore.

That’s really, I think, a problem for all of us to wrap our minds

around and to be dedicated to addressing so that in places like the

North Shore, there could be homes that those folks can afford to live in

so that they don’t have to travel for work.

I’m going to take my seat now. I know that there’s more that I

have to say about this. And I look forward to the next set of

questions.

M. Bernier: I have another colleague that will ask a question in a second. But

I just want to say for the minister…. Of course we’re looking at this

report. One of the questions was, obviously, around some of the specific

recommendations. The minister is already on the record — spoken, I

assume, on behalf of government — that they’re not going to be following

through with those recommendations.

But I also want to acknowledge…. I understand completely when

expert panels, if we use that term — and I think it’s probably an

appropriate term — are put together to come forward with

recommendations. But the final decision still lies on government of the

day to look at those recommendations and make the determination of

whether that’s practical on the ground, that it’s practical in terms of

government’s direction they choose to go and it’s also in the best

interests of the people.

I look at the other expert panel, for electoral boundaries review.

They’re going to come forward with a whole bunch of recommendations

based on the criteria that government has asked them to look at. But the

final decision still comes down to government and the ministry and

cabinet whether to accept some or all of the recommendations or the

determination around those recommendations.

I just want to also, for the record though, remind the minister

that one of the big challenges is supply. I think she somewhat

acknowledged that supply is an issue. And we do not want to, in my

opinion, humbly, say that we create a further issue between renters and

homeowners.

[2:05 p.m.]

We shouldn’t be penalizing homeowners. What we want to do is

incentivize development to allow more renters that choose to, to become

Housing Minister, during estimates this session, has already

acknowledged that government has only been able to achieve 5 percent of

what they promised around an affordable housing market. The government

had announced that they were — going off memory here — 114,000

affordable housing units, and they’ve been able to help generate only

about 5,000 or just over 5,000. That’s confirmed by the Housing Minister

in this.

A big issue is around red tape. I believe — quickly looking

through this report — that that’s one of the things that’s addressed

too. So I think it’s very important that we look at eliminating that red

tape, reducing taxes and development fees to incentivize businesses to

invest, to build housing, to build affordable housing.

Would the minister agree with me that that’s probably a direction

that the government should be looking at going?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s really important to, first of all, recognize that

supply alone isn’t necessarily how to think about this problem. I think

it’s about right supply.

You know, in my community in Coquitlam, if you can imagine, it’s a

very traditional suburb. It doesn’t get more suburban than Coquitlam, in

many ways. Lots of single-family. Just tons of single-family. The reason

my husband and I purchased our home there is because kids were playing

street hockey. They were playing road hockey. That’s what he and I grew

up with. We both grew up in suburbia.

The thing with suburbia is that there is a lot of single-family.

Certainly built out in my community, Coquitlam-Maillardville, through

the ’50s — most of the housing built was in the ’50s and then later in

the ’70s and then in the ’80s. That was really all you could get there —

just a single-family home.

And then word was that we were going to get the Nevergreen line.

That’s sort of an old joke. It became the Evergreen Line. That really

put significant pressure on what to do around where the stations were

going to be. So they started to build condos — condo towers. Investment

kept pouring into our community. So what they were building, because the

appetite was for investment and speculation, were towers that had

hundreds of units that were about 600 to 800 square feet — I would say,

dozens of these buildings.

Now we have come to learn that a lot of those were speculative,

right? The message that came through when I was sitting at that council

table was: “This is what the market demands, so we’re just going to

respond to the market.” Well, the market was a speculative market. It

wasn’t for people wanting to raise a family. It wasn’t for people

downsizing.

[2:10 p.m.]

It was for a speculative market, because you could get in at the

ground floor, so to speak — also at the 18th floor or the 22nd floor,

but you can get in on the ground floor in this investment. You could

flip it several times — those were the days that you could do that — and

make good money. You could even let it sit empty and just wait till the

market picked up even more and then make a killing. What you were

killing was the next generation who couldn’t afford to get

in.

When the member talks about supply, I think it’s important that we

talk about the right supply. We’re building housing for people, not for

speculation and, I would even argue, not for investment. Now, if

somebody wants to invest in housing and rent it out, for sure, but not

just to make money. These are homes. Where are our workers going to

live? Where are our children going to live?

Whenever we talk supply, I think it’s incumbent on us as

legislators to talk about the right supply. Who are we building for?

It’s with that in mind that I do want to speak to how we are looking at

supply. I do think it’s important.

I also think it’s important to recognize that when we formed

government in April…. Well, it was July, I think, of 2017. We went back

to take a look at how much housing was being developed by the previous

government. They had 2,000 homes in development or under construction —

2,000. Okay. Nice attempt. Housing crisis — 2,000. We have over ten

times that — 21,000 — and thousands more open. I’m just talking about

what’s under construction or in development. That’s a significant boost

in investment. That’s a significant boost.

Now, if we could build housing with just a little

Bewitched wiggle of my nose, that would be great. We are

getting better at it. We’re seeing modular construction, which builds

housing more quickly. There’s a project, actually, in Grand Forks, a

townhouse project, that was built modularly. That went up, I think, in

nine months, which was pretty exciting. But it does take a couple of

years.

Part of the problem is…. The member calls it red tape. The

development approval process is a significant process. It’s certainly

something that we were taking a look at — and I know that the new

minister continues to take a look at — and moving actively on with local

government partners. I know the member was a mayor and understands what

development approval processes look like. So there is work underway to

address that, to make it more efficient, to make it work more smoothly

and to identify ways that we could fast-track.

I see there’s another member in the House who was a mayor. I know

that there are lots of local government representatives here. I see

another member here who was a city councillor. So we are, I think,

familiar with that process. Government is continuing to undertake a

review to identify how to best make things move faster.

The other thing, before I take my seat, is that there is more

under construction now than in the last number of years — every single

year. There are historical highs for housing starts. That’s significant

as well, because it is about getting supply. Again, I want to qualify —

the right supply. That’s very much what our housing needs assessment was

about — making sure that local governments understood what their current

supply was, who’s coming into their community and what they are

anticipating they’re going to need so that they can make sure they’re

building the kind of housing that people need. We’re building housing

for people.

The Chair: Member for Kamloops–South Thompson. North. Beautiful

north.

P. Milobar: Yes. The sunny side. That’s what it is. It’s the north side. It

gets more sun.

I just want to take the minister back to this report. It’s an

expert panel report, but it’s an expert panel report chaired by a

former, some would very easily say distinguished, legislator from this

chamber that represented the NDP for a great many years, with

distinction, and definitely understands the politics of reports like

this.

[2:15 p.m.]

She was the Social Services Minister, was the Labour Minister, was

the Education Minister, was the Health Minister — a pretty big

portfolio. She was the Finance Minister, was the Deputy Premier and was

even the Leader of the Opposition. So that’s who the chair of this

expert report is. Pretty close ties and connections to this current

government and ideologically aligned as well. I don’t think that’s a big

shock to anyone.

The member for Peace River South had asked the minister previously

if the minister had been briefed, had advance discussion — or anyone in

the government, staff or other ministers — on this report ahead of its

release today so that government could start to formulate a response.

That would not be an unreasonable expectation on an expert panel report

that’s going to be coming out.

I heard a 12-minute response that touched on just about everything

but the question about getting a briefing, except for a slight reference

to “a stack of documents on the side of my desk that I haven’t gotten

to.” That was not the question.

Was the minister, the government or anyone within government

briefed in advance, given notification in advance or have any

understanding in advance of what was going to be in this report when it

was released today?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: To the member for Kamloops–​North Thompson, the sunny side

of Kamloops. I’ll always remember that now.

Staff did receive a draft of this independent panel’s report back

in…. I believe it was in February. Three ministers — myself and the

Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing — had a very high-level

briefing — we believe it’s March; I’d have to double-check — from the

chair, from Joy MacPhail. It was very, very high level.

They were letting us know a bit about what they’d done, what they

were thinking, what they were hearing and giving us a bit of a timeline

about when they expected…. But it also depended on working with the

federal government, because it was a joint group that they also had to

report out to CMHC. So they were briefing both governments and letting

us know a general sense of what their timeline was.

That was, I believe…. It was back in March. I’d have to

double-check to get a specific date, if the member is looking for

that.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that. Was there anything fundamentally different,

then, in that briefing, particularly around the recommendations around

the homeowner grant or the capital gains on your primary residence,

that’s different from that high-level briefing to the actual final

detailed language in the report?

Hon. S. Robinson: It is difficult to recall, so we are looking at early drafts.

There was mention of the homeowner grant and the capital gains. But they

hadn’t really drilled down in terms of the detail. They recognized that

these were things that could be addressed, but they didn’t have any

specificity to them in their early drafts.

P. Milobar: Well, it’s important, because people are already on edge about

homeowners’ grants. I think the minister can appreciate that. The

minister was a former Housing minister as well. My in-box is flooded in

Kamloops right now, especially by seniors.

I’m sure almost every member in this House is having the same

experience across this province because of the province’s decision to

take over the administration of the homeowner grant instead of you just

applying for it through the regular way through a municipality. It makes

it difficult for seniors that have never done it that way, aren’t

tech-savvy, don’t necessarily have the help — all of those things. I

think the minister can appreciate that.

That was in December, I believe — those changes happened. Here we

are in March, with a briefing starting to talk about that as well. In

December, there were concerns and worry that this would be an easier way

for the province to eliminate the homeowner’s grant. Now we have a

report that’s recommending that, by somebody that used to hold the

highest positions within NDP governments as the chair of the

committee.

[2:25 p.m.]

So there was discussion at a high level in a briefing, with very

high-level ministers of this current government. Was there a government

discussion then? Was there a government position formulated at that

point? Can the minister confirm — I know it’s been asked already — one

more time that it is the government’s position, this current

government’s position, that there will not be the removal of the

homeowner’s grant for British Columbians? Full stop. Not a reduction.

Not a reworking of the calculation. It will not be messed

with.

Hon. S. Robinson: I have been saying all along that this recommendation is not at

all under consideration. We said we would not be changing the

homeowner’s grant. We’ve been saying that back…. I believe it was

December. We continue to hold that position.

P. Milobar: That was actually my error. It was actually March that that change

happened. That would align with when the briefing was happening, as

well, in that same time frame.

I think the minister can appreciate why there starts to be a

little cynicism and worry, by not just this side of the House but by

many residents in British Columbia, as to what the actual end goal

really is when some of these changes come forward. Now we’re hearing

that high-level briefings were taking place around a recommendation that

was ultimately going to recommend the removal of the homeowner grant at

the same time that a massive fundamental change to how it will be

administered was being pushed through the House.

Now, another recommendation that was a part of that high-level

briefing was about a capital gains tax on the sale of your primary

residence. That stands to be dramatically punitive to people trying to

sell and move and sell and move for legitimate work reasons or whichever

reason. They’re moving from one primary house to another primary house.

As soon as you sell that primary house, by the sounds of it, you’re

going to trigger a whole other tax bill — not the property transfer tax,

but a capital gains tax — if you happen to sell it for more than you

bought it for. And that’s what most people strive to do — actually sell

their house for more than they bought it for.

The minister, just in a previous answer talking about supply,

actually said, would argue, that houses should not be for investment.

Yet we have a recommendation here to apply capital gains to your primary

residence. That sounds like an investment to me. The biggest investment

most people make in their lives is buying their home.

The recommendation is that, if they have the gall to buy a house,

live it for a number of years and sell it for more than they paid for

it, they should pay a tax over and above that. Now, I’m assuming that

the government ministers involved in that high-level briefing would have

had further discussions about what the government’s position would be if

a recommendation like this was to come to pass. And it was part of that

briefing.

What is the official government position about a capital gains tax

on your primary residence?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, the capital gains is a federal responsibility. The

CMHC has already come out with a press release saying that they’re not

interested in changing the rules around capital gains. So that line of

questioning, I would suggest, is moot.

He’s not quite capturing my words and my intent when I talk about

purchasing homes that are not your primary residence for the purpose of

investment and letting them sit empty. That’s what the speculation and

vacancy tax is about — making sure that if you are going to invest in

real estate, that, at a minimum, you need to rent out the home. That’s

what the intent of my response was. If the member didn’t fully capture

that, then I’m hoping that my clarification is well understood

now.

P. Milobar: Well, we sure have a lot of finger-pointing back to Ottawa and

“it’s not our responsibility” coming from the other side of the House

these days. That didn’t seem to be a problem when it came to Trans

Mountain pipeline. Every tool in the toolbox was going to be used by the

other side. We went to court how many times? Lost every single time.

Spent untold dollars, because the government won’t divulge that, to push

back against Ottawa.

[2:30 p.m.]

That’s a government’s right to do that. I didn’t agree with it,

but it’s the government’s right to do it. In fact, British Columbians

expect their provincial government to stand up for their interests. We

would expect that on cruise ships. We would expect that on softwood

lumber. We would expect that on anything that might happen federally and

that would create undue impact on British Columbians, especially if it

was contrary to what a sitting government thought was the right policy

move for British Columbians.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Again, the question wasn’t what Ottawa thinks about the capital

gains tax on their primary residence. The question was what this

government’s position on that type of policy is. The Premier has spent

millions of dollars for intergovernmental relations in his office. We’re

starting to really have a hard time figuring out what that office even

does for those millions of dollars, because every time we ask a question

that might fall under federal jurisdiction, we get a shrug and we get

told that it’s not really our problem.

Surely that side of the house — I’ve lost count of how many MLAs

used to be MPs — understands how Ottawa works. Again, what is the

government’s position? This is a concept that was provided in a

high-level briefing note in March to all the relevant ministers in this

government, about the concept of capital gains tax on a primary

residence. It is simply not good enough for this government to say: “We

haven’t really thought about it. It’s not our problem. It’s Ottawa that

would bring it in.”

What is the position of this government, after that briefing, on

capital gains on a primary residence? If it’s that’s they should not

happen, what advocacy are they doing to ensure that that happens at a

federal level?

The Chair: The Minister of Finance.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much. It’s nice to see you in the chair.

It’s really unfortunate that the member for Kamloops–​North

Thompson, the sunny side of Kamloops, doesn’t seem to have brought a

sunny disposition with him here, today. It is really unfortunate,

because we have had great dialogue here.

Perhaps he didn’t hear my response when CMHC has come out with a

press release saying that they are not interested in changing their

position on the capital gains and that there is zero appetite by the

federal government. So there is nothing to advocate for, because the

capital gains isn’t going to change and neither is the homeowner grant

treatment going to change.

P. Milobar: Well, again, that’s what the CMHC says today. We’re not sure what

they might say in a week or a month. We’re not sure what might happen in

a federal election, which seems to be imminent. MPs all over the place

are doing farewell speeches in Ottawa.

The question, though, that the minister has still failed to answer

is: what is the government’s official position in regard to capital

gains tax on your primary residence? Does this government want to see a

policy like that enacted? Or is this government steadfastly opposed to

capital gains on your primary residence and going to push back if

there’s any hint of the CMHC actually enacting what is in this

report?

Hon. S. Robinson: I just got some clarification that the report went to CMHC, but

the press release actually came from the office of Minister Freeland,

the Federal Finance Minister, who was very clear that the federal

government had zero appetite to make any changes to the capital gains. I

am pleased to hear that, because I think that that’s the right decision

on their behalf.

[2:35 p.m.]

I also don’t want to suggest that it is my responsibility…. While

it’s my responsibility to advocate and to lobby, there’s nothing to

lobby about here. To spend time trying to get the federal government to

do something, when they’ve already stated their position, is not a good

use of my time. It’s not a good use of any relationship work that we

continue to do. It doesn’t make any sense — except, perhaps, a thank-you

note: “It’s the right decision. Glad to see that you made that

commitment.” I’ll be sure to do so when we get out of this chamber

today.

P. Milobar: Well, again the minister is not actually answering the question.

She said that she thinks it’s a good decision. It was a high-level

briefing on a concept that was going to be in a report, in March, by all

the main ministers that would need to be involved, provincially, on a

wide range of topics. This topic, in particular, was touched on and

briefed, and by the minister’s own answer earlier on, things changed:

wording changed; detail got added after that briefing.

The broad concept, though, the minister said, was there in the

briefing. Surely one would hope the government ministers involved

would’ve had a discussion after that briefing. There’s not much point in

having a briefing on what government’s response would be to certain

things within the report if they come to pass.

We now know that the concept that was briefed around a federal

capital gains tax on your primary residence, which was referenced in the

briefing, actually did come out as an actual suggestion today from that

report. The question is: did the government, in advance of the report

being released — based on that briefing, based on concerns, potentially,

around a capital gains tax on your primary residence — formulate an

official position in anticipation of this report? If so, what is the

official position of the government?

Is it the official position of the government of British Columbia,

based on all of this background that they were getting, that there

should not be a capital gains tax on your primary residence? Or are they

silent on the issue? There’s a big difference between saying that you

think now the minister is making the right call in Ottawa and actually

developing some sort of policy response in advance of a report that you

were briefed on 2½ or three months ago.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: To the member from the sunny side of Kamloops, North Thompson,

again, this was an independent report. The two of the recommendations

that the member has raised…. The federal Finance Minister and I said

we’re not going to act on two of the recommendations. We have no

appetite for either of those recommendations. I think it’s the right

decision on the federal government’s part, and I know it’s the right

decision on our part, in terms of what our responsibilities are. I think

that’s good for homeowners, and I look forward to taking a look at the

other recommendations.

I know that my colleagues are interested in some of the other

recommendations, now that we’ve seen some of the details in the report.

There might be some things for us to learn. But this is in the context

of actions that we’ve already taken with our 30-point plan. It talks

about the housing needs assessment and acknowledges the important work,

the important steps that we have already taken, to address this. Again,

it’s making a difference in understanding what’s on the ground, what

kind of housing we have, what kind of stock, what kind of supply. That’s

really what’s important.

The member from Peace River was talking about red tape and the

development approval process. There are, I think, some interesting

recommendations in here about how to address that and move that forward.

There are interesting recommendations around how to work collaboratively

when we do infrastructure investments, and looking at OCPs, zoning

bylaws and other policies that are increasing density. There’s a ton of

work that has gone in here.

Again, I want to thank all the members. The member might not be

aware about who is on this independent panel. We have Jill Atkey from

the Non-Profit Housing Association. She’s an incredible advocate but

also knows her stuff, knows what the needs are, knows how to represent

her members really well. We have Jock Finlayson, Brian McCauley, Sue

Paish and Helmut Pastrick. They were tasked by the federal government

and by ours, too, to be creative, to go out and check in with the

experts about what more should be considered or should be

reviewed.

The member mentioned two recommendations, and both the federal

minister and I have said no to two recommendations. I think: “Fair

enough; we do get to do that.” The other ones we’re going to be looking

at and identifying. Some of them we may accept wholeheartedly. Some of

them we may take a look at and say, “You know, this works, but this part

doesn’t,” because of other work that is being undertaken or, as we

understand what the implications are, what some unintended consequences

might be. All that work needs to go forward.

Now that we have the final report, we can dig into it. There are

three ministers — myself, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the

Minister of Housing — who have components in this. We’ll be working

together with our staff to identify how to bring to bear various tools

to address the housing crisis. I don’t know if the member is going to be

satisfied with the answer; he may or may not. I don’t know, but I can’t

be clearer around our commitment to say no to these two

recommendations.

[2:45 p.m.]

We’re going to be looking at the other recommendations, and there

might be some more nos. I’m not discounting that. Now that we see the

details of these other ones, we’ll have an opportunity to see if they

work, if they make sense, how they make sense, how they fit with other

work that we’re doing.

It is a complex landscape, the housing landscape. I’m pleased with

the work that we continue to do with my colleague the Minister of

Housing and the Minister for Municipal Affairs because we recognize that

all of these three ministries need to work together in order to address

housing affordability. We’re committed to continue doing

that.

In this report…. The thing I do want to say about this report is

that having the federal government have the same report is very helpful

because they understand what we’re doing here in British Columbia, and

that’s good for British Columbians. As well, there’s a significant

component about the role that local governments have. They too have a

responsibility to address housing affordability, and that’s a good

thing, in this report, bringing all orders of government together in

order to address a complex problem. I look forward to working with those

partners in the months and in the years ahead.

G. Kyllo: I was recently asking a number of questions in the Ministry of

Transportation. For BCIB, B.C. Infrastructure Benefits, the Minister of

Transportation indicated that the responsibility for BCIB falls within

the Ministry of Finance. So I’ve got a series of questions around

that.

Just to get started, I’m just wondering if the minister might be

able to provide us with a bit of financial detail. What was the

operating budget for BCIB for fiscal 2019-2020, and what is the budgeted

gross operating budget for 2021?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Forecasts. For ’20-21, we have $17.1 million, and for ’19-20, we

have $9 million.

G. Kyllo: The Minister of Transportation had indicated that there is a

report that is due to be put out by BCIB this summer. Can the minister

confirm if this will be the first report out from BCIB, or was a report

put out last year?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m wondering if the member can just be a bit more specific,

because there are numerous reports that BCIB reports out on. I just want

to make sure I give him the correct information.

G. Kyllo: My line of questioning with the Minister of Transportation was

around the report-out on craft hours, percentages of female hires,

percentage of Indigenous Peoples. It’s the reporting-out of craft hours

associated with specific projects that fall under the CBA

regime.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I believe the member is speaking about the annual report from last

year’s service plan that comes out in July. That’s about the

deliverables from last year. So that will be coming out in

July.

G. Kyllo: Earlier this year, there was a report that was put out by the

Community Savings Credit Union. The report was titled Building a

Better B.C.: Social and Economic Impact of the Community Benefits

Agreement . The report that was undertaken includes a

significant amount of detailed analysis and information that I can only

assume would have had to have come from government.

Can the minister advise this House what information was

specifically shared with the Community Savings Credit Union in the

formulation of this third-party report? I’m increasingly concerned that

we have not been able to get access to a lot of the information that is

apparently now going to be put out in a service plan report in the

summer of this year, yet it appears that the information was readily

shared with the Community Savings Credit Union to allow them to

formulate this propaganda piece that was put out earlier this

year.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m happy to provide a response, and I’m going to ask if we can

take a five-minute break after my response. I would be most

grateful.

This report was undertaken by an independent contractor. They used

a variety of sources to gather their information to create this

independent report.

G. Kyllo: I have to leave, but I do have a series of questions relating to

BCIB. I was just wondering if it would be all right if I was to send in

a list of questions, and you’d be providing an answer back in the next

couple of weeks or something like that. Would that be

reasonable?

Hon. S. Robinson: Certainly.

The Chair: We’ll take a five-minute recess, convening at 3:05.

The committee recessed from 2:59 p.m. to 3:06 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

M. Bernier: I appreciate my colleagues who asked some questions, too, and

appreciate the minister’s offer to accept his questions in writing and

respond back to him hopefully within a few weeks. It’s important

information. As the minister, I think, can acknowledge, we don’t always

have all the time we need to ask every question in the House, and

sometimes, I guess, a more formal response is appreciated in the form of

letters and answers.

I want to change gears here, if I can now, to something that is….

I think this will be no surprise to the minister, let’s just say. There

is a lot of commentary right now in the media. I have received a lot of

the school tax cuts, I’ll use, if I can say that.

First of all, let me just put it on the record too. The CFIB, for

instance, is calling on the B.C. government to take the following

actions.

Reduce the school tax in the 2021 calendar year, but the average

business sees a 25 percent reduction in their overall property tax

bill.

Give businesses more flexibility to make payments by deferring

provincial taxes — including but not limited to the employers health

tax, provincial sales tax and carbon tax — and stop all tax increases

planned for the 2021 calendar year, starting with the deferral and

introduction of the PST and soda beverages on April 1. Of course, we’re

past that, and the government has implemented that.

Defer the carbon tax increase from $40 to $45 on April 1. Well,

we’ve passed that date, and unfortunately, changes have been

made.

But the school tax decrease — I’m interested, from listening to

the minister, in the reasoning. That school tax decrease was in 2020. If

my memory serves accurately on this issue, it was because the government

said: “Look, we need to help our businesses.” I support that. I applaud

that. I agreed with that. They said it was because we were in a COVID-19

crisis, a pandemic, which I think we all acknowledged as

well.

I’m curious if, through this

section of the dialogue that the

minister and I will have…. Maybe we’ll just start by asking: what’s

changed? As of yesterday or a few days ago, the commentary that we’ve

heard in this House — from most ministers during estimates and including

the Premier during estimates and even during question periods — has said

we’re not done, we’re still in a global pandemic, and we’re still

dealing with a COVID-19 crisis.

If that’s the case, why did the Ministry of Finance decide to stop

the support for small businesses through this tax reduction and

implement it again for 2021? As everybody has acknowledged in this

House, we’re still going through the COVID-19 crisis.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The thing about this pandemic is that it’s continually changing

and, as a government, so has our response. I want to take the member

back to last year, back in March, when we didn’t know exactly how this

pandemic was going to take shape. We knew that people were dying. We

knew that people were getting sick. Everyone was scared. We knew that we

could no longer have contact with each other. We hadn’t yet…. We weren’t

wearing masks. We were washing our groceries. We were trying to

understand. The scientists certainly were trying to understand what was

going on. There was no vaccine.

It was a very, very different kind of time, and it was in that

context that the previous minister, in the previous iteration of our

government, made the decision — the bold decision — to help businesses

by reducing the school taxes so that businesses could get through the

rest of the year.

The member asks what’s changed since then. Well, a lot has

changed. Our understanding of this pandemic has changed. Our

understanding about how to take care of ourselves and keep each other

safe — that’s changed. We now have vaccines. That’s changed. We now have

hope. That’s changed, and so has our response — our response has changed

as well. In fact, our response has changed partly because that’s what we

heard from experts about how we continue to help the economy through

this next piece, and we heard this from the Economic Forecast

Council.

I want to refer back. The member for Peace River South was there.

He listened in on the discussion that I hosted with about a dozen

economists who were taking a look and advising government about what

needed to change, given the changing nature of the pandemic and the

change in the economy.

We took their advice to heart. So when we reduced school taxes

well over a year ago, it was because we needed a broad-based support,

and that is a broad-based support. That was $720 million that the

treasury did not receive in order to keep those resources in communities

and with businesses. We recognized that that was needed at the

time.

It was also the time that we provided a $1,000 worker benefit. It

went to over 600,000 British Columbians whose jobs were impacted. Again,

it was just to help people stay afloat as best we could. We also had a

rent supplement program that went on for a number of months — I believe

it was five months in total — because we wanted to see people

through.

The thing that was really, I think, fascinating for me as a

British Columbian and fascinating for me as a Finance Minister was how

businesses pivoted, how people pivoted, how they took care of each

other, how they keep taking care of each other.

As a result of the resilience of British Columbians, the

resilience of their businesses and the resilience of communities, we

have seen employment numbers rebound in such a significant way. We’re at

99 percent today of what it was last February, before the pandemic. So

that’s changed, because that wasn’t the case back in March and April of

last year. That’s when we saw the biggest dip ever, which needed a

significant broad-based response from government.

What we’ve been doing is engaging with the business community.

We’ve been taking the advice of the Economic Forecast Council, and we’ve

been tailoring our response to the specific needs, because the other

thing that we’ve learned from this pandemic is that not all businesses

were impacted in the same way. We know that there are some businesses

that have been doing quite well, that really didn’t have much impact.

They’ve been able to pivot. They’ve been able to support their employees

to work from home, for example, and continue to do the work that they

do.

[3:15 p.m.]

We’ve also seen some industries where there’s been continued

ongoing challenges — the tourism industry, for example. The hospitality

industry was significantly impacted. We have the small and medium-sized

business grants. Rather than a broad-based tax break that’s attached to

the school tax, we pivoted too, just like businesses had to pivot, and

we pivoted to target those supports to those that need it.

That’s why we have the small and medium-sized business grant. It’s

also why we put in the circuit breaker grant when we had to do the

circuit breaker — when the public health officer said, “Restaurants, you

can no longer continue; our numbers are going up,” and we needed to take

quick action. Together with my colleague from Jobs, Economic Recovery

and Innovation, the recommendation was to do a grant for those specific

industries that were hardest hit.

Then we extended it, and we included the hospitality component,

not just sort of restaurants, because there was a bigger hit to them —

again, pivoting as the pandemic continued to move. We have $120 million

allocated to support the tourism recovery, recognizing the devastation

for them.

As a government, we’re being responsive to the changing needs of

people and businesses as the pandemic continues to shift and change and

move. We’re going to continue to adapt as needed.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the lengthy response. I wouldn’t mind…. On some of

these, we’ll try to fit in some questions here while we have limited

time left. I think what hasn’t changed, though, in a lot of ways, is

that there are a lot of restaurants, a lot of businesses, especially

people with a triple-net lease, a lot of small mom-and-pop operations

that are still struggling.

I won’t ask the minister to put on the record, because I will, a

very obvious comment that fiscal years, which we deal with here in

government, do not match up with a calendar year, which is property

taxation and school taxation. From January 1 to December 31 is when

people are looking at the taxes that they have to pay for property

taxes. That doesn’t match up with what we do here. We’re actually

halfway through the year. We’re halfway through the year of taxation of

what we’re discussing right now. People have received their assessments.

They’re expected to pay their property tax by July 2. We’re actually

halfway through the year.

For the first half of 2021, a good portion of businesses were not

operating, or they were struggling. They were figuring out how to stay

afloat. As the minister says, we might have hope. Hopefully, we all have

hope, but hope doesn’t pay the bills. Hope doesn’t actually put money in

the bank account, bring people into your business, to afford the taxes

that this government has put on.

I am sure that most businesses, if not all businesses, that were

able to partake in the fact that they were able to save money last year

because of the reduction in school taxes were appreciative of that. I’m

hearing from a good chunk of them now, though, saying: “Our financial

circumstances have not changed. Everybody keeps saying we’re in the

middle of a global pandemic. My restaurant was shut down for a good

chunk of the first half of 2021.”

I’ve got one here. It was even in…. You know, I’ve got lots of

them. But even as of today, in Global

News , reporting of one specific restaurant — of

course, there are tens of thousands of them — in Vancouver, the co-owner

of the Bonjour Vietnamese Bistro in Vancouver on Fraser Street starts

off by saying how insensitive it is of this government and how they were

in shock.

[3:20 p.m.]

“I actually saw my tax bill, and I assumed it was a mistake. I’m

just disappointed when I see this increase from this government, because

we just closed indoor dining for the last two months. We were unable to

have revenue. We are excited they just reopened indoor dining a few

weeks ago.” But now they’re stuck with a 45 percent tax

increase.

We’re hearing businesses in the Lower Mainland who are being stuck

because of triple-net lease agreements that they have with tens of

thousands of dollars of increased taxes this year. I think the minister

would agree, if we’re still going through the pandemic, a lot of these

businesses are not in a financial position to have that revenue coming

in, in order to pay for this.

I know the minister is saying: “Oh, some businesses were able to

pivot.” I know we’ve used that word a lot. Those that were, I

congratulate them, applaud them and hope they have continued success.

But a lot weren’t able to. There are a lot where revenues are down.

Their businesses might have even been closed for a good chunk of the

2021 calendar year so far.

As we’ve heard from some who have been out there commenting,

they’re just basically clinging to life, hoping to survive so that when

they are able to get back to pre-COVID revenues, they’ll be able to hire

people back and they’ll be able to keep their doors open. And part of

that means being able to afford to pay the taxes that are imposed on

them from the government. I’m sure the minister’s email has lit up like

mine has over the last couple of weeks as the tax bills were coming in,

where businesses are saying: “We’re still struggling.”

I had hoped the government would have seen that this is still an

issue and would have considered extending this 25 percent reduction in

the school tax portion at least until the end of the COVID-19 pandemic,

which we all hope is sometime later this year. But I’m going to say that

that means for a good portion of 2021 we are still going to be going

through some form of reduction in business as we hope the economy starts

to open back up.

So maybe to the minister, and I know she has a colleague in close

proximity who’s been working on this…. Why was it not considered as part

of, let’s say, the reopening plan or the recovery plan? Why was it not

considered to have this reduction continued for this year or, in the

very least, a portion reduction or maybe an incremental increase but not

the full increase back to pre-COVID levels, whilst companies, businesses

are still struggling to pay the bills?

It’s a drastic increase when we’re still in the pandemic. Why was

it not considered to keep it at the 25 percent decrease as part of the

recovery plan?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I was just listening closely to the member’s question. The

business that he mentions actually got a circuit breaker grant. I don’t

know the specific details, but I do know that they got a circuit breaker

grant. That would be a grant of up to about $20,000. It depends on how

many employees. I don’t have the specific details. I could get that for

the member if he’s interested. The property tax relief would be about

$5,500, maybe. Really, the circuit breaker grant is certainly more

substantive in terms of helping out this particular business.

On top of that, we’ve also allowed businesses to purchase alcohol

at wholesale prices, saving them up to 20 percent. We’re helping them by

making new patios permanent. Really, if you add these things together,

the combination, they’re better off with our targeted supports than if

we had just done a broad-based reduction again. I know that the member

would appreciate these targeted supports. On top of that, with all of

these elements — whether it’s the tax relief or the grants in all their

various forms — when you put them all together, we are providing the

greatest amount of relief to businesses of anywhere in the

nation.

On top of that, when you take a look and you compare across

Canada, in the province closest to us, we still have 30 percent more

supports than the province next to us. I’m very proud of the fact that

we’re very much head and shoulders above other provinces. I think the

fact that we have 99 percent employment shows that it’s working and that

it’s the right direction.

There are others who have been saying that with all the supports

that we’ve provided, whether it was tax relief or grants…. We’re hearing

from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, for example, which just

released today that 64 percent of businesses are optimistic about their

economic prospects this year. We’ve helped to keep them afloat. I’m not

saying it’s 100 percent; it’s 64 percent. But it’s two-thirds of

businesses. That’s really, for me, gratifying to see.

I know that there are still some businesses that are hurting, and

we’re going to continue working with them. We still have $120 million

set aside for the tourism industry, recognizing there are still some

pieces. With public health orders and the prospect of a sufficient

vaccination, that industry could get back on its feet. Timing is still a

question, but that’s still available to continue to support

them.

We’ve also heard that the Greater Vernon Chamber of Commerce was

saying that they’re really excited about the summer ahead. They’re

saying that this is a significant boost for the tourism and hospitality

sectors, certainly, in their community. The Prince George Chamber of

Commerce also just said, earlier this week: “The Prince George chamber

is excited for our business community to continue moving forward,

particularly the hard-hit drink, food and entertainment

sectors.”

There’s absolutely hope in the business community. They recognize

the investments that we continue to make to support them through this

difficult time. They can see that light at the end of the tunnel that

we’ve been talking about. The tunnel is shrinking every day. The more

people that get vaccinated, the better for all of us, the better for our

businesses, so we can get back to life as we once knew it.

M. Bernier: The minister — I listened to her words carefully as well. I think

what’s interesting, though…. I will acknowledge, from what I’ve read on

this specific company, for instance, that yes, they received a grant.

That grant barely covers the increase in the school tax.

[3:30 p.m.]

I didn’t know that the intention of the circuit breaker grants was

to actually give people money so that they could give it back to the

government. I didn’t know the intention of the circuit breaker grants

was to actually give people money so that they could give it back to the

government.

I thought the whole point of the circuit breaker grant was to give

companies a lift to help them so they didn’t have to close, so they

could hopefully keep employees, not to turn around and give the money to

their accountant, to say, “Oh, and by the way, we now have to just

redirect and sign our circuit breaker cheque over to the government

because we’ve got almost a $10,000 increase in our taxes because of the

school tax increase,” which they weren’t expecting to pay, or were

hoping they didn’t have to pay, because they’re still in the

pandemic.

So it’s a little misleading in the sense of saying, “But look at

us. We’re giving all these companies money to help them,” and then, in

turn, asking for that same money back. The net result is not really that

beneficial to a company that is trying to stay afloat.

The minister is quoting organizations, saying that 64 percent are

hopeful. Well, I’m happy for those 64. But that means I’m very worried

for the almost 40 percent of businesses who are not hopeful. That sounds

like almost 40 percent of businesses are worried about where they see

their future this year; whether they’re going to be able to stay open;

whether they’re going to have to unfortunately, maybe, go bankrupt and

lose everything; whether they’re going to be able to employ people into

the future.

The minister continues to say, for the last few days here — and

the same with other ministers — that we’re almost to pre-pandemic levels

of employment. They continue to not address everybody. They’re talking

about public sector, who are…. The public sector…. And the minister can

shake her head.

Maybe I’ll ask this question, then. The numbers have been out —

very public — in public documentation. This is not me making up these

numbers. So 61,000 people from the private sector, from pre-COVID

levels, are not back to work yet — 61,000. So the minister can turn

around and say that we’re back to almost pre-COVID levels, but the

government has done a lot of hiring internally.

I’m not taking away from that. That’s a discussion for a different

day. But the reports are out there. Not my numbers. Public, approved,

documented numbers — that 61,000 people are still unemployed from the

start of the pandemic. Will the minister at least acknowledge that those

are factual?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: No one on this side has ever said that we’re done. No one has ever

said that there isn’t more to do. I want every single person who can

work and contribute to be able to do that. I don’t think any of my

colleagues have ever said our work here is done and said we can all take

a break.

I’m not taking a break for some time yet, even though today is the

last day here in this House. I have got a ton of work to do over the

coming weeks and months, for sure. I know that my colleagues here and

around the cabinet table are still keeping their sleeves rolled up,

because there’s absolutely more work to be done. Not everyone is going

to come out of this pandemic unscathed. We don’t want to leave anyone

behind. Our government continues to work to find the right solutions to

make sure that everybody has an opportunity to participate in the

economy.

So when we talk of the 61,000 folks who continue to be challenged

by this pandemic, we recognize that not all sectors are at 99 percent.

There are sectors that have lower rates of employment. The accommodation

and food services is at 78.3 percent employment. The building and

business support services is at 90.7 percent. We’re keeping a close eye

on these things.

But I also want to point out that there are other sectors where

they have surpassed what the employment levels were like last February.

In the professional and scientific and technology sector, it’s 116.4

percent. That’s increased quite dramatically. So we’re keeping a close

eye. We know that there’s more to be done to support the tourism, the

hospitality sector. We have set aside resources to help them.

That’s why my colleagues the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery

and Innovation and the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport are

working together to identify what additional supports are needed. We

have set aside, as part of the budget, resources to help them. We’re

working together with the sector — with the sector — to identify how to

best continue to support them, so that they can get their businesses

back on track and have a future that works well for them.

M. Bernier: Actually, I want to thank the minister. That is absolutely the

closest acknowledgment we have heard yet in this House that there are

61,000 people, from pre-pandemic numbers — 61,000 people — who were

employed, who lost their jobs, and who are not back to work.

So I respectfully say to the minister, and the other ministers and

the Premier, that they should stop with the narrative that we’re back to

pre-pandemic levels, because that’s actually not a fair correlation of

where we’re at. That’s a disrespect to the 61,000 people who are sitting

at home right now, trying to find a job. I want to thank the minister

for at least acknowledging, somewhat, in her answer, that there are

61,000 people who are still struggling to find employment.

We also need to remember, though, when the government talks about

being back to pre-pandemic levels, that a lot of those are part-time

jobs. A lot of those are people who are still struggling. They might be

on a payroll somewhere. They might have a payroll number. But that does

not mean they have the hours they had prior to. It means there are some

people out there still struggling. But I do thank the minister for at

least — finally, somebody in this House, on the government side —

acknowledging that there are at least, and hopefully fewer every day,

61,000 people out there.

I just want to quickly go back to the minister if I could, because

we haven’t got, at least in my opinion, a fairly straight answer on the

direction, other than it sounds like they’re not going to look at any

relief around the school tax credit. It appears, from the minister’s

answer, that they have determined…. I think it’s important just to have

this on the record, because there are a lot of people who are waiting to

see what the government is going to do about this. There has been a lot

of commentary in the media. The minister has seen the same commentary

that that I have. I know that. There are a lot of struggling businesses

out there.

[3:40 p.m.]

Another one that I got just a few days ago, a small mom-and-pop

operation in West Vancouver whose school tax portion of their property

tax this year is going from $6,500 to $20,200 this year — from $6,500 to

$20,200, in the same time when a lot of their business wasn’t able to

have revenue coming in.

It sounds like the minister is not going to come up with many

other opportunities for tax relief on the property taxes. I’ll give her

an opportunity to correct me if I’m wrong with that assumption, based on

her commentary.

Maybe I’ll ask her this. For a small business that’s struggling to

stay in operation, does she think that that’s fair — $6,500 to $20,000 —

while we’re still in the middle of a pandemic? Does the minister think

that actually this company is expected to pay that amount? She doesn’t

have any other tax relief on the school tax side to help them with this

portion?

Hon. S. Robinson: To the member’s early part of what then became a question — but

didn’t start off as a question — I just want to point out that we are

certainly hearing and seeing that in some sectors, there’s a labour

shortage. In some sectors, like construction, they can’t find skilled

workers. That’s a significant challenge. We were just actually…. The

members were canvassing around housing, housing supply, for

example.

We need to grapple with the fact that we need to make sure that

there are people to actually build the housing that we need for people

to live in. That’s a real challenge that I’ve certainly heard from the

private sector. This is something that our government is addressing as

well, because we need to make sure that there are people with skilled

trades in order to build the kind of housing that we need, to build the

institutions that we need, to build the hospitals — all the hospitals;

man, are we building hospitals — that we need. So we are seeing those

sorts of challenges.

[3:45 p.m.]

We’re also hearing — I certainly have heard on the news — about

restaurants and small businesses not being able to find employees — that

people that perhaps had worked in the restaurant before they had to

close as a result of the pandemic have gone elsewhere to

work.

There are opportunities for employment. It’s just different kinds

of employment and different sectors. That’s something that we’re

prepared to grapple with, that we’re prepared to work with the business

community on, because we know that that’s absolutely critical to moving

forward.

Now to go back to the question that the member did ask. Again,

that was property tax relief — and it was relief, right? The property

tax system has existed for a long, long time. When the pandemic hit, we

did a broad-based $720 million tax relief program, right across the

province, recognizing that businesses were being challenged.

But we heard from the economists that government consults with,

the Economic Forecast Council, and they were very clear that targeted

relief was what was needed now. The targeted relief — not broad relief

but targeted relief — needed to be adapted. Yes, they still needed

supports, but they needed targeted supports. So that’s what we did. We

took their advice, and we created a number of programs, depending on

what was happening with public health orders.

That’s why we put together the small and medium-size business

grant. That’s why we did the circuit breaker grant. If I recall, it was

an eight-day turnaround. I’m just checking with my colleague, the

Minister for Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation. They have been

getting that out into the hands of businesses that needed it most.

That’s really the focus, based on the best advice that was available to

government, in order to deliver to those businesses that needed it

most.

M. Bernier: I know our time is unfortunately getting close to the end, as I

somewhat joked with the minister this morning about having a few more

days’ worth of questions. Well, I definitely, easily could have a few

more days’ worth of questions in Finance. I know that the Leader of the

Official Opposition could have easily gone for a few more days with

questions with the Premier. It’s unfortunate her time was cut short as

well, because there’s a lot of information that we just…. I think it’s

important that we hold government to account — but also to ask questions

for the people, the citizens of British Columbia.

I just want to go with that before I run out of time on a few

things. To the minister’s comments just now that she made. Look, I have

a lot of good friends that are fortunate enough to own restaurants. I’ve

actually gone and met with them. I’ve asked, “Are you struggling to get

employees?” — to the minister’s point. They acknowledge: “Yes,

absolutely. But the reason why we’re struggling to get employees right

now is because all we can offer is part-time. We can’t offer

certainty.”

A lot of friends that I have who work in the hospitality sector

have chosen right now — and hopefully that changes, and they go back —

to not go back to working in restaurants or in the hospitality sector

because of that uncertainty. It’s been a roller-coaster ride for them

for the last 18 months.

I’m not putting the roller-coaster ride blame on government. We

are in a pandemic. There are decisions that are being made by the Health

Minister and from government, through the advice through Dr. Bonnie

Henry. But it’s also fair to say that that uncertainty has created a lot

of angst for people in the hospitality sector.

So it is somewhat disingenuous to say, “Look there’s lots of

opportunity out there,” when we also have that challenge in front of us.

It’s also important to recognize that the minister and government have a

lot of tools and opportunity here if they want to talk, as the minister

acknowledged in my commentary earlier, to the 61,000 people in the

private sector who are unemployed.

[3:50 p.m.]

The minister rightfully says that, in some areas, people are

starting to get back to work. Businesses are hoping and having to have

that optimism of employing people back. But as we’ve seen in a lot of

sectors, if you’ve lost your job for unfortunate reasons in the tourism

sector and all of a sudden there’s a job working at a mill or as a

welder, well, that’s not compatible. Just because somebody is employed

and there are job openings somewhere doesn’t mean that they’re the right

skill set and people ready to fill those jobs.

So maybe to the minister on that…. Well over $2 billion in funds

for COVID relief and supports, $1.1 billion — I believe, in our

discussion yesterday — of contingencies for COVID supports that are not

earmarked yet.

Can the minister maybe determine, then — how much of that $1.1

billion in contingencies, if the minister is going to say all these

people need to be retrained for the jobs that are coming — what’s

happening? Is she going to be able to draw on some of that money? Are

people going to be able to apply now to get some short-term, immediate

training now to try to get them into the workforce, maybe using some of

that $1.1 billion in contingencies?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important. I agree wholeheartedly that investing in

skills training is absolutely critical. It’s critical to our government.

It’s why, in this budget, we have $32 million allocated for skills

training and another $36 million to support youth employment. We

recognize that. That’s, again, an example of targeting where we saw gaps

and where we see gaps.

We’re going to continue to invest in skills training, because we

know that that plays a big role in our recovery. It’s very much top of

mind for government. I look forward to ongoing investments in the people

here in British Columbia.

M. Bernier: I believe this will probably be my last question. I’m getting the

thumbs up from a Government House Leader who is obviously very anxious

to get through some procedural stuff that needs to be dealt with in the

House. I think I will end with a bit of a question and some commentary,

to allow the minister the opportunity to close.

I want to thank the minister. I want to thank her staff — as we’ve

joked about quite a bit, the voices in the minster’s head. At least she

has an excuse. I don’t have an earpiece for the voices in my head. She

has some great staff, and I want to thank them as well.

We have acknowledged, through the course of estimates, and all of

my colleagues have acknowledged through the course of estimates, the

great work that the public service does. As we said, it was public

service…. I’m trying to remember if it was a week or a month. I do want

to acknowledge the great work that they do as well.

I want to thank the minister as well. We’ve had, I think, some

very good dialogue, candid dialogue, here and some good information that

we were able to extract, I guess — I don’t know if that’s the

appropriate word — through that debate and conversation on the benefits

of what’s happening in British Columbia right now.

[3:55 p.m.]

I share with the minister — I believe, I know — the hope that

we’ve talked about, that we are getting close to an end, as more and

more people get vaccinated and all the great numbers we’re seeing right

now for second vaccinations. I know we all, in this House, are

encouraging everyone to please, please do that.

We want the economy to be reopened. We want people back to work.

We want to see investment in British Columbia. We want to see cruise

ships going back up and the tourism sector back — thriving — which is

such a multi-multibillion-dollar part of our economy.

It’s unfortunate that I didn’t get a chance, in our timing, to get

into more specifics around that and some of the discussions that I

wanted to cover around the PST rebate and why some groups were included

and some were excluded. I think I will take the opportunity over the

next while to possibly have those candid — maybe outside of this House —

conversations with the minister, because there is a lot still to cover.

It’s unfortunate that we didn’t have enough time to get through all

that.

But I’ll just end, again, with thanking the minister and her staff

for the last few days and for the information we’ve been able to share

to help the people of British Columbia. Thank you.

Hon. S. Robinson: I would like to take a moment, first of all, to thank the people

that talk to me in my ear. They have done an outstanding job. I don’t

know that the member from Peace River understands the coordination of

the hybrid model and the fact that staff normally would be sitting

behind me. I’ve got a sheet of paper about who is where and in which

room, who’s quarterbacking the call. Then there are different voices,

and I don’t know who is talking, and sometimes there are two or three

voices. But they’ve been outstanding.

So I want to acknowledge and I want to thank Heather Wood, my

deputy minister, for her quarterbacking skills in paying attention to

who should be up and who should unmute and who should mute. It’s a

significant amount of work. I really express gratitude to all of the

staff that have supported us in this debate.

I want to thank the Finance critic for his thoughtful questions.

They were good, solid questions. I know that we’re going to continue to

have robust discussion about how to best support British Columbians

through what I imagine is sort of the tail end of this pandemic. There’s

certainly more work to do on behalf of government — on behalf of all

members of the House.

I want to just say that I look forward to seeing everyone back

here in the fall, fully vaccinated, without these pieces of cloth on our

face. That would be, really, a wonderful opportunity for us all to get

back together.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Since everybody’s in a thanking mode, I’d like to thank all

the members of the Legislature for the privilege and honour of being

your Chair and serving you over the last few months. I wish you all

a great summer. Actually, it reminds me of an Alice Cooper song, and

I won’t sing it here, because the House Leader wants to go with the

votes.

I would also like to thank all the staff that have been

supporting us here in the Legislature. I hope everybody has a safe

summer.

[4:00 p.m.]

Vote 26: ministry operations, $307,466,000 — approved.

Vote 27: government communications and public engagement, $28,338,000

— approved.

Vote 28: B.C. Public Service Agency, $59,507,000 —

approved.

Vote 29: benefits and other employment costs, $1,000 —

approved.

ESTIMATES:

OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 44: management of public funds and debt, $1,339,774,000 —

approved.

Vote 45: contingencies (all ministries) and new programs,

$4,250,000,000 — approved.

Vote 46: capital funding, $3,447,983,000 — approved.

Vote 47: commissions on collection of public funds, $1,000 —

approved.

Vote 48: allowances for doubtful revenue accounts, $1,000 —

approved.

Vote 49: tax transfers, $1,871,000,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Vote 1: Legislative Assembly, $86,062,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:

OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE

Vote 2: Auditor General, $20,082,000 — approved.

Vote 3: Conflict of Interest Commissioner, $738,000 —

approved.

Vote 4: Elections B.C., $21,126,000 — approved.

Vote 5: Human Rights Commissioner, $6,815,000 — approved.

Vote 6: Information and Privacy Commissioner, $7,589,000 —

approved.

Vote 7: Merit Commissioner, $1,377,000 — approved.

Vote 8: Ombudsperson, $10,802,000 — approved.

Vote 9: Police Complaint Commissioner, $5,460,000 —

approved.

Vote 10: Representative for Children and Youth, $10,641,000 —

approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion

of the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and further report

resolutions and completion of the estimates of the Legislative Assembly

and officers of the Legislature and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:05 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolutions, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported resolution, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call for consideration of the resolutions from the Committee of

Supply.

Supply Motions

REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS FROM

COMMITTEE OF

SUPPLY

Hon. S. Robinson: I move:

[That the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply on

May 11th, 12th, 13th, 17th, 18th, 20th, 31st, and June 1st, 3rd, 7th,

8th, 10th, 14th, and 17th be now received, taken as read and agreed

to.]

Motion approved.

FUNDS GRANTED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Hon. S. Robinson: I move:

[That there be granted to Her Majesty, from and out of the

Consolidated Revenue Fund, the sum of 57 billion, 188 million, 294

thousand dollars towards defraying the charges and expenses of the

public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31,

2022. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under

section 2 of

the Supply Act (No. 1), 2021 .]

Motion approved.

FUNDS GRANTED FOR

CAPITAL, LOANS, INVESTMENTS

AND

OTHER FINANCING REQUIREMENTS

Hon. S. Robinson: I move:

[That there be granted to Her Majesty, from and out of the

Consolidated Revenue Fund, the sum of 1 billion, 190 million, 40

thousand dollars towards defraying the disbursements for capital, loans,

investments and other financing requirements of the province for the

fiscal year ending March 31, 2022. This sum includes that authorized to

be paid under

section 3 of the Supply Act (No. 1),

2021 .]

Motion approved.

FUNDS GRANTED FOR REVENUE COLLECTED

AND TRANSFERRED TO

OTHER ENTITIES

Hon. S. Robinson: I move:

[That there be granted to Her Majesty, from and out of the

Consolidated Revenue Fund, the sum of 1 billion, 391 million, 333

thousand dollars towards defraying the disbursements for revenue

collected for, and transferred to, other entities for the fiscal year

ending March 31, 2022. This sum includes that authorized to be paid

under

section 4 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2021 .]

Motion approved.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT, 2021–2022

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2021–2022.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 16 be introduced and read a first time

now.

Hon. Speaker, this supply bill is introduced to authorize funding

for the operation of government programs for the ’21-22 fiscal year. The

House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the reports of

resolutions from the Committees of Supply after consideration of the

main estimates.

In addition, the House has resolved that there be granted from and

out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund the necessary funds towards

defraying the charges, expenses and disbursements of the public service

of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022.

Hon. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to proceed

with all stages of the supply bill this day.

Mr. Speaker: Members, you heard the motion. It is the first reading of the

bill.

Bill 16, Supply Act, 2021–2022, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT, 2021–2022

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 16 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 16 be committed to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration forthwith.

Bill 16, Supply Act, 2021–2022, read a second time and ordered to

proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT, 2021–2022

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 4:14 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the committee rise and report Bill 16 complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:15 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we have to have the committee Chair back

again.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT,

2021–2022

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The Chair: Members, we’ve got one more vote to do.

Schedule 3 approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report Bill 16

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:17 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Speaker: I know people are anxious to go home, but we have to do it

correctly.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT, 2021–2022

Bill 16, Supply Act, 2021–2022, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we are waiting for Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. I

am advised that she will be here fairly soon. In the meantime, we will

have the House in recess for a few minutes.

The House recessed from 4:18 p.m. to 4:24 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: I am advised that Her Honour is in the precinct, and she should be

here any minute. In the meantime, just stay in your seats. We are

waiting for her.

[4:25 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was

admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2021

Accessible British Columbia Act

Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021

Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act,

Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent

to these acts.

Law Clerk:

Supply Act, 2021–2022

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank

Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this

act.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): As always, thank you all for your splendid work.

I will say: ÍY SȻÁĆEL NE SĆÁLEĆE. ÍY, ȻNES QENOṈE

ṮÁ.

Good day, friends. It’s wonderful to be among you today. I mean that

so very sincerely. I thank you, really from my heart, for all that you’ve

done over this past session. It represents, I think, an enormous amount of

work. I want to thank, also, all of the people who support you — those in

your legislative and constituency offices and also your friends and family

who support you in your family, in your lives and in your

communities.

I would be sadly remiss if I didn’t also acknowledge the really

splendid work of Clerk Kate Ryan-Lloyd and her team — who have, I think,

moved heaven and earth to keep the Legislature functioning smoothly through

a most challenging and crazy and unusual year. Thank you all so

much.

I do hope that you are…. I know there’s work ahead this summer as

well, but I do hope you all have some time to relax and enjoy families and

friends and get some, frankly, much-needed downtime. I look forward very

much indeed to seeing you in the fall and, hopefully, welcoming you to

Government House, where we can meet in person and have some social time

together.

Meanwhile, take good care, everyone. All the best. Thank you

again.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[4:35 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, we have to take care of a couple more items. Before we start

that, I want to remind each and every one of you who had the privilege to

sit in the chamber: please make sure you remove your personal items from

your drawers. Otherwise, they will be gone forever.

Government House Leader.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. One additional thing: I think we should give

the staff who support us in this chamber and in this building a big round of

applause for doing an amazing job. [Applause.]

I’d also be remiss if I didn’t give a big shout-out to my ministerial

assistant, Will Maartman, who helped with the estimates process and got it

organized. Will, you did a great job.

With that, I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned

until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with

the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet

or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to

prorogue the second session of the 42nd parliament of the province of

British Columbia. The Speaker shall give notice to all members that he is so

satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the

time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its

business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date.

That by agreement of the Speaker and the House Leaders of each

recognized caucus, the location of sittings and means of conducting sittings

of this House may be altered, if required, due to an emergency situation or

public health measures and that such agreement constitute the authorization

of the House to proceed in the manner agreed to. The Speaker shall give

notice to all members of the agreement and shall table it to be printed in

the Votes and Proceedings of the House at the next

sitting.

That in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness

or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of

this order. In the event of the Deputy Speaker being unable to act owing to

illness or other cause, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole shall

act in his stead for the purpose of this order. And in the event of the

Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole being unable to act owing to

illness or other cause, another member designated collectively by the House

Leaders of each recognized caucus shall act in her stead for the purpose of

this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until further notice. Have a wonderful

summer. Be safe. Thank you.

The House adjourned at 4:37 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); B. Bailey in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $23,725,698,000

(continued).

Hon. A. Dix: I just have one or two words before we begin, but I’ll perhaps

share that with the Clerk. Just a quick response to one of the questions

yesterday around the First Nations Health Authority. This response will

be provided in writing, as well, to the member for Kelowna-Mission. It

was about the First Nations Health Authority and its funding.

Just to put the general quantum, in terms of last year, base

funding to the First Nations Health Authority from the ministry was

$32.82 million. One-time funding was $46.46 million, including $20.1

million to support the multi-year electronic medical record project and

other initiatives which are detailed here in the letter.

In addition, the First Nations health benefits plan, plan W,

provides PharmaCare coverage for clients of the First Nations Health

Authority. This is a first-of-its-kind, first-dollar provincial First

Nations drug benefits plan. It started on October 1, 2017. For the

fiscal year 2019-20, total plan W expenditures were $90,393,161.

For the fiscal year 2020-2021, the expenditures were $95,555,495. As the

First Nations Health Authority reimburses the ministry quarterly for

plan W expenditures, no money is allocated, but that’s the

expenditure.

A note that the most recent year I have here, the federal

government provides $548.8 million to the First Nations Health

Authority, which grew out of Indigenous health services from the federal

government. That’s their allocation in the 2019-20 fiscal year, just to

give a sense of the quantum.

R. Merrifield: Today we’ll start off and we’ll talk a little bit about primary

care networks as well as GPs and the urgent primary care centres that we

have been embarking on. Since the last party’s government, I guess that

it was back in 2015-2016, they were started and have continued and, I

think, evolved over the course of the last four years. So I do want to

get into some questions on that.

[1:10 p.m.]

I want to preface some of my comments by saying that I think that

over the course of the last three days, the minister has been asked a

number of questions involving different parts of the health care system

that are under stress, or in distress, in terms of health and human

resources.

This is such an important aspect in terms of our primary care

network and how people access primary care in a very meaningful way. In

fact, it’s noted by the World Health Organization as part of the most

inclusive, equitable, cost-effective and efficient approach to really

enhance people’s health and well-being.

It’s also critical that we, as health systems, become more

resilient in our response to health crises. I think that COVID-19 has

shown us…. Even in the course of our conversation and in hearing about

much of the crisis that’s in the health care system today, we know that

some of that is because we haven’t built in the resilience in our

primary care network.

With that,