First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 25, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 41

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Hockey

T. Stone

911 operators and emergency dispatchers

J. Rice

Passover

T. Wat

Downtown Chilliwack Business Improvement Association

D. Coulter

Civil disobedience and peaceful protest

S. Furstenau

Valley View Funeral Home

J. Sims

Oral Questions

COVID-19 vaccination plan and online booking system

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

COVID-19 vaccination plan and role of pharmacies

R. Merrifield

Hon. A. Dix

Protection of old-growth forests and Fairy Creek area

S. Furstenau

Hon. K. Conroy

COVID-19 response for small businesses

T. Stone

Hon. R. Kahlon

Wages for community social services workers

M. de Jong

Hon. N. Simons

Child care facilities and spaces

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. K. Chen

COVID-19 response for special needs children and youth

J. Tegart

Hon. M. Dean

Government response to deaths of youth in care

P. Milobar

Hon. M. Dean

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021 (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. S. Robinson

THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2021

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: B. Banman.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to rise today to introduce some very important people

— Cassandra O’Keefe, Davita Solomon and Shad Martin — who are all police

call takers and 911 dispatchers in Central Saanich. They’re here in

anticipation of Emergency Service Dispatchers and 9-1-1 Awareness Week,

which is the week of April 4.

I’d like to thank them for the important work that they do and would

encourage all members of this assembly to make them most welcome.

[10:05 a.m.]

F. Donnelly: I’d like to recognize a special birthday for a special person: former

MLA and cabinet minister John Cashore.

John served as the MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville from 1986 to 2001.

He was Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and Minister of Aboriginal

Affairs. John was instrumental in designating Pinecone Burke Provincial

Park, negotiating the Nisg̱a’a treaty in

principle and overseeing the doubling of the province’s protected and parks

areas.

I ask all members to join me in wishing one of my political heroes,

and an all-around great guy, John Cashore, a happy 86th birthday.

Hon. J. Horgan: I want to join with the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain in wishing

a very happy birthday to John Cashore.

Also, while I’m on my feet, a member in my community, Kody Bell, a

friend of the Speaker’s office, a friend of many in this House — don’t give

him your phone — turns 34 today.

Happy birthday, Kody. The restrictions will be coming down. Be

patient. Someday soon you’ll be able to go in and wreak havoc in the

Speaker’s office once again.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HOCKEY

T. Stone: It was March 22 of 1923, almost 98 years ago to the day. A young

Foster Hewitt was calling one of his first games as a hockey

play-by-play announcer. “He shoots; he scores!” he roared over the

radio, and hockey’s clarion call was born. Foster’s unmistakable voice

and that timeless phrase forever knit into the fabric of a

nation.

This past year has been difficult in so many ways, but as we all

look forward to the return of some sense of normalcy, we at long last

have something to cheer. With the blessing of the provincial health

officer, the B.C. division of the Western Hockey League begins a

shortened season tomorrow in Kamloops, with the mighty Kamloops Blazers

hosting the Vancouver Giants. The Victoria Royals, Vancouver Giants,

Prince George Cougars — there’s another team from Kelowna, but their

name escapes me; the sockets or the pockets, something like that — and

the Kamloops Blazers are set to kick off a 24-game schedule, playing in

two hub centres: Kamloops and Kelowna.

We need this: the ability to cheer on our young athletes as they

pursue their goal of greatness, even to, perhaps, play in the NHL one

day. While we’re still not at the point where fans will be allowed to

watch these games in person, fans will be following the play-by-play of

their beloved teams on TV, live streams and radio. No, it won’t be like

the good old days just yet, but the head coaches will, no doubt, have

their young guns ready to perform. How sweet it will be to once again

discuss the action and the rivalries around the watercooler.

With the WHL season set to begin tomorrow, and the B.C. Hockey

League also ready to start a 20-game

schedule on April 2, truer words

have never been spoken or sung.

Hello out there; we’re on the air; it’s Hockey

Night tonight.

Tension grows, the whistle blows, and the

puck goes down the ice.

The goalie jumps, and the players bump, and

the fans all go insane.

Someone roars, “Bobby scores!” at the good

old hockey game.

[Applause.]

911 OPERATORS

AND EMERGENCY

DISPATCHERS

Mr. Speaker: Well, let’s see if the member for North Coast beats

that.

Member for North Coast, can you beat that?

J. Rice: I’m afraid I don’t think I can, at least not today.

Today I’m recognizing Emergency Service Dispatchers and 9-1-1

Awareness Week, which we’ll be celebrating the week of April 4. Each day

our emergency service dispatchers and 911 operators receive

approximately 5,000 calls. These call takers and dispatchers are the

first of the first responders, the voice that people need to hear when

they are in a time of great need.

[10:10 a.m.]

British Columbians have experienced many emergencies: the 1996

snowstorm, the 2003 firestorm, the wildfires of 2017 and 2018 and the

flooding in Grand Forks, but at no other time have we been activated in

a state of provincial emergency for so long. As we all know, the

COVID-19 pandemic has made us face unexpected and unprecedented

challenges. Dispatchers and operators have risen to the task to support

higher demands on police officers, firefighters and ambulance

paramedics.

We’re still making our way through this provincial emergency, this

pandemic. My home community, Prince Rupert, has been hit hard in recent

months, and we are so thankful to have received vaccines last week. But

no British Columbian anywhere in the province has come through the year

unscathed.

Beyond COVID-19 itself, I know this pandemic has caused great

strains on our communities and impacted our collective mental health. I

know this past year has made the work of emergency dispatchers more

complicated, but we’re so thankful there is someone there to answer our

calls.

I ask the members of this House to join me in recognizing the

great work that B.C.’s emergency service dispatchers and 911 operators

do, day in and day out, for all British Columbians, and to please extend

a warm welcome to those that are here in the House with us

today.

PASSOVER

T. Wat: Starting at sundown this Saturday, March 27, Jewish communities

across British Columbia and around the world will begin the Seder, the

main ritual of Passover, to honour the exodus of the Israelites from

Egypt and their transition from slavery to freedom.

What is typically a celebration surrounded by friends and family

is going to look very different for many Jewish Canadians. This will be

the second time Passover has taken place during the pandemic. As

challenging as this is for many B.C. families, the story of Passover is

a story of resilience and a celebration of the incredible challenges our

Jewish communities have overcome in their history. I know that many will

still find ways to safely and virtually celebrate with their loved

ones.

In recent years, B.C. has seen a disturbing rise in incidents of

anti-Semitism and hate crimes against members of our Jewish communities.

Earlier this week many of us in this House rose to reaffirm our

commitment to eliminating any and all forms of racial and religious

intolerance, and I offer my deepest thanks. No British Columbian should

ever feel fear or shame because of their religious practices and

identity.

Hopefully, this time next year we can all enjoy Passover

surrounded by friends and family like we are used to.

For now, I would like to wish you all a very happy Passover.

Chag Pesach sameach .

DOWNTOWN CHILLIWACK

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT

ASSOCIATION

D. Coulter: Today I’d like to talk about an organization that has played an

important role in my constituency for over 25 years: the Downtown

Chilliwack Business Improvement Association, led by executive director

Trevor McDonald.

The BIA works with over 300 businesses across Chilliwack and is

led by a dedicated, diverse and talented volunteer board. They work with

new businesses in Chilliwack such as District 1881, a pedestrian-focused

development that houses retail shops with artisan goods, breweries,

restaurants, coffee, offices and residential units.

These folks also work with long-standing businesses that have made

Chilliwack’s historic downtown great for decades. Some of these

businesses include Mary’s on Wellington, which has been there over 32

years; Michael’s on Main nail and hair studio, which has been in the

same location since 1949; and Lock’s Pharmacy, a family-run business

that has been open in Chilliwack’s downtown for over 70

years.

The work that the people at the BIA do in supporting new and

veteran businesses not only contributes im­mensely to the local

economy in Chilliwack, but they have been integral in supporting local

businesses in Chilliwack through the challenges of the pandemic and

ensuring that we can look forward to an economic recovery.

[10:15 a.m.]

By prioritizing live events, public art, multiculturalism and

initiatives to make Chilliwack more green, the Downtown Chilliwack

Business Improvement Association plays a vital role in what makes

Chilliwack so wonderful.

I hope you will all join me in applauding the hard work of Trevor

McDonald and his team, and I hope that the next time you are in

Chilliwack, you get a chance to stop by downtown.

As Trevor says: “Without question, we’re open for

business.”

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

AND PEACEFUL

PROTEST

S. Furstenau: We, as legislators, have complicated and sometimes conflicting

roles that we play. On the one hand, as lawmakers, we must be serious

about upholding the laws of this province and this country. Yet at the

same time, as politicians, we come to this place with a sense of a

vision for the future and ideas about which laws need to be reshaped,

removed, replaced.

When we look to the history of Canada and the role that civil

disobedience has played in that history, we can see that it has helped

to move us beyond unjust laws and moved us forward in our efforts to

protect fundamental rights and freedoms. From the suffragist movement in

the 19th and early 20th centuries to the Vancouver Island coal strike in

1912 to the ongoing Black Lives Matter gatherings and marches last

summer, peaceful protests and civil disobedience have shaped and

continue to shape our social, political and legal landscapes in B.C. and

across Canada.

In his

article on civil disobedience in Canada, historian Keith

Fleming contends that “socially disruptive actions have become as

Canadian as maple syrup.” As the former Chief Justice of the Manitoba

Court of Appeal Samuel Freedman stated: “There have been instances in

human history in which disobedience to law has proved a benefit to law

and society.”

We have also seen an increasing number of Indigenous leaders and

communities in recent decades make stands for their territories and

rights, from Oka in 1990 to the Wet’suwet’en protests across B.C. and

Canada last year. Here in B.C., the largest peaceable disobedience in

Canadian history, with 12,000 people who gathered over the summer of

1993 and nearly 900 arrests, began at Kennedy River Bridge in what is

known worldwide as the war of the woods in Clayoquot Sound.

VALLEY VIEW FUNERAL HOME

J. Sims: Over the last year, so much has changed for us: how we celebrate

births, how we do weddings but also how we say our final goodbyes and

how we grieve. Now, more than ever, families are faced with tough

decisions when losing a loved one. They must decide which family members

will attend the service in person and, for the friends and family who

aren’t able to attend, how families can include them and help to say

goodbye.

I want to thank those who are working on the front line in this

area to deal with this. Today I would like to acknowledge the wonderful

staff at Valley View Funeral Home and Cemetery, who helped not only my

family when my mother passed away but who have helped countless other

families say goodbye in these trying times. Valley View has been an

anchor in my riding since 1954. With 87 acres of beautifully designed

gardens and natural landscapes, it is home to the largest display of

outdoor architect features in all of B.C.

When COVID regulations for funeral homes were put in place, Valley

View quickly pivoted to ensure that families were able to mourn together

with a hybrid model of in-person and virtual services, taking on the

roles of audio and visual experts, masters of ceremony and family

support, all while ensuring that COVID-19 regulations are being

followed. The wonderful staff at Valley View have learned how to support

those who are grieving, bringing families together while staying

apart.

I want to thank everyone who works at Valley View and at other

funeral homes right across this province and country. On behalf of

myself and many other families in Surrey who have had to say goodbye to

their loved ones in these unprecedented times, thank you for your

strength, your kindness and your dedication, for ensuring that those we

have lost are cared for and for providing opportunities to commemorate

the lives of those we have lost.

[10:20 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Vancouver–​West End has asked for

leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Chandra Herbert: I want to wish my husband, Romi, a very, very happy anniversary.

Twenty-one years ago on Saturday, we met for the first time, and I must say

it was love at first sight for me. For him, I’m not so sure. We watched the

sunset together that night. Really, since that day, we’ve been watching

sunrises and sunsets together ever since. Eleven years ago we got

married.

I just really want to wish him the absolute best anniversary and thank

him for being there with me and for being an incredible father to our son,

Dev, as well.

Happy anniversary. Thank you.

Oral Questions

COVID-19 VACCINATION PLAN

AND ONLINE BOOKING

SYSTEM

S. Bond: Yesterday the Premier assured British Columbians that when it

comes to vaccine supply, it is “full steam ahead.” Over one million

doses of Pfizer and 846,000 Moderna shots are set to arrive in British

Columbia this week. Thousands of AstraZeneca shots expire on April 2,

and there are more on the way.

Now there is confusion and concern about the growing number of

unused COVID-19 doses because of the lack of a provincewide online

registration and booking system. With five different health authorities,

five different phone numbers and one of them partially online, people

are worried, and rightly so, about how a provincewide online and booking

registration system will be up and running on April 6.

The Premier made a promise. He said that the transition from phone

booking to a single online registration system will be open on April

Today will the Premier confirm that the system will be in place

and running at full capacity on April 6?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. I can

confirm that it is our belief and strongly held view that on the sixth

of April, we will have our provincewide online system up and

running.

I want to acknowledge, as I have the opportunity, the

extraordinary work of people right across the province in all the health

authorities. The member will know, and other members will know, that we

have five health authorities and the First Nations Health Authority, as

well, that know best what goes on in their communities.

I used an example yesterday of the mass immunization in Prince

Rupert undertaken by Northern Health. All of us will know that we get

correspondence and we get casework in our constituency offices,

oftentimes frustrated by health authorities not meeting the expectations

of patients, of British Columbians.

I was heartened to hear from the member for North Coast that the

uniform enthusiasm for the hard work of Northern Health spread right

through Prince Rupert and into Port Ed. When there’s agreement between

those two communities, you know you’re on the right track.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: All of us are absolutely grateful that people across British

Columbia are receiving vaccinations, but we’re also equally concerned

that the number of unused doses yesterday actually exceeded 200,000.

Vaccines arrive in British Columbia, and what we want to ensure is that

they get into the arms of British Columbians as quickly as

possible.

This is not about the individual health authorities. It’s about

the fact that this Premier and government had over a year to plan, to

prepare and to ensure that there was an online provincewide system in

place to make sure those shots were used as expeditiously as possible.

Yet this week, unbelievably, the NDP took the opportunity to send a

fundraising email using the pandemic, basically saying that the vaccine

rollout is so far ahead that now we could use some donations so we can

focus on other things. How appropriate is that?

Frankly, the Premier needs to keep his eye on the ball here. We

have, in British Columbia today, over 200,000 doses of vaccine that are

sitting, waiting to get into the arms of British Columbians. It requires

a provincewide booking and registration system.

Again to the Premier, he’s made a promise. He said finally, on

April 6, we’re going to have that system. My question is very specific.

Will that transition from phone in five health authorities to an online

system be fully operational and effectively operating on April

[10:25 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: The straight answer to the member is the same as the first one.

Yes, it will be up and running.

I want to just unpack some of the comments the member made. We

have had a year of global pandemic. We have not had a year of supply of

vaccine. We have had a year of people holding fast against an

extraordinary enemy — one that’s not seen, one that knows no boundaries.

It knows no ethnicity. It knows no height. It knows no gender. Canadians

— and British Columbians, particularly — have been resilient in that

fight against COVID-19.

We do not have unallocated vaccine. We’re not storing things up

for a sunny day. We are taking the vaccines as they come, and we’re

apportioning them as the public health officer determines is in the best

interest of quelling outbreaks, the best interest of going through the

vulnerable populations. We are on to 75-year-olds today, 74-year-olds

tomorrow, and that will continue as we move into April and into the next

phase of the vaccination program.

I do also want to say that there are headlines and stories about

concerns about supply. We’ve had these challenges — not just British

Columbians but all Canadians — because we don’t have domestic supply.

That blame goes back over decades of federal irresponsibility, quite

frankly, over successive governments of different political stripes

allowing that sector to atrophy and be replaced by offshore

supply.

We’re dependent on others to get vaccines into British Columbia.

But we are absolutely committed to making sure that every drop of

vaccine that arrives in British Columbia goes into a British Columbian

so that we can get back to normal as fast as possible.

COVID-19 VACCINATION PLAN

AND ROLE OF PHARMACIES

R. Merrifield: Well, maybe the Premier doesn’t watch the numbers as closely as we

are. We’re watching the amount of unused doses rise, and it’s alarming.

We’re behind the eight ball, not just with the lack of preparation in

creating an online booking system that every other jurisdiction across

Canada seems to have but also the lack of a plan for community

pharmacies.

Only in the last few weeks have they even been contacted. While

other Canadian jurisdictions? Well, they’ve announced their plans to

engage pharmacists months ago. Pharmacies are critical to preventing

stockpiles of these unused and, worse yet, almost expiring vaccines. But

they need six weeks to actually mobilize. The Premier’s decision to not

involve pharmacists is costing valuable time and results in more

transmission, the growth of variants, hospitalizations and, sadly,

death.

To the Premier, where’s the plan to empower our province’s

highly-trained community pharmacists to join the fight?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, I don’t know where to start with such a list of quite

inaccurate statements.

As of Sunday, we had one day of supply of Pfizer. We were left

with 14,000 doses because we used it all up to that point. Then, this

week, we received doses of well over 100,000 doses that have arrived and

are now being used. So when the member states that there are unused

doses not being used because of the vaccination campaign, this is just

simply incorrect on the facts. When she asserts, as she did, that it is

leading to people passing away, she is simply incorrect as to the

facts.

Yesterday was a record day for vaccinations in British Columbia,

over 27,000, and 610,000 doses have been delivered. More than 520,000

first doses have been delivered. The reason — those numbers of the cases

— is that’s the vaccine we’ve received. You cannot deliver more Pfizer

than we had delivered as of Sunday. Then we receive more, and then we

deliver more. The idea that 105,000 doses would arrive on Monday and

they’d be immediately delivered, which seems to be the assertion of the

member, is, shall I say, not consistent with reality.

In any event, we have a vaccination campaign that has been well

laid out, that’s focused on those that need it most. Its effects already

have been profound in long-term care.

I appreciate the support of all members, because I know all

members are doing this, in ensuring that members of the public have the

information they need to go forward. Community pharmacies will play a

central role in this as well, as we go forward and as we get more doses

to immunize people with.

[10:30 a.m.]

PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS

AND FAIRY CREEK

AREA

S. Furstenau: Today the B.C. Supreme Court is hearing forest company

Teal-Jones’s application for an injunction against the protesters at

Fairy Creek. If the injunction is granted, we could see people arrested

for attempting to stop preparations for logging in the last intact

ancient forest valley on southern Vancouver Island.

This could take place, no less, in the Premier’s own riding, on

the watch of an NDP government that has promised to do things

differently on old growth, on the watch of a Premier who committed,

during the recent snap election, to implement all of the old growth

panel’s recommendations, including immediate deferrals in ancient

forests just like this one. If Fairy Creek doesn’t qualify for immediate

protections, I’m not sure what does.

My question is to every member of government, really, but I’ll

direct my question to the Premier. Are the Premier and his caucus okay

with this being their legacy, or will they step up and come to the table

with real economic alternatives to logging old growth and provide a way

forward to save Fairy Creek?

Hon. K. Conroy: I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Third

Party.

B.C. forests are a big part of what makes our province so unique

and so special. Our government knows that old-growth trees are an

integral part of a healthy ecosystem. For many, many years, the former

Liberal government took an unbalanced and unsustainable approach to

managing our old-growth forests. We are making different choices. Our

government is bringing in a fundamental shift in forestry to protect and

preserve old-growth forests for today and for years to come. We will do

this while supporting forest workers and forest-dependent

communities.

We received clear advice and clear recommendations from the

independent panel on how we can do this. We are dedicated to

implementing the 14 recommendations, and the work has already started.

In fact, as a first step, we worked with Indigenous Nations in

government-to-government discussions across the province to look at nine

deferred areas where we deferred old-growth forests that are protected

in those nine areas.

We will continue to do more. We know that this is just a first

step. There is much more to do, and we will do that.

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

S. Furstenau: I’m actually astonished. My question was specifically about Fairy

Creek. The Minister of Forests didn’t mention it once.

Just to be clear, this is the last intact old-growth valley south

of Clayoquot Sound on Vancouver Island — the last one. So 30 years from

now, we will have to look at our grandchildren and say: “Hey, we let it

go because it didn’t matter. We didn’t value it, your future. Your

ability to go into an intact old-growth forest didn’t matter enough.” Or

we say: “This is the moment to make the decision. This is the time. This

is the government that promised to do it, and they’re going to follow

through on it.”

Making different choices, following the advice of the panel…. The

advice of the panel was immediate deferrals on exactly this kind of

watershed and ancient forest.

This government has an opportunity in front of them right now to

show that they actually meant what they said when they made promises in

a snap election that we didn’t need to have.

The question is to the Premier. Will his government rise to the

moment of this important decision, halt the roadbuilding and preparation

for logging in this intact rainforest and come to the table with

financial alternatives for supports in order to provide an actual

long-term solution to save this watershed?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I, too, have a vision. I have a vision about our forest industry.

I have a vision about the forests in this province, and I want to ensure

that we have a sustained, well-managed forest industry.

I also have a vision, and the member should….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Conroy: Maybe the member would like to listen to it.

My vision is…. I also have grandchildren. They are from the age of

four to 20. If my grandchildren choose, I want them, when they are

ready, to have the ability to work in a well-managed forestry, but I

also want them to have the ability to be able to walk in an old-growth

forest anywhere in this province. There is old-growth forest — 10,000

hectares of old-growth forest across this province which have not been

logged and are protected and will not be logged.

The member is inaccurate in her numbers. She likes to put out

numbers. I don’t know…. I would love to meet with her to talk to her and

have a briefing on where she’s getting her numbers from, because they

are inaccurate.

We are dedicated to implementing the recommendations from the

old-growth forest report, and we will do that. We are also dedicated to

working in government-to-government discussions with Indigenous Nations.

We are doing just that with the Pacheedaht Nation. We are doing that

with other nations across this province. Those are

government-to-government discussions that are confidential and would be

inappropriate for me to discuss in a public venue.

We are committed. We are committed to continuing through this

important work, having those discussions with Indigenous Nations,

talking to the workers, talking to industry, talking to communities who

are dependent. And we will continue to do that, because we want to

ensure that there’s old-growth forest in this province for years to

come.

COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR

SMALL

BUSINESSES

T. Stone: While the Premier doled out $645,000 for one single-user toilet in

the city of Vancouver, he has completely botched the small business

recovery grant program for small businesses.

South Thompson Inn owner David Patriquin had this to say: “In

2019, we invested in upgrades, which resulted in us not being profitable

for that year. This makes us ineligible to receive the recovery

grant.”

Ohana Deli owner Bobbe Lyall said: “Our life savings went into

building our business, and our revenues have been down between 50

percent and 100 percent, depending on the month. Because we haven’t been

in business for the required 18 months, we’re ineligible. If all else

fails, we would happily take the toilet paper holder from that new

bathroom in Vancouver. It must be worth at least $10,000.”

Unfortunately, it’s too late for Lisa’s School of Dance, which is

closing its doors forever. Owner Lisa Dew had this to say: “There have

been countless tears, months of sleepless nights and anxiety-ridden

days. Between financial losses…and the government’s ‘let’s wait and see’

mindset, there is no way to sustain our business…. There isn’t enough

support for small business right now.”

No further meetings, consultations or engagements are going to

help these small businesses or the thousands of others just like them

who, to this day, are still not eligible for the business recovery

grant.

My question is this: will the Premier make further changes to the

eligibility requirements of the business recovery grant so that

businesses like Ohana Deli and the South Thompson Inn will not have to

make the same gut-wrenching decision to close their doors forever just

like Lisa’s School of Dance?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for the question. He mentioned some of the

businesses. My office did reach out to his office — I’m sure he’s aware

— yesterday, when he raised these businesses in particular. We offered

to reach out to the businesses directly to help them navigate what

programs and supports are available to them.

The member will know that on December 21…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the answer.

Hon. R. Kahlon: …we went to the business community and said: “What changes would

you like?” We accepted all their changes at that time. We saw a steady

increase in applications. Then we followed up with them in February and

said: “What additional changes do you think could be used or required to

make the program more accessible and more inclusive to more businesses?”

We accepted those changes as well.

[10:40 a.m.]

We’re trying to be as flexible and nimble as we can. We know that

needs are changing for businesses as the pandemic changes, and we’ve

been adjusting accordingly.

We’re proud on this side of the House, and the member should be

proud as well. Highest per-capita supports in all of Canada — B.C. We’re

providing right now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The minister will continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Between all the supports the province is providing, as well as the

dollars Canada is providing, we’ve been able to help a lot of

businesses. Even struggling political parties have benefited from the

dollars.

WAGES FOR COMMUNITY

SOCIAL SERVICES

WORKERS

M. de Jong: Sadly, on April 1, the Premier and his government will once again

discriminate against the 17,000 workers who choose not to become members

of a trade union and work in the community social services

sector.

Here’s what Ernie Baatz, who is executive director of the Spectrum

Society for Community Living, says: “We have tried for years to get the

Premier…to take the issue of pay equity seriously and have been met with

inattention and inaction. The only explanation we’ve received is that

they have made the decision to compensate people less if they are not

part of a union.”

The wages of 32,000 front-line workers in B.C.’s community social

services sector are funded directly by the province. The 17,000 workers

who choose not to belong to a union are not getting the same wage

increase as others, merely because they exercised that choice and that

right. They are being discriminated against by this government for

exercising their rights.

Will the Premier end the discrimination? Will he demonstrate that

his government is prepared to abide by the same standard they call upon

others to exercise and end the discrimination that it is perpetrating

against 17,000 women and men in this important sector?

Hon. N. Simons: I’d like to thank the member opposite for his question.

This is a historical issue, one that I’m really proud that our

government is taking on head-on. People who work in the community social

service sector — who I know, who I work with and who I’ve worked with in

the past — are valued community members, valued people in our social

service support sector. They are appreciated.

Our continued discussion with the sector is something that we’ve

done that the previous government didn’t do. We’re actually addressing

these issues. We’re getting together and working collaboratively to find

a solution. I expect that that work is going to continue in an

atmosphere of cooperation. That is the continued work of our

government.

I thank the member for the question.

CHILD CARE FACILITIES AND SPACES

K. Kirkpatrick: New child care regulations are taking place on April 1. These are

going to result in the loss of thousands of child care spaces and

financial hardship on child care providers.

You’ve already heard directly from a lot of these providers.

They’re very upset, and these pleas have been ignored.

Here’s another one from yesterday. Nurture Early Childhood

Education Centre, here in Victoria, holds a wait-list of 180 families.

As a direct result of these new regulations, they are cancelling plans

for two new facilities with 60 affordable spaces for preschool-aged

children. This is what Jennifer Delaney has to say about the April 1

changes: “It will have devastating effects on the child care sector.

This will negatively and severely impact the creation of new child care

spaces in British Columbia.”

Will the Premier reconsider this devastating change before

thousands of child care spaces are lost on April 1?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I want to emphasize that our fee reduction program is a program to

bring relief to B.C. families. During the past 3½ short years, we have

brought a fee reduction to tens of thousands of families in B.C. That

has never happened before. We’re proud of the work that we’re doing.

Over 90 percent of providers have joined our fee reduction program,

which is an optional program.

We will need to make sure, when we’re using public dollars to

support child care and support fee reductions for parents, that there

has to be accountability. This new measure is really to provide a level

playing field. We’ve heard a lot, from existing providers, asking for a

level playing field to make sure that there’s accountability when a new

child care facility wants to apply and join this optional

program.

Our government has done a lot in the past 3½ short years to make

sure that, for the first time in B.C.’s history, child care fees are

going down for B.C. parents after years of neglect from the former B.C.

Liberal government.

COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR

SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN AND

YOUTH

J. Tegart: The report Left Out by the Representative for Children

and Youth tells heartbreaking stories about the impact of the pandemic

on families. “It is the representative’s view that many families and

caregivers are reaching the breaking point. The disruption of the

pandemic continues to reverberate” in the lives of children and youth

with special needs.

The representative made a very clear recommendation, calling on

this government to restore pandemic supports of $225 a month for one

year.

To the Premier, will he restore the pandemic benefits that are

desperately needed for children and youth with special needs?

Hon. M. Dean: I thank the member for the question. As well, I would like to

thank the Representative for Children and Youth and, especially, to

thank all the families who helped the representative’s office in

creating that report.

I share many of the representative’s concerns. We did actually

roll out some emergency measures during the pandemic because we

recognized the struggle facing these families on a daily basis — many

families are struggling, juggling daily life and taking care of their

families — but especially during this pandemic.

What families said to us was that they wanted flexibility in

funding. We provided that flexibility in the respite funding, and we’ve

extended that emergency measure to the end of March 2022.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

DEATHS OF YOUTH IN

CARE

P. Milobar: In Abbotsford, the mom of an Indigenous teen who was found dead in

a closet of a group home last September is seeking answers. She wants to

know why it took four days for Traevon to be found by staff in the

closet where he hung himself. She wants to know why staff threw his

belongings in the dumpster.

Answers have not been forthcoming from this government, sadly.

Traevon’s mother has been forced to set up a GoFundMe page in order to

hire a lawyer to seek answers.

Does the Premier believe that a GoFundMe campaign is the only way

for a grieving mother to get appropriate answers about the death of her

child that was in care?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for raising this question. In situations

like this, it’s an absolute tragedy. My heart goes out to the family and

to everybody who knew the young person and knew the family and were

involved.

As the member will know, it is not possible for me as the minister

to comment on any individual situations or even comment on whether the

ministry has been involved with the family.

[10:50 a.m.]

P. Milobar: This government spent years bringing up issues like this. This

situation, unfortunately, happens when youth are in care and families

seek answers.

The minister does not want to speak about this particular

individual case. I’ll reframe the question, then. Has the minister…? Has

the Premier initiated a change to policy so that grieving families of

youth in care can have support from government to seek answers that they

desperately need with the tragic loss of life instead of having to start

creating GoFundMe pages to seek those answers from

government?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you again to the member for the question.

I can assure the member that our ministry is absolutely committed

to making sure that children and youth are kept safe and that they’re

able to thrive and they’re protected every single day. I have every

confidence that our staff in the ministry are supporting all children

and youth that we’re responsible for.

In situations where there is a tragedy or there is a critical

incident, I can absolutely assure the member that our staff take very

swift action and make sure that all children and youth in any facility

or related to any home situation are taken care of and that their safety

is safeguarded and that the family is supported.

We have taken many actions to change the whole system of

Indigenous child welfare in our province. There is a lot more work to

do, but we’re working with Indigenous communities and families to make

sure that Indigenous children and youth stay connected to their family,

to their communities and to their culture. We currently have the lowest

number of children in care in 30 years and of Indigenous children in

care in 20 years.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading, Bill 5.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — INSURANCE CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 5, Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021, read a third time

and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 10.

[10:55 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT

(N o . 1), 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 10;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11 a.m.

On clause 2 (continued) .

M. Bernier: It’s good to get up and continue speaking to clause 2. I have a

couple more days worth of questions on this specific clause. We’ve been

unable to get a lot of answers. I’ve got a lot more that I’m excited to

bring to the floor.

I think over the last couple of days, we’ve really tried to make

the point of how this year is different and how we really feel that the

lack of accountability and transparency of bringing forward a supply

bill before a budget does not really meet the test. It doesn’t meet the

test. It doesn’t meet what the expectation is of this House.

Without that transparency, without that financial transparency,

obviously what we see — and possibly will see more of — is a bunch of

gold-plated toilets around the province, which is what we don’t want to

see happen. This is why we require transparency. This is why we ask for

and demand that budgets be presented in this House that we can

scrutinize.

The minister has said that we will be seeing one in just…. I

believe her quote was: “In just a few short weeks, we will be seeing a

budget.” It still brings up the situation that we’re in — that the

minister, in absence of that budget, is asking this House to approve, in

this clause, approximately $12.3 billion, referencing, again, a

13-month-old document.

Maybe the minister…. We could start off, then…. As we go

throughout today in questions, let’s start off by saying that there are

only a few areas that government gets its money from, two of which would

be through borrowing or through revenues coming in, mostly through

taxation.

Can the minister, then, start by explaining to me…? This $12.3

billion that she’s asking for, that’s going to now be into a new fiscal

year. How much of that is going to be through borrowing, and how much is

anticipated through revenues?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This bill that is before the House is an expense request. This is

coming before the House to seek supply until June 30, to ensure that

government can continue to deliver on the services that British

Columbians can count on. This request is related only to those programs

that I’ve certainly spent the last couple of days talking

about.

The member had started his opening comments suggesting that there

hasn’t been transparency. I just want to take a moment, again, to remind

all members of this House and British Columbians about the level of

reporting out that we have undertaken over this last year, given the

extraordinary circumstances, given the extraordinary demand for

supplementary spending.

Again, we have been reporting throughout this year. Last March,

when a state of emergency was declared, we put forward an action plan.

Then, on July 14, my predecessor released an economic and fiscal update

to provide a

summary of spending so that everybody here in this House

and all British Columbians would see where measures were being taken and

how resources were being spent.

I want to reiterate that that report that Carole James provided to

this House and to British Columbians was not required by law, but we

knew that it was important. It was important to British Columbians that

they see how government was responding to the pandemic. It was based on

that that we made that report.

Then, of course, we released and reported out on public accounts

just a month later, six weeks later, on August 31, detailing

government’s audited results as part of transparency and accountability.

That’s required, and we did that. Then we released our first quarterly

report on September 9, just another ten days later, I think, which is

certainly well within the legislative requirement, which I believe is

September 15.

We shared a report, and it provided, again, extensive details on

the pandemic measures announced to date. Then, after Q1, we released the

economic recovery plan so that we can continue supporting people, we can

continue to support businesses throughout the pandemic, and we can start

looking forward to an economic recovery.

Then, in December, we released the fall economic and fiscal update

for 2020. It detailed over $10 billion in COVID response spending as

well as recovery measures that continue to support people, businesses

and communities.

It’s based on all of that spending as well as the estimates debate

that we are here before the House with this supply bill.

M. Bernier: I’ll get back to my initial question in a moment, since the

minister didn’t answer it. I also just want to highlight how I find it

interesting, some of the comments the minister just made. The minister,

I think, just admitted that the last official quarterly report was done

six months ago. That was when we had the last official quarterly

report.

Now, she can give an update in December, but that’s not an

official quarterly report, with all the details that lay out all of the

revenues and expenses the minister herself said that that was talking

about, an update on COVID and COVID spending.

When we talk about public accounts…. The minister was trying to

tote how that was released in August or September. That’s actually, if I

remember correctly, an update on the ’19-20 fiscal situation, documents

that are, again, a year old. That’s a requirement. Of course we want to

see those, but we haven’t seen the public accounts for this last fiscal

year yet. We won’t see those for, my assumption is, three or four more

months. The point being….

I know the minister doesn’t want to or is unable to say, but we’re

working off old data. We’re working off inaccurate information because

we haven’t been given a full quarterly update since September. We’ve

been given, as the minister said, just her updates on the COVID

spending, but those aren’t the legislative requirement of a quarterly

update, with all of the detailed information.

[11:10 a.m.]

When do we expect to see an actual detailed, proper quarterly

report as laid out in legislation? My assumption is it would have been

by now, or it would have been with a budget that would have been

presented in February, as per every other year.

Yes, the minister doesn’t have to stand up in the House again and

say that I’m wrong, that they’re actually meeting the deadline by April.

I realize they’re meeting that deadline, because the minister and this

government changed the deadline. But it’s my understanding from what the

minister just said that the last official quarterly report we saw was

under her predecessor, the former Minister of Finance, right before the

NDP government called an election.

When do we expect the next quarterly update, official quarterly

update with all the proper spending, with all the proper revenues, with

all the proper information that’s required?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, in my previous response to the member’s question, I listed

the whole list of opportunities and steps that government took to share

with British Columbians the actions and the spending and the revenues

that are coming into government and what’s going out in terms of making

sure that we’re supporting people.

The member seems to somehow disqualify what we call the fall

economic and fiscal update for 2020. Now, it sounds to me like perhaps

the member didn’t read it because it wasn’t labelled a quarterly report.

He didn’t like the title of it and perhaps likes the title….

I think what British Columbians want are the details, and the

details are in that quarterly report, in that economic update. We called

it the fall economic and fiscal update for 2020, but it lists the

capital spends, the revenues, the borrowing, the debt. All of that

detail is in that update.

I certainly invite the member to take a look and invite all

British Columbians to take a look, and you’ll see, in December, the

actions that government had taken to provide British Columbians with the

transparency that they deserve, to see the actions that government has

taken, to see the spending decisions that government has made and to see

the fiscal status of British Columbia.

[11:15 a.m.]

M. Bernier: Is the minister trying to tell this House, then, that the update,

as she’s calling it, the fall fiscal update that she gave, met all of

the criteria under a quarterly update mandate? Is she trying to tell

this House that it was no different than the one that her predecessor

gave in September and met all of the same criteria that’s

required?

If so, if she’s going to say it does, does that mean that what we

can expect going forward under this minister, instead of proper official

quarterly updates, as the legislation says, is that she can just stand

up now and give a proper, vaguer update, I guess, rather than one like

her predecessors always used to do?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to point out to the member opposite that if he compares my

predecessor’s quarterly report with the fall economic update, what he’ll

see is the same format, the same tables and the same headings, with

updated numbers.

M. Bernier: I just want to remind the minister, then…. If it’s so similar,

then why did her government, in September, change the legal requirements

on how quarterly reports would happen?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member may recollect, back in the summer, when legislation was

changed for a fall election. Legislation did not require a second

quarterly report in an election year. When we formed government this

fall, we took a look at that and felt that we needed to make sure that

there was, at a minimum, an update in anticipation of a budget being

delivered later in an election year.

It’s based on that that we incorporated and took action to make

sure that there was additional accountability by putting in a fall

update. So for all intents and purposes, it’s the same information. It’s

the same tables. It’s the same headings. It’s the same reporting out,

with updated numbers.

Let’s face it. It is the responsibility of government and the

responsibility of this House to share with British Columbians the fiscal

status of operations here. It’s for that purpose that we brought forward

the fall fiscal update. It provides an update to all British Columbians

on government’s spending, recognizing that it has been some time since

the first quarterly. It is incumbent upon us to make sure that British

Columbians have access to that information. It’s for that reason that we

presented the fall update.

M. Bernier: This line of questioning actually was never even on my list of

where I was planning on going this morning, but it did take us into an

interesting area.

I just want to remind the minister. Obviously, they were

foreshadowing that we were going to a fall election by changing the

actual legislation in case there was a fall election, even though they

said they had no plans on doing so. Isn’t it ironic that all of the

legislation that we saw in this House was to prepare and allow this

government to not only have a fall election but to avoid a lot of the

reporting or scrutiny because of that — or delaying, if you

want?

Under

section 10 — I just went and grabbed it while the minister

was talking — of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, it

actually talks specifically about the requirements of a quarterly

report. What I find interesting is in the exact changes to the act that

the minister was talking about — about an update. Interestingly, there

are very strict criteria and

definitions of what a quarterly update is.

But for the one that we saw in December, as the minister was calling her

fall economic update, they specifically left out any criteria or

definition of what that would be or what it entails, if they chose to do

that.

Under

section 10, where it talks about the quarterly reports…. I

kind of asked this a little earlier. When do we expect the next one? The

minister is correct where they changed the reporting out in an election

year. But it does go on to say, in subsection 10(3), that the third

quarterly report would be by February 28. Well, that was 2½ weeks ago. I

don’t remember seeing one.

I remember seeing one as per what we see in

section 10. It calls

for one in September. It calls for one in the fall. Then it says that

for the first nine months of that fiscal year, a quarterly report must

be made public on or before February 28, which is typically right after

a budget. But of course, as we know, they’ve changed it. Now the third

quarterly report would be presented shortly before a budget is presented

to this House.

[11:25 a.m.]

Back to my question, then. If the minister is saying the budget is

going to be presented in just a few short weeks, do we anticipate a

quarterly report? It already appears to have missed that deadline under

the legislation. Is there going to be a quarterly report presented to

the public before the budget?

Hon. S. Robinson: If the member pulls up…. I see that the member does have some

paper in front of him. I’m assuming that it is what he was referring to

earlier.

If he goes down to

section 4(a), he will see the clause that

speaks to the…. If the main estimates are being presented within 60 days

of that date, of February 28, then the obligation is no longer required.

Again, we are bringing forward the main estimates within 60 days of that

date. So it’s within that context that we are following the

law.

M. Bernier: I do appreciate, and I did read that. I am aware of that. But it’s

also making the point that we technically have not had, as per the

definitions of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, a proper

quarterly update for over six months.

The minister can talk about a fiscal plan. I look through this

document, the one that’s supposed to guide the minister. Even in the

definitions, there’s no definition anywhere that I could find. She can

correct me. I’m more than willing to be proven wrong. I don’t see any

definition here of what’s required for a fiscal plan.

It’s very, very laid out in

section 10 — what’s required for a

quarterly update. So was it deliberately done by this government, when

they brought forward the changes last fall to this act, to allow

themselves to do a fiscal update but then not put any

definitions around

what a fiscal update actually is? Does that just leave it up to the

minister herself, then, to decide what she chooses to tell this House

and tell the public in a fiscal update?

[11:30 a.m.]

I don’t see an actual definition of what she has to do, which is

why I ask the question. Why are we not doing an official quarterly

report, as per

section 10 under this accountability act? That, again,

will lead me into the questions later on around the spending — where

revenue is coming from and how we’re going to spend the money — because

we haven’t had a proper laid-out quarterly report with the information

that the public deserves.

Now, the minister can say it’s because they changed the rules so

they don’t have to do it. They don’t have to because a budget is being

presented within that 30 days….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Sixty days. I was just corrected by the minister. Thank

you.

If that’s the case, we’re going to have almost seven months

between an official quarterly report and a budget tabled in this House.

That is why I asked…. You know, we are talking about borrowing or

spending another $12½ billion, and we haven’t been given any update of

the fiscal situation of this province.

Can the minister maybe tell me where it says a fiscal update is

the same as and has all the same information as a quarterly

report?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, the member may want to go back and re-debate a bill that was

passed last summer. It’s not what we’re debating here. That’s not what’s

before the House. He seems to want to go back in time. But that, I would

say, is history. The law is the law. So that’s not what’s up for debate

right now.

However, I will point out again that I felt it was incumbent on me

to provide a fiscal update to British Columbians even when it wasn’t

required, because people do deserve to see what’s been going on. That is

why we modelled our fiscal update on the Q1 report. We took that very

framework, and we ran the numbers and where are we at given that

framework. So it provides a good sense to British Columbians about where

we’re at.

That was in December, and here we are. Yes, we’re three months

later. In three more weeks, we are going to be seeing a budget.

Certainly, British Columbians, I think, will be pleased to see sort of

what’s ahead.

I know that British Columbians are still struggling with the fact

that we’re in a pandemic. This is a pandemic that has hit some really

hard and made some real challenges for people in their lives. We’re

ready and hopeful for a good vaccination rollout that will see us move

in through to recovery, which I know British Columbians are itching to

do. We’ll certainly look forward to those conversations.

Mr. Chair, if I can ask for a five-minute break, I’d be most

grateful.

The Chair: The House will be recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 11:33 a.m. to 11:39 a.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

M. Bernier: Interesting comments, right before that quick recess, from the

minister, saying that I’m wanting to bring up history.

I’ll remind the minister that the actual Supply Act that we’re

talking about today is referencing history. It’s referencing a

13-month-old document that is obsolete. It’s historical. It could be in

the archives, actually, by now. It’s that obsolete. But that’s what this

minister chose to reference. So yes, I’m bringing up history. I’m

bringing up history based on the actual Supply Act that the minister has

tabled in the House, which has raised a lot of these

questions.

[11:40 a.m.]

Since we’re talking about history, just to remind the minister, as

well, that specific legislation and criteria were brought in over 20

years ago. That was brought in specifically to lay out the expectations

of the minister, of government, of the protocols around accountability

and transparency, making sure budgets are put in, in a timely way and

open and transparent to this House and to the public. That served us

well for 20 years.

We talked yesterday about how supply acts in the past have never

really had this kind of debate. Well, that’s a fair point. That’s

because they always came in after a tabled budget, as per what was laid

out, and worked well and served this House and the province well for the

last 20 years.

We find ourselves in a situation, in this last 18 months or less,

completely at the responsibility and at the hands of this minister and

government. They chose to do this. This government chose to make changes

to now present a budget into an entirely new fiscal year. This

government chose to change

definitions and legislation around the

requirements for fiscal updates and quarterly reports. This government

chose to change a lot of the regulations and legislations in case there

was a fall election, and — surprise, surprise — there was, shortly after

that legislation was in this House.

The minister can try to say that we’re bringing up history. But I

remind the minister that all of this, this entire debate, this entire

last couple of days and this entire piece of legislation, as presented,

could have been completely avoided if we’d stuck with the practices of

this legislation that served so well for 20 years. Even though this

government chose to change the criteria, they now have to be accountable

to those changes that they made.

I don’t even know if I want to formulate a question in there,

because I know that the minister will stand up and say: “You’re right.

We chose to make those changes, and we’re living within the criteria and

mandate of the changes that we as government made.” But that, I hope she

would acknowledge, is why we are spending time on what many would think

is a very simple bill, because it doesn’t have any schedules attached

that are up to date.

We heard the minister just a few moments ago all but admit that,

yes, there have been fiscal updates, but they don’t have to do one now

because there’s going to be a budget presented soon. So now it is going

to be seven months. I know the process. So I know that we’re going to

get a very detailed accounting at some point coming soon, that we are

going to get a full document of a budget for a ’21-22 fiscal year. But

again, these are all choices that government has made to now reference

an old, historic document.

I want to go back to, actually, the very first question that we

started this session out with today that I didn’t get, really, a clear

answer for. So $12.3 billion this government is asking for. As we’ve

said, there’s no debate on the fact that supply acts are to, in

simplistic words, keep the lights on in government.

The minister wasn’t able to tell me, since we haven’t had proper

accounting to date…. I know we’ll get it at some point. But how is this

money being funded? Is it going to be through debt, or is it going to be

through other sources of government revenue? Where is this $12.3 billion

coming from?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to point out a couple of inaccuracies, from my perspective,

listening to the member opposite. The fiscal update that we chose to

deliver — that I chose to deliver — in December will have…. There will

be three and a half months between that fiscal update and when budget is

presented. Not seven months, as the member somehow suggested.

The member may want to discount the fiscal update that we chose to

deliver. And it was a choice. It was a choice by this government to

update the public on the fiscal realities. It was, I think, a good

choice. It was a good choice that we made, because it is important that

British Columbians see how government operations are going. So it’s not

seven months. It’s three and a half months between that update and the

budget being presented April 20.

The member does make, certainly, excellent observations around

governments making choices. They absolutely make choices. But people

make choices too.

Legislation was brought in, in the summer, and there was an

election. And the people made choices. They chose a New Democrat

government. They chose a New Democrat government knowing that those

changes were in place. British Columbians knew full well when they made

their choices about who they wanted to govern in this moment in time.

They knew full well that changes had been made to the legislation. We

are doing that work post-election with people being very clear about

their choices as well.

Having said that…. I think it’s really important that we just

acknowledge that we all make choices all the time, just as the member is

going to be choosing from a list of questions that he has before him. He

said there were about a hundred. I’ve been counting. We’re down now to

about 85, I hope. But I also want to point out that when the budget is

presented, members will see, certainly, the revenue stream and will have

that information available to them on April 20.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the honesty, I’ll say, from the minister through her

answer of basically acknowledging the exact point of why we’re debating

this bill. We’re not going to see any information until April 20, which

is why we’re having a lot of this debate and discussion. The minister

didn’t answer my question — of $12.3 billion for the next three months,

how much of that will be through debt or how much through revenue? —

because we’re going to see that in three months.

I know the minister doesn’t like it when we use the phrase:

“They’re truly asking for a blank cheque.” It’s not completely a blank

cheque because the date made out at the top of that cheque is, I guess,

now April 20. At least it has a dollar and a date on it — with no

information, though, of where it’s going or who it should be made out

to. Thus, some of the questions that we’re asking.

Maybe I’ll try this before we break for lunch. Government does

make choices. The minister acknowledged that. I acknowledge that. Here

are some of the choices that this government has made, which, I find it

interesting, if…. How much of this is going to be part of the $12.3

billion? The employer health tax was brought in by this government,

creating a revenue stream for them. They’ve increased gas taxes and

Airbnb tax, additional school taxes and a speculation tax which, we’ve

talked about, is now basically targeting and hitting mostly B.C.

residents, who are really being penalized.

[11:50 a.m.]

Again, these are choices that this minister and this government

have made. They increased corporate tax. We’re becoming one of the

highest-taxed jurisdictions in Canada, which is really concerning to a

lot of people, as we’re going to try to figure out — and we’re looking

forward to this throne speech, I guess — what a plan will be to get us

out of this pandemic and to build our economy, meanwhile adding and

increasing taxes.

I find it interesting, and I’ll maybe leave it with this one.

Government makes choices. They’ve chosen to increase and add 23 new

taxes to the people and businesses here in the province of British

Columbia under their mandate, so far. There are a lot of those, though,

that as of April 1, I’m very curious about. Because the minister says

we’re not going to see anything until April 20, but she’s still asking

for $12.3 billion.

The reason why I raise this is, throughout the entire course of

this debate, we’re suppose to be referencing an old document. Yet the

government just announced quietly — I think it was one or two Fridays

ago — that as of April 1, they’re bringing in the tax on people using

Netflix. They’re bringing in that additional tax on carbonated drinks

like pop. Is that actually still going to come in on April 1?

My assumption is they’re going to cancel those taxes, and they

won’t be coming in until sometime after or on April 20. The minister, in

her own words has said that everything we’re doing now is supposed to

carry us through to a bill on April 20, and we’re supposed to be

referencing an old document that didn’t have those new taxes in

it.

I’m, again, trying to understand why they can do both. They don’t

want to talk about what their plans are, but the government wants to,

through their choices, increase and announce new taxes. What are the

revenues anticipated, I guess, on all these new taxes, and what part of

all these new and increased taxes are part of the $12.3 billion that the

minister is asking for?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, first of all, the two taxes, the digital services as well as

the sugary carbonated drinks, were part of Budget 2020, and they were

deferred as a result of COVID. So those aren’t…. That’s just a response

of government in recognition of the pandemic.

I think it’s really important, before we break, to recognize the

tax reality here in British Columbia. I think it’s important to

recognize how things have changed, based on the choices of this

government, versus the previous B.C. Liberal government and the choices

that they made, because the choices that they made were to give the top

1 percent massive tax breaks. Those are the choices that they made. They

let speculators profit as housing prices spiked. They also chose to more

than double MSP fees, and they raised hydro rates 70 percent.

We made other choices as a government. In 2017, if you just take a

look at the changes that we have made…. We brought in, last year, the

child opportunity benefit to begin providing up to $2,600 for a family

with two kids to provide them with support. Families are saving up to

$1,800 every year since we eliminated their flat tax. We got rid of

that.

We continue to have a very competitive tax regime. We have the

second-lowest small business tax rate in the country.

I think the people who are working hard every day to put food on

the table, they’re finding that they actually have a little bit more

money in their pockets. When you take a look at what people are paying,

compared to what they paid under the previous B.C. Liberal government,

if you were a family making $100,000 a year, you’re seeing now a 22

percent reduction in taxes. If you were making $60,000 a year, you’re

seeing a 60 percent reduction in taxes.

That is because of the choices that this government has made. I’m

very proud of those choices. It makes life better for British

Columbians. I look forward to more of this.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.