Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, May 18, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 211

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)

Creative Industries Week

B. D’Eith

Guru Nanak Institute of Global Studies

T. Halford

Children and youth in care

B. Anderson

Road crews and infrastructure repair

J. Tegart

Support for small farms

R. Russell

Richmond Yacht Club

T. Wat

Oral Questions

Museum replacement project

K. Falcon

Hon. J. Horgan

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

K. Falcon

Hon. M. Dean

Government priorities and museum replacement project

T. Stone

Hon. J. Horgan

Hon. A. Dix

Access to abortion services and reproductive health care

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Health care funding and government priorities

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

Government priorities and museum replacement project

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. J. Horgan

Petitions

B. Anderson

Tabling Documents

WorkSafeBC, 2021 annual report and 2022–2024 service plan

Report on the administration of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2019-20 and 2020-21

Orders of the Day

Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

T. Halford

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

Hon. M. Dean

K. Kirkpatrick

E. Ross

A. Olsen

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2022

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: K. Paddon.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have some special guests in the House today. I call them the unsung

heroes, people who worked around the clock to ensure that businesses in

British Columbia were supported through the pandemic, providing the highest

per-capita support for people and businesses. These incredible public

servants who are here today have done amazing work through the pandemic, and

they’re still doing amazing work.

I want to recognize Tara Cameron, Audra Bevan, Rhyan Lewis, Carly

Morgan, Brittany Rhyndress, Ian McLellan, Jodie McKinney, Olivia Young,

Teleza Fawdrey, Abigail Courser, Sandra Loo, Sophie McDonough, Sandra

Addison, Dustin Alvarez, Kyla Kirby and Christina Tromp. They’re all here

today in the gallery watching their first question period — or for some of

them, their first question period.

I want to say a big thank you.

I hope the House can join me in making them welcome.

B. D’Eith: I request the indulgence of members today. It’s Creative Industries

Week, and I’ll be speaking a couple of times. I’d like to do some

introductions. Unfortunately, the droid couldn’t get up the stairs, so we

weren’t able to introduce the droid in the House. But the droid from

Star Wars is in the precinct.

Peter Leitch, Phil Klapwyk, Michelle Grady, Craig Langdon from MPPIA

board, of course, the wonderful Leslie Wootten; Kendrie Upton, who is the

executive director of the Directors Guild of Canada, B.C. branch; Phil

Klapwyk and Julia Neville from IATSE; Michael Cheevers, from the Union of

B.C. Performers; Wendy Noss, Motion Picture Association; Paul Klassen, ED of

B.C. Council of Film Unions; Anand Kanna from Actsafe; Tracey Wood from the

Canadian affiliates of AMPTP.

Tracey Friesen, managing VP of CMPA, B.C. branch; Gemma Martini from

Martini Studios; Lindsay Elizabeth Donovan from Company 3 Vancouver; Sarah

Mauracher, Derek Hall, Tracy Rogers from Vancouver Film Studios; Anna Lilly

from Fleischman Hilliard; Jesse Finkelstein, Robert Wong, Marni Gee, Lou-ann

Neel and, of course, Prem Gill from Creative B.C.; Lindsay MacPherson from

Music B.C.; DigiBC, Loc Dao; Book Publishers, Matea Kulić; and the Magazine

Association’s Sylvia Skene.

Thank you so much, and please welcome them all to the

House.

Hon. L. Popham: I’ve got two introductions today. I’m very happy to say that my

partner, Dr. Rob Sealey, is here in the precinct. It’s always fun to watch

him wherever he goes, creating smiles and happiness as he visits with so

many friends here. Happy to have him here.

I also have another very dear friend visiting today, Bob Fraumeni, who

is the owner of Finest at Sea. He has been fishing his whole life. He bought

his first fish boat in 1977. I’m not saying that he’s older, but he’s been

fishing a long time.

If any of you have not had the pleasure of visiting Finest at Sea in

James Bay, you might want to do that. It is at 27 Erie Street. They have the

best fish and chips and the best fish chowder and a huge selection of fresh

fish that comes off of their fishing fleet.

Welcome, Bob. Every conversation we have is a very meaningful

one.

[1:40 p.m.]

J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to introduce some guests in the House. They

have joined us from Surrey. These are gentlemen who have served in the

Indian Army, Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force. Amongst them are various

lengths of service — anywhere from 17 years to 38 years. That is some

service to the country and to the Indian Armed Forces.

Also I want to let you know that these gentlemen have an office, and

in that office they help other people to fill out their forms, those from

Armed Force families who need any kind of assistance, and they provide

amazing service to our community.

Here today joining us are Capt. Mohinder Singh Jaswal, Capt. Tarsem

Singh Judge, Lieutenant Harpal Singh Brar, Flight Lieutenant Gian Singh

Saini, Subedar Harajit Singh Litt, MCPO Manmohan Singh Dhaliwal, MCPO Jiwa

Singh Aulakh, PO Gurdev Singh Rakkar, Havildar Joginder Singh Mahal. Yes,

they are all residents of Surrey and the pride of each and every one of

us.

Hon. J. Horgan: There are parents in the precinct today. They come from the centre of

the universe, downtown Toronto. Sam and Ann Malcolmson are here to observe

their daughter, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, ward off

aggressive questioning from the other side and also just enjoy the flavour

of a raucous question period.

Of course, the minister and I went to Trent University, not at the

same time, as did the member for Stikine. Any other Trent grads who are

watching, you don’t have to be from Toronto to go to Trent, but once you’re

there, you’ll want settle in B.C.

Would the House make Sam and Ann very, very welcome.

Hon. K. Chen: Many of us may know how it’s like to have a good friend who you don’t

see or talk to all the time, but whenever you get a chance to reconnect, you

feel so comfortable dumping all the updates and sharing

everything.

I’m so honoured to have the opportunity today to welcome a friend like

this to the Legislature who is visiting Victoria. Sandra Bell was one of the

first people I worked with as constituency assistant in 2007. For ten years,

we worked together so closely, talked almost every day, shared everything —

personal, family, work and issues every day. I’ve learned so much from her

because she’s such an easygoing, kind, courageous and generous person. She

and pronunciations.

I want to take this opportunity to welcome her to Victoria and thank

her for always being such an important friend and colleague during my

journey of becoming a permanent resident, citizen and running for political

office here in B.C. I’m so grateful to have amazing friends like her in my

life.

Hon. H. Bains: I’d like to join with the member for Maple Ridge–Mission. He made

introductions of all the members who showed up here for Creative Industries

today. But one of them, Michael Cheevers, was one of my first MAs when I was

appointed as minister. He was a person who helped me navigate through some

tough issues and move forward the workers’ agenda.

I just want to say thank you, Michael. You are one of the

best.

I’d say you’re lucky to have him there. I wish I still had him

here.

Anyway, please give him a warm welcome.

Hon. J. Whiteside: The May run of birthdays in my family is continuing with my eldest

sister Nancy’s birthday today. Nancy is really beloved in our family in a

special way as an aunt, a great aunt, a daughter and, of course, a sister.

She’s also a phenomenally talented artist who almost sold out her first show

during New Westminster’s Cultural Crawl, a favourite annual event in our

community, last fall.

Would the House please join me in welcoming my big sister — a super

happy birthday today.

[1:45 p.m.]

K. Paddon: I have a constituent in the gallery today, Mark Perry, who indulged me

this morning and met outside, in the sunshine, instead of inside, not in the

sunshine. So thank you, Mark.

Mark came to talk to me about Canadian Retirement Developments and to

be able to put a face to the name and to all the amazing work being done in

Chilliwack-Kent — hundreds of homes. I thank you, and I look forward to our

work together.

Mark is here with his family, Ed, Helen, Kathleen and Christina

Pfeiffer as well as Wesley Schulz. I would just like us all to please make

them very welcome.

S. Chant: In our gallery, we have Aryanna Chartrand and Josh Thomas visiting

today. They are both visiting us from Capilano University in my riding of

North Vancouver–​Seymour.

Aryanna is the vice-president of external relations at Capilano

University Students Union, and she’s also chair of the Alliance of B.C.

Students. She’s a tireless advocate for students, both domestic and

international, and she is finishing her bachelor’s in — wait for it — early

childhood education while also working for the Ayás

Mén̓men, which is the Squamish

Nation child and family services. If you recognize Aryanna, it could be from

her advocacy role or it could be from the StrongerBC ads for investments in

early childhood education, where her smiling face is the main

picture.

Josh I’ve met over several years now, and he is the director of policy

and campaigns at Capilano University Students Union. He’s incredibly

knowledgable in his role, especially around topics of public policy and

engaging students. His role in supporting the elected Capilano University

Students Union officials is a major

part in ensuring that priorities are

well communicated and that our province has responded with many new

investments in our North Shore campuses.

I’m hoping that the House will make Josh and Aryanna most welcome

today.

Hon. B. Ma: As I look up in the gallery today, I was pleasantly surprised to see

somebody that I recognized as well. Christopher Sano worked on my campaign

in 2020 as part of an incredible team out there in North

Vancouver–​Lonsdale, and I am so pleased to be able to see him here.

It’s been a long time, especially with the pandemic. Would the House please

join me in welcoming Christo­pher Sano to the gallery

today.

H. Sandhu: Today I have two introductions to make. My two amazing constituents,

Tom Mark and Susan Mark, are in Victoria today celebrating their 25th

wedding anniversary. They were in the precinct yesterday, and we had a

lovely visit. Both Tom and Susan are remarkable residents of

Vernon-Monashee.

Tom was a morning news anchor for 48 years. He worked as a news

director, mainly in Vancouver. After moving to Vernon in 2015, Tom did

morning news for KiSS FM and Beach Radio. Tom then retired in

Susan drove community shuttle buses for Coast Mountain Bus Co. on the

Lower Mainland for several years, and she also worked for the B.C.

government in the welfare system for a number of years.

Would the House please join me to wish a very happy 25th anniversary

to both Tom and Susan.

Happy anniversary, Tom and Susan.

My second introduction is for my beautiful niece, Avneet Burat, who

just turned 13 today. She lives in Abbotsford. Avneet is like a daughter to

me, and Avneet is such a kind, caring, lively, brilliant young girl. She

also recently won a science fair award under the category of natural

resources for her amazing project that she presented on crystals.

Would the House please join me to wish my niece a very happy

birthday.

Happy birthday, Avneet.

J. Routledge: I am delighted to introduce Jonny Sopo­tiuk. He is here today.

He organizes people who work in the creative industry. He’s extremely

creative himself. He’s a good friend, and he was my campaign manager. Please

join me in giving him a very warm welcome.

[1:50 p.m.]

K. Falcon: I’m pleased today to say that the very first school from my new riding

that I have the honour of representing is here in the precinct today. I’d

like to welcome Toula Kontos, their teacher and the grade 5 and 6 elementary

school classroom kids from Kerrisdale Elemen­tary School. Will the

House please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CREATIVE INDUSTRIES WEEK

B. D’Eith: I rise today to recognition of Creative Industries Week in B.C.

This week celebrates the immense contributions of our province’s

creative sectors. That includes motion pictures, music, interactive and

digital media, book publishing and magazine publishing.

We have a lot to boast about in British Columbia. B.C. is the

largest motion picture hub in Canada, the third-largest motion picture

publishing market in Canada and the third-largest centre for music in

Canada.

With the support of Creative B.C., Creative Industries Week shines

a spotlight on the value of this incredible sector in our economy. This

year the theme of the week is “Connecting B.C.’s creative

constellation.” It focuses on connecting emerging artists with

established artists and connecting creators through

technology.

I’d like to recognize the incredible work of the sector

associations whom I’ve had the pleasure of working with closely through

the pandemic: the CMPA, MPPIA, Music B.C., the Association of Book

Publishers of B.C., DigiBC and the Magazine Association of British

Columbia.

Businesses in these industries employ close to 100,000 British

Columbians. As Parliamentary Secretary for Arts and Film, I’m honoured

to work with the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport to ensure

they continue to thrive.

I commend all the hard-working British Columbians in this sector

for their ability to adapt, to pivot and, yes, to continue producing

excellent content in the middle of a global pandemic. Particularly to

the live side of this sector, I commend your resilience during these

difficult times.

I ask the House to join me in celebrating Creative Industries Week

in the precinct. This evening, if you can come out, please come out and

meet the wonderful individuals behind this powerhouse sector of our

economic engine.

After two years of having a pause on attending in-person events, I

encourage everyone to catch a show or a concert and support the

recovering B.C. creative sector.

GURU NANAK INSTITUTE OF

GLOBAL

STUDIES

T. Halford: Yesterday a new kind of institution was launched here in British

Columbia to celebrate humanity, cross-cultural understanding and the

lifelong pursuit of learning.

The Guru Nanak Institute of Global Studies, known as GNI, is a

non-profit institution which will be creating new opportunities for

learning and dialogue. In collaboration with government, universities,

schools and community, GNI is creating a world-class academic

environment for research and teaching on Sikh studies. Recently they’ve

received approval from the private training institution branch for three

new programs, including the Sikh studies diploma, Punjabi studies and

the Gurmat music diploma.

I’d like to extend a warm congratulations to Gian Singh Sandhu,

the president and CEO of GNI, for this exciting endeavour. He’s also

been an exciting leader in the Canadian Sikh community, particularly as

the founding president of the World Sikh Organization of

Canada.

His work with fellow GNI volunteers builds on the work of Prof.

Teja Singh, the first turbaned Sikh to graduate from the Harvard Law

School. Professor Singh envisioned the establishment of a university

guided by Sikh faith principles in Canada. GNI’s commitment to research,

education and service helps us get one step closer to that.

With over 750,000 Sikhs calling Canada home, we have the largest

population of Sikhs outside of India. There is much to learn about this

philosophy, history and culture, and I look forward to seeing and

supporting the secondary and post-secondary students in their

studies.

CHILDREN AND YOUTH IN CARE

B. Anderson: May 30 marks the start of B.C. Child and Youth in Care Week. This

week was created by youth in care 12 years ago to celebrate the

strengths, accomplishments and resiliency of children and youth in and

from care.

This week, along with the work of the Ministry of Chil­dren

and Family Development, is helping to break the stigma around being in

foster care. This week is also a reminder that our role is to listen,

respect and support children and youth from care as they transition to

adulthood.

[1:55 p.m.]

In Nelson, Nelson Community Services has Cicada house, which

offers a unique opportunity for youth ages 16 to 22 to live

independently within a supportive environment. When I was a teen, I

remember visiting a friend who lived in Cicada Place, and I know having

a safe place to call home was critically important for them.

A youth resident who calls Cicada Place home now said: “This is

one of the best places I have ever lived. It is such a friendly and

supportive environment. Staff are available to work with you in order to

meet your needs and goals.”

In March, we announced a new, first-ever, comprehensive system of

supports for youth and young adults transitioning from care to

adulthood. These supports allow young adults to stay in their homes

until the age of 21 or until they are ready to move out. This new system

will also provide better income supports, including a new no-limit

earning exemption, housing options, and improved health and life skills

supports continuing for youth transitioning from care until the age of

To all children and youth in and from care, know that we see you

for the creative, successful, resilient people that you are. We are here

for you, and we will continue to support you.

ROAD CREWS AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

REPAIR

J. Tegart: I rise today to pay tribute to our roadbuilders, highway

maintenance crews and all the people who support their work, who have

gone above and beyond to keep the people and goods moving safely,

particularly over the past year.

Flooding and washouts associated with last November’s atmospheric

river damaged more than 20 sites along 130 kilometres of the Coquihalla

Highway between Hope and Merritt. This included seven bridges where

spans completely collapsed or were otherwise heavily damaged. More than

300 workers using 200 pieces of equipment moved more than 400,000 cubic

metres of gravel, rock and other material to repair and reopen the

highway in just 35 days.

There were 18 sites affected on Highway 1 between Hope and Spences

Bridge, including four that required extensive repairs to

reopen.

On Highway 8, crews have identified approximately 25 sites of

significant damage along a 45-kilometre

section of road. Of these

locations, 20 sites were washouts, and three bridges were

damaged.

There was much slide and debris removal on Highway 3 as well as

road resurfacing, with base and shoulder repair and embankment armouring

work.

Of course, crews dealt with the mudslide and debris damage on

Highway 99 as well as the scene of tragic fatalities associated with the

devastating rainfall.

To the people who made the critical decisions to close the

highways that day: thank you. You saved many lives.

To the crews who worked 24-7 in winter weather: thank

you.

I ask all members of this House to join me in showing our

appreciation for B.C.’s hard-working roadbuilders, highway maintenance

crews and all who support them.

SUPPORT FOR SMALL FARMS

R. Russell: Essentially anywhere one travels throughout rural B.C., you will

see small flocks and small herds on all types of small farms. They

provide economic resilience and stability well beyond expectation, and

they provide a connection to place.

These farms don’t have a common advocate nor the benefit of

commodity organizations, but they do have associations like the

Small-Scale Meat Producers coming to the table to help give them voice

and support.

I had the pleasure of getting to connect with SSMPA president

Tristan and executive director Julia a few days ago in Merritt. We

talked about how together we can help enable, to buoy, to lift up these

small farms and give them the opportunities they need to be able to

thrive, finding the barriers in the system and knocking them down or

finding shortcuts around them, whether those barriers are

infrastructure, regulatory or organizational.

I’ve had similar conversations with the crew enabling food

processing at Zest food hub in Salmon Arm a few weeks ago and the

champions of the Rock Creek food hub before that.

[2:00 p.m.]

These are the local leaders who want to realize visions of making

the system easier for people they have never met to build successful

farms that deliver social and environmental advantages that are

commensurate with their economic benefit. These are the triple wins of

inclusive and sustainable growth that our B.C. economic plan is built

upon and we support.

In a story Marc Fawcett-Atkinson wrote, Tristan summed it up well:

“The reality of the world is really messy and complicated and all sorts

of grey. There are many infinite ways to produce food, and from a

consumer perspective, there’s good, better and best. Just make the best

choice with the resources you have available at that time, and don’t

beat yourself up about the rest.”

Our job in this House is to figure out how to help more of those

farmers, even those that don’t yet exist, deliver their best for

community, economy and environment. This is not about trade-offs. This

is about embracing hard work and a willingness to run toward complex

problems.

I’m happy we’re doing that together.

RICHMOND YACHT CLUB

T. Wat: British Columbia has always had a special relationship with the

ocean, and Richmond has a deeply rich history when it comes to boating.

The fishing and boatbuilding industry is what attracted many people to

our shores and allowed us to build a thriving economy and diverse

community.

Today I would like to honour and recognize an organization that

has done so much to preserve and honour that historical

relationship.

Since 1963, the Richmond Yacht Club has been a place for all those

who love to sail, to cruise and to learn about boating, to enjoy

fabulous events and, above all, to have fun. For their nearly 60 years

of operation, they have given so many young people the opportunity to

explore the joys of sailing and boating.

While the pandemic has been difficult on the club, they have

continued to go above and beyond to bring the community together and

celebrate their passion for sailing. I was so honoured to take

part in

their annual sail-past ceremony, the first in-person event since the

pandemic where Richmondites could honour and celebrate our rich boating

history.

I know there are many more incredible events on the horizon, but

would the House please join me in congratulating the Richmond Yacht Club

on more than five decades of success.

Oral Questions

MUSEUM REPLACEMENT PROJECT

K. Falcon: Last Friday the Premier said: “A lot of people have a lot of

opinions, but the minister and I knew we were on a path that was going

to be spectacular and mammoth.” Well, what’s mammoth is the stupidity of

the NDP government spending a billion dollars on a new vanity museum

that nobody asked for or wants.

I can’t help but notice the deafening silence over on the

government benches. Now, they’re usually so quick to get on social

media, but they’ve now fallen remarkably silent. They’re always there to

found it interesting that only two NDP MLAs besides the Premier and the

minister have said anything about this museum.

Where is the chorus of support from the Surrey MLAs, for goodness’

sakes? Where is the capital region NDP MLAs? Why aren’t they out on

our Premier?

My question to the Premier is pretty straightforward. Will he

listen to the opposition and the overwhelming public opposition and

scrap his ridiculous vanity museum project?

Hon. J. Horgan: It is nice to have a vote of confidence for the cultural sector,

from the creative sector, from the Leader of the Official Opposition

today, as we’re celebrating Creative B.C. and the creative industries

here in British Columbia.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’ll remind the member, because again, it always surprises me he

was a Finance Minister for a period of time. Had I known his ineptitude

on these matters, I would have pressed him harder in question

period.

The first record of the Royal B.C. Museum coming before cabinet

was not in 2017, not in 2018, not in 2019. It was in 2006, because of

seismic concerns. It was revisited again in 2013, again in 2014, again

in 2015. And finally — and this is the part that I think is important —

in 2017, the then Finance Minister, the member for Abbotsford West,

after five visits to Treasury Board, advised the minister of the day to

return with a capital plan for the precinct by September 30,

Now, he didn’t make that meeting, but we did. We took that

information, and for the past five years….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: For the past five years we have been working with stakeholders.

We’ve been working with people around the province about not just

museums here in here in Victoria but also…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …a Chinese-Canadian museum that used to be championed by those on

that side of the House, a South Asian museum to celebrate the diversity

of our great province.

Again, I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition wants to

come in — the guy that gets big things done and comes to start

dismantling big things. This big thing started its trajectory in 2006.

Had they taken the effort at that time…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …at any of the other visits to Treasury Board, we wouldn’t be

having this conversation, because it would be done by now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West, wait for your turn, please.

Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: I’m so pleased to see the enthusiastic banging of the desks on the

government side, because no doubt that will be reflected in a whole

taxpayer dollars, what great prioritization this will be. I can’t wait.

I’m looking forward to all those wonderful tweets that will be coming

forward.

Interjections.

K. Falcon: Good. Excellent. Keep at it, my friends.

Folks, this is going to be the most expensive museum project in

Canadian history. In communities like Surrey South, for example, they’re

wondering why $1 billion on a vanity museum project is this NDP

government’s priority.

Today of all days, on International Museum Day, the minister wants

to shut down a perfectly good museum that achieves 95 percent approval

ratings from visitors from around the world. The Premier wants to lay

off hundreds of employees, shut down this facility, create a giant,

gaping hole with a chain-link fence around it for the next eight years.

That’s what this government is seriously proposing.

A whole generation of school children that look forward…. The

highlight of their year is when they get to come to the capital and go

through this amazing facility, the Royal B.C. Museum, of which we’re all

so proud.

Imagine this. The tourism sector that only now, after two

challenging, challenging years, are finally getting back on their feet,

and what does this government want to do? Shut it down in September,

leave it with a gaping hole and a chain-link fence for eight years so

that they can blow a billion dollars on a new building that nobody

wants, nobody asked for.

My question to the Premier is this. Will the Premier…?

Interjections.

K. Falcon: I’m glad you agree with me. They’re coming around. You see, it

works. It works.

Will the Premier listen to his own colleagues who understand where

we’re coming from and scrap this vanity museum and start listening to

British Columbians who would rather see a billion dollars go towards

allowing them to get access to a family physician or maybe even the

ability to fill up their cars, with the highest fuel prices in North

America? Will the Premier do that?

Interjection.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: So much material. Let’s just start with the doctor crisis, which

has been in British Columbia not for a few weeks but for a long, long

time.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: “Oh, here we go,” says the guy who was just doing

calisthenics.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: His personal health might be important, but the rest of British

Columbians are wondering why, in 2009, when you were responsible for

this, we had 582,000 unattached patients in British Columbia. By 2017,

that number had ballooned to 897,000.

Here’s the catch. I hope the members on the other side will listen

up, because they ignored advice…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …from the facility managers over at the Royal B.C. Museum for a

decade and a half. But the then Minister of Health said, “We’re going to

have A GP for Me,” and the B.C. Liberals cared so much about that

program that we saw almost a doubling of unattached patients.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, listen to the answer.

Hon. J. Horgan: Then, when the member on the other side departed for the

development community, the B.C. Liberals cared so much about A GP for Me

that they abandoned the whole project and left it on the side of the

road for us to pick up, as we are with the museum, and try to make

something of the mess that they left behind.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Wait for the Chair to recognize.

Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplemental.

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND FUNDING FOR AUTISM SERVICES

K. Falcon: You know, it is interesting that the Premier does everything,

tap-dancing around all these other fascinating issues, without

addressing the issue that I keep asking him about, which is his

billion-dollar boondoggle.

Now, he talks about doctors.

Interjections.

K. Falcon: Listen. You might want to listen to this part.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Falcon: You might want to listen to this part, Premier, because I do

believe the Premier wants to make sure that we have accurate facts in

this Legislature. I’m certain.

This is actually from page 238 of the Minister of Health’s

estimates binder. I’m pretty certain that that would be accurate.

Actually, what it shows is that unattached patients in 2016-17 was

746,990.

It has increased by over 200,000 since then, Premier. That’s from

your own Minister of Health’s estimates binder.

But I actually….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order.

K. Falcon: I’ll send it over. You’ll have your moment. I’m coming.

I actually have this question for the Minister of Children and

Family Development, who apparently thinks that she knows better than the

parents of autistic children in terms of what their children really

need. She has caused incredible stress for the parents of autistic

children as they try to figure out how they’re going to deal with an NDP

clawback of critical individualized funding that allows them to have

one-on-one care for their autistic children.

Interestingly, that minister also sits on Treasury Board and

presumably was part of the approval decision process for this

billion-dollar boondoggle vanity museum project. I want that minister to

stand up here today and defend how she can strip away funding for

parents with autistic children while she votes herself and her

colleagues a $20,000 undeserved pay raise and votes to approve a

billion-dollar vanity museum project.

Can she stand today and let the parents of autistic children know

why a billion-dollar museum project, a vanity museum project, is more

important than maintaining critical individualized funding for parents

of autistic children?

Hon. M. Dean: Well, the opposition knows that that isn’t how budgeting works.

What we’re doing is building a system across the whole of the province

that’s based on the needs of children and youth.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Dean: We’ve heard for far too long from families, from the

Representative for Children and Youth, from an all-party select standing

committee of this Legislature that we need to move towards a needs-based

system, because too many children are getting left behind.

[2:15 p.m.]

As we build a needs-based system, we’re not going to leave

children behind, not being able to access services that are locked

behind a diagnosis. We’re going to be serving more children based on

their needs, and we’ll be serving their needs earlier.

That’s absolutely critical. Otherwise, too many children, if

they’re waiting for a diagnosis or if they’re unable to get services,

are missing really important milestones and at early stages of that

development. That can have a really devastating effect.

We’re building a system to serve the needs of all children and

youth with support needs through the province, in order to help them

achieve their goals and meet their milestones so that they will have a

successful developmental journey and thrive.

GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES

AND MUSEUM REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

T. Stone: To the minister that just spoke, what is having a devastating

effect is her decision, the minister’s decision to tear down an existing

individualized system that parents of autistic children have been

pleading with her to not touch. What she should do is she should take

that system, the foundation that’s there, and she should expand it to

all of the children that need support.

Now, British Columbians are rightfully angry. They’re very angry

about the NDP’s decision to spend a billion dollars on a vanity museum

project. The main reason I think people are angry is that against the

backdrop of the affordability challenges everyone is facing, the crisis

in health care, and so forth, there are so many worthy projects that a

billion dollars could be used to fund.

The NDP promised, for example, that the first graduating class of

an SFU medical school was supposed to be built next year. That’s clearly

not going to happen. The NDP could have used a portion of this money to

fund that school. That would be helpful with the crisis that we have in

health care at the moment.

How about this: residents in Surrey could get a new maternity

ward, which they’ve now since learned that the NDP aren’t actually going

to include in the new Surrey hospital. Or how about this: the government

could fund over 6,000 new nursing seats to address the massive shortage

of nurses that we have all over British Columbia, another good use of

dollars. But instead, they are choosing to spend a billion dollars on a

vanity museum project in the Premier’s backyard.

Will the Premier kill this project, scrap it — do a modest

refurbishment if necessary, but scrap this project — and invest in

priorities that British Columbians actually need across this

province?

Hon. J. Horgan: The Vancouver St. Paul’s replacement project — the business plan

was approved by the B.C. Liberals in 2002. Then they made eight

announcements about replacing the St. Paul’s Hospital until 2017, when

they announced a pre-business plan. Now, I don’t know how you go, after

all that period of time, from a business plan to a pre-business plan

with the only thing to show for it a stack of press releases.

What are we doing across the province? We’re building a hospital

in Dawson Creek.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: We’re building a hospital in Fort St. James. We’re building a

hospital in Terrace. We’re building a hospital in Williams Lake. We’re

building a hospital in Cowichan Valley. We’re building hospitals and

schools all across British Columbia because we have the largest capital

plan….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. J. Horgan: The guy that gets big things done doesn’t want to hear about this

— the largest capital plan in B.C. history, which includes a

revitalization of a precious asset that belongs to all British

Columbians, where we keep our heritage, where we keep our history, where

we keep those things that are precious to all of us, wherever we may

live.

The people on the other side of the House don’t see the value in

that. It’s unconscionable, and it explains why the Royal B.C. Museum

came to that Treasury Board eight times and were told to come back with

a better plan.

Well, they came back with a better plan, and we spent five years

developing a business plan, and we announced it on Friday. We’re

proceeding with it because it’s a long-term vision for British

Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: The people on the other side of the House are interested in one

thing and one thing only: throwing rocks. We’re interested in building

British Columbia, and that’s exactly what we’re going to keep on doing

all across the province.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: What is unbelievable here is to see just how tone deaf this

Premier has actually become.

[2:20 p.m.]

To actually think, against a crisis in health care that’s

impacting communities everywhere in the province…. To actually think —

while we have the highest gas prices ever, highest housing costs ever,

affordability challenges that everyone is facing — that now would be a

good time to approve a billion-dollar vanity project in his backyard, to

build a new museum when the existing one could be refurbished for a much

lower cost is unbelievable.

That’s what’s unconscionable. And to do it without a business

plan, without any renderings, without any sense of what this project is

actually going to look like other than, as the minister said the other

day: “It’s an open canvas, and we’re still working on it….”

Let’s bring it back to what real people are feeling around the

province, to the Premier. Last weekend Arian Mac­aulay and her

sick newborn son were literally evicted from Royal Inland Hospital, and

they were diverted 167 kilometres away to Kelowna. That’s because Royal

Inland had no nurses available to work in the pediatric for the entire

weekend — none.

This is what Arian Macaulay had to say. She said that a doctor

came in on Saturday to tell her they would need to be moved. She said:

“The doctor let us know that there were going to be no nurses in the

whole ward until Monday, and they needed to transfer us. Of course, we

just thought we were going to be moved into another room in the same

hospital. But then she let us know that there was nowhere to put us, and

they had to transfer us to Kelowna.”

That’s what’s happening in our health care system. That’s the

backdrop to a $1 billion vanity museum project deci­sion which

this Premier has made.

Again to the Premier, will he scrap this ill-conceived $1 billion

vanity museum project that he’s clearly doing — something to do with his

legacy, I suppose, in his backyard…? Will he kill this project and make

sure that funding goes to the services and the supports that people need

in communities across this province?

Mr. Speaker: Before the Chair recognizes the Minister of Health, I ask members

of the opposition…. When the question was asked, the government bench

listened. Now it’s your turn to be quiet and listen to the answer,

because we are grown-up people. We are mature people. Let’s behave like

that.

Hon. A. Dix: There was a decision made by the staff, the front-line staff, at

the Royal Inland Hospital to close a portion of the maternity unit, for

good reason, last week. People had called in sick, and they have

obligations to minimum levels of care to keep people safe. They were

acting professionally and in the interests of all their

patients.

Whether this is an appropriate subject to rant and rave about in

question period is hard to say. The opposition gets to choose its

questions. But I would say this. We were last in Canada in registered

nurses when I became Minister of Health. We’ve led Canada in new nurses.

The largest layoff of nurses ever anywhere in British Columbia, ever in

Canada took place in 2002. Who did it? They did it.

We just added 600….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The minister will continue.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, hon. Speaker, no nurse forgets, no health care worker

forgets what they did. Nobody.

What we need and what we’re taking is action: leading the country

in new registered nurses, adding LPN positions, adding a health career

assistance program that’s had thousands of new health care workers,

adding 602 nursing seats across the province, breaking down barriers for

internationally educated nurses.

That’s action. All they have is talk.

ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES

AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

CARE

S. Furstenau: British Columbians are making themselves clear that they want

government to focus on the basic needs of people, especially when those

needs are not being fully met. In the wake of the news out of the U.S.

Supreme Court a few weeks ago, all members in this Legislature stood to

reaffirm the rights of people to make decisions regarding their own

reproductive health care.

[2:25 p.m.]

The question of abortion is not in debate here, but the question

of access certainly is. There are only a few abortion providers in

British Columbia.

Most abortions are illegal in the state of Texas. A person has to

travel hundreds of kilometres out of state for an abortion, maybe a

3½-half hour drive. But if you live on Haida Gwaii, for example, you’ll

need to travel much further, 26 hours to Vancouver, to access abortion

services.

Members of the government have made it very clear that they

support abortion services as part of necessary health care in British

Columbia, but those services are clearly not equally available to

everybody in B.C.

My question is to the Premier. What is he doing to improve equity

of access to abortion services in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question. I think the government

is fundamentally committed to the right of choice of women in British

Columbia to abortion services. We’ve demonstrated that and continue to

demonstrate that many times.

With respect to the Access to Abortion Act, people in British

Columbia will know it came into force in 1994, and it has been used,

through regulation, to expand the protection for abortion services in

this community. In terms of access to Mifegymiso, British Columbia led

the country, and everyone followed in providing that access — access

that has meant everything to women in every part of the province who

needed access to those services. It gave them access and then agency and

then control.

We led with first dollar coverage at the beginning of my term as

Minister of Health in 2017, and we did so in order to give control and

give agency to women under those circumstances. We’re going to continue

to take all the steps necessary to ensure that women have the right to

abortion services in British Columbia when they need them.

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

S. Furstenau: I do not doubt the commitment that this government and the

minister have to ensuring that those services are available, but the

barriers to access are real if somebody has to travel for 26 hours. The

cost of that travel is an incredible barrier. It also coincides with

this government’s election promise of free prescription coverage, which

remains unfulfilled at a time when people need help with affordability

more than ever. This is another example of how this government could

help right now.

To the Premier, will this government commit to ensuring that

people in B.C. have that equitable access, regardless of where they are

in the province, to reproductive health care and abortion services in

all parts of British Columbia?

Hon. A. Dix: That has been our commitment. It’s made a real difference in

people’s lives. We don’t talk about it a lot, because these are issues

of importance to women and to individual women as well.

We don’t talk about it perhaps enough, but the changes that we’ve

brought in to give access, for example, to Mifegymiso, have given real

options to women. It’s seen an actual reduction in the number of

surgical abortions, as women have been able to access Mifegymiso in our

province with first dollar coverage put in place before the system was

even ready to do it, because of our commitment to it.

I’m proud that other jurisdictions in Canada have followed.

They’ve all followed, because it was the right thing to do. Extending

access to abortion is important. It’s fundamental. It’s not just a

right. It’s not a right if you don’t have access to that

right.

We’re going to continue to engage in policies that protect a

women’s right to choose and ensure that they have access to abortion

services.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

AND GOVERNMENT

PRIORITIES

S. Bond: As uncomfortable as it might be for the Premier, his priorities

are painfully clear to British Columbians: massive pay raises for

himself and for his cabinet and a billion-dollar vanity museum project

that absolutely no one was asking for.

The Doctors of B.C. have put out a statement after their meeting

with the Premier, saying: “Significant additional funding is needed, and

it is needed now.” Well, instead of funding family doctors, the Premier

chose a $40,000 pay raise for himself and a billion-dollar vanity museum

project.

Will the Premier listen not just to the Doctors of B.C. but

British Columbians…? Will he do the right thing, and will he cancel this

vanity museum project and actually spend the money that is necessary to

fix the ever-growing crisis in health care in British

Columbia?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: The Minister of Health and I had a very productive meeting with

the leadership of the Doctors of B.C. yesterday to set a path forward

for positive outcomes to the challenges they face. The member will know

that we are in bargaining with the entire public service, which includes

those who deliver health services as physicians, whether they be

particular services or general practitioners. We’re hard at work doing

that. Again, the minister and I had some good suggestions from the

Doctors of B.C., and we set a path forward.

We all agreed…. I’d like to reiterate…. I know we, on this side of

the House, feel this way. If we’re going to address the challenges of

health care that have become glaringly obvious as we come out of a

global pandemic, we need the federal government to be partners in health

care again. The Canada health transfer has been the fundamental issue on

the table for Premiers for the five years that I’ve been in this job. It

continues to be our number one issue. We are engaged with the federal

government on that matter at this very moment.

It’s interesting that when the Leader of the Opposition was the

Minister of Finance, he was singular, the only voice across the country

that stood up when the Stephen Harper government reduced transfers of

health care dollars from Ottawa to the provinces, the only one that

stood up and said that was a good idea. That might explain the pictures

with Max Bernier. That might explain the issues that he’s bringing

forward now, completely disconnected to the reality of providing the

services for people.

Providing services for people requires massive investments into

the infrastructure. That’s what we’re doing by asking the federal

government to sit at the table with Premiers right across the country.

The issues in PEI are not dissimilar to the ones here. The issues in

Saskatchewan are not dissimilar to the ones in Manitoba.

Only a federal government that’s focused on a new vision for

health care can get us out of this mess. I’m hopeful they’ll join with

the rest of us and get on that as quickly as possible.

GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES

AND MUSEUM REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

K. Kirkpatrick: One of this Premier’s biggest election promises to Surrey was to

eliminate portables in the first four years of his mandate. Not only has

the number of Surrey portables increased by 10 percent, but the Premier

decided to put a $1 billion museum vanity project….

Interjections.

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

order.

K. Kirkpatrick: The Premier decided to put a $1 billion museum vanity project in

his own backyard instead. You could build at least 12 brand-new schools

in Surrey with $1 billion.

There are 250 seismically unsafe schools today, including David

Brankin in Surrey. For $1 billion, this government and this Premier

could seismically upgrade half of those schools to protect our

children.

And $1 billion could easily rebuild Lytton. Instead, it’s been a

year, and people are still prevented from living their lives. We’ve

received a report that the local Lytton museum needs funds to rebuild

and has received zero financial support from this NDP

government.

With all of this, why does this Premier have money to build a $1

billion vanity museum project but not Lytton’s museum?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll forgive the member for not having a clear understanding of

the record of her party when they were in power because she wasn’t

here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: When its comes to seismic upgrades, we’ve been busy.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: When it comes to building schools in Surrey, we’ve been busy as

well.

I welcome the Leader of the Opposition to leave

Vancouver-Quilchena and to go to Surrey South and visit the new

secondary school…the first one built there in 30 years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Member for Nelson-Creston.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, it’s over. Members, question period is over — both

sides.

Both sides, calm down. Calm down.

[2:35 p.m.]

Petitions

B. Anderson: I rise to table a petition from Robin Wood regarding the need for

dialysis machines at the Kootenay Lake Hospital in Nelson.

Tabling Documents

Hon. H. Bains: I am happy to rise and table the WorkSafeBC 2021 Annual Report and

2022–2024 Service Plan .

Hon. L. Beare: I have the honour to present the report on the administration of the

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Orders of the Day

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The important business of this afternoon will be…. In this chamber, we

will continue with the estimates debate for the Ministry of Finance.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, we will go to estimates debate for the

Ministry of Children and Family Development, and when that is finished, we will

go to the Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship estimates.

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

T. Halford: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to reserve my right for a personal point of

privilege.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

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 2:36 p.m.

The Chair: We will take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 2:38 p.m. to 2:42 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

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

(continued) .

P. Milobar: I’ve just got a couple more clarification questions from some

questions yesterday around the museum to start, and then I’m going to

continue on where we were discussing some issues with the budget on

Monday.

I’ll just remind the minister — in case she doesn’t have them

handy, so by the time we get to those questions she will — I had asked

about the fuel import fees collected and estimated to be collected. They

were going to get me a number for that on Monday for today, as well as

the property transfer tax for first-time homebuyers — the years that had

been requested and what the projection is for this year, as well, for

the number of applications for that.

My first question is going back to discussions we had yesterday

around the museum. The minister had indicated that Treasury Board had

dealt with the museum proposal, had the business case presented by the

Tourism Minister in March, and it was approved in March.

Could the minister be a little more specific? What date in March

did Treasury Board deal with the proposal from the

submission?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s good to be here on the third day of estimates of the Ministry

of Finance. As I said yesterday, this proposal came to Treasury Board in

March. Of course, it had to be — just like other decisions have to be —

ratified. They have to go to cabinet for ratification, after which a

letter of decision is forwarded to the minister, the details of which

are all subject to cabinet confidentiality.

P. Milobar: I’m not going to belabour this, then, I guess. It’s disappointing

that we can’t get something as simple as a date of a meeting. There are

some serious questions around this project that continue to swirl, with

inadequate answers and changing answers. So when you piece everything

together from questions on Monday and questions yesterday, there’s a

disturbing timeline that comes out.

The reason the date in March is critical is that on March 7, the

Tourism estimates happened, and the Tourism Minister made no mention of

demolition or any scope or scale. In fact, in the questions asked about

the Royal B.C. Museum, her answers were strictly around renovation of

the third floor and continuing to discuss what the renovation of the

second floor would actually look like. That was it.

The minister, on Monday, made it very clear that to be in the

budget, expenses had to be submitted to her ministry by December to make

it into the budget. In March, she made it clear — sometime in March —

Treasury Board dealt with this proposal and brought it forward, which

means that it couldn’t have been in the budget.

At 4:30 yesterday, when I asked if it was anything to do with the

line items on page 63 in her “Stronger together” budget book, the answer

— and my final answer — was to: Can the minister confirm that none of

these moneys are for the announced rebuild of the museum that was

announced on Friday by the Premier? That was for all three years in the

financial plan on page 63. The minister very clearly said: “It’s not in

there because it wasn’t approved prior to budget.” Fair enough. I

thought that was the end of it.

Then, at 5:20, I’m asking about why you would close the museum in

September if there’s no money in the budget for renovating it, at the

earliest, until April 1, because there’s no money identified in the

budget, which means that it’s going to sit dark for six

months.

[2:50 p.m.]

The minister’s answer: “In terms of the member’s question, it

doesn’t show up in the budget until the business case is approved. We

will see, he will see and the public will see the release as part of the

financial and economic review. It gets released around the same time as

the public accounts, which is before the end of August. So members will

see that in there. Then again, it will be seen in the first quarter,

early in the fall.”

Again, the minister reiterated at 5:20 that it was not in this

year’s budget books.

She then referred me, on my very next question at 5:25, with the

follow-up on whether it might be coming out of contingencies for the

work that was announced on the Friday…. The minister said: “If the

member has a copy of the blue book, he will see on page 195…. I will

draw his attention to Vote 48, capital funding,” and she goes on to list

what various ministries are in that. “If the member wants to take a look

at page 195, he’ll see the Royal B.C. Museum, Minister of Tourism, Arts,

Culture and Sport — that there’s almost $56 million set aside in this

budget out of the capital budget for works to be done this

year.”

That is amazing — how fast financial documents can get edited and

updated.

I went and looked, and sure enough, the $56 million is on page

195, just as the minister said. Then I thought: “Well, that’s strange,

because it wasn’t on page 63 when I questioned it, in the other budget

book.”

I thought: “Well, surely, when you go to page 75 in the budget

book, which is table 1.8, ‘Capital expenditure projects greater than $50

million,’ with a note underneath that says: ‘Note — information in bold

type denotes changes from the 2021-22 Second Quarterly Report

released on November 22, 2021’; and then you advance to page 76, which

has the same heading because it’s a continuation, and you go to the very

bottom of that page — ‘Royal B.C. Museum, collections and research

building, completion 2025.’ That’s it. Estimated cost to complete, $224

million.

It’s not in bold, so it’s not new. There’s no scope of work that’s

new. It’s over $50 million in the blue book.

Can the minister explain how magically, in the space of one

question yesterday afternoon, we went from “it’s not in the budget” to

“there’s $56 million identified in the budget to do demolition work on

the building after it closes in September in this fiscal

year”?

[2:55 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: What I pointed to yesterday in the blue book, where it says the

Royal B.C. Museum….The bulk of that is for the collections project that

is being undertaken. That is in the budget. The member just pointed to

it. So that’s the bulk of that.

As for activities that may need to happen now that the business

case is approved, if there are activities that need to happen once

there’s closure…. I mean, I think about what that would look like. I’m

just trying to imagine when it closes. The next day the wrecking balls,

I imagine, are not showing up. There are many, many artifacts. There’s

lots to pack. There’s lots of planning to happen. I imagine…. The member

would have to speak to the minister to get the specific details. I would

certainly, again, encourage him to do that.

Again, that is the work that I imagine that they’re going to be

undertaking. The member can speak directly to the minister to get those

details, to understand what the specific plans are through the fall and

through the rest of the fiscal year.

P. Milobar: Well, that sure…. It took 15 minutes to get a one-minute answer

that didn’t actually answer the question, on the minister’s own words.

That answer doesn’t hold up, because that’s not what the minister

answered yesterday.

I’ll read my exact question I asked yesterday and the exact

answer. That is not even close to what the minister answered, let alone

alluded to, in her answer yesterday. I said:

“Well, surely, the minister must have had to have approved some sort

of expenditure for this year’s fiscal” — the Minister of Finance must

have had to approve some sort of expenditure for this year’s fiscal —

“I’m assuming it would come out of contingencies — for demolition. The

museum closes September 6 of this year. Fiscal doesn’t end until March

31. I sure hope that we’re not just going to have it sit dark, instead

of having an extra quarter million or so visitors, in that time frame,

come through. Surely, there must be money that needs to be coming

forward in this fiscal, through contingencies, for design and to make

sure architects are secured.

“It’s very specialized, building museums, specialized work: (

a) they’re in high demand, (

b) it’s not going to be easy to find, and (

c) they’re probably going to be expensive. They’re probably going to want

some money up front. It’s going to be a lot of work for their firm to

have to front a lot of costs.

“Can the minister confirm that any of that type of work in this

year’s fiscal is going to have to come out of contingencies, and how

much money has she approved as the Finance Minister, as the chair of

Treasury Board, in this year’s budget out of contingencies for the work

on the museum that was announced on Friday?”

The minister didn’t tell me to go to talk to the Tourism Minister

at that point. She said:

“If the member has a copy of the blue book, he will see on page

195…. I will draw his attention to Vote 48, capital funding. That lists

a number of places, a number of ministries, where we have identified

some operating expense for the year ’22-23. It includes the Minister of

Advanced Education and Skills Training; Attorney General; Minister of

Education and Child Care; Minister of Health; Minister of Tourism, Arts,

Culture and Sport; and the Minister of Finance. There’s a list of

capital projects there.

[3:05 p.m.]

“If the member wants to take a look on page 195, he’ll see the Royal

B.C. Museum, Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport — that there’s

almost $56 million set aside in this budget out of the capital budget

for works to be done this year.”

How could that possibly be for works on a project that didn’t even

go to Treasury Board until March, when this budget book was designed in

December? Why will the minister not give a straightforward answer, like

she did twice earlier, that there’s no money in the budget for this

year, instead of trying to pretend something else in the budget is for

something that it’s not? It is ridiculous in the extreme, when you have

capital expenses supposed to be declared that are over $50 million, that

this project doesn’t show up in because it wasn’t approved when this

book was created.

What was the $56 million supposed to be for, and why did the

minister try passing it off as if it was always in the budget for the

work to happen from September 6 to the end of the fiscal, on March 31

next year?

[3:10 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to go back to the collections and the

research building to make sure that the member understands the timeline

on that project and how things have been unfolding, because it is part

of the Royal B.C. Museum.

These are two projects. The first one is the…. I’ll share with the

member that in June 2021, government approved the business plan for the

collections and research building. In September 2021, that was reported

in first quarter of ’21-22. That’s why it is in the $50 million list

that’s in the budget. It is now late in the RFP stage for that

particular project.

As part of that work, as part of what needs to happen in order to

transition, the obligation to pack up everything, to prepare…. My

understanding is it’s quite an undertaking, as it’s been explained, to

take all the seven million pieces that need to be moved to the

collections, the additional artifacts that need to be packed up

appropriately. It’s quite a sophisticated undertaking.

That’s the

part in the budget book that I pointed to yesterday,

that $56 million that I pointed to yesterday. That’s what that money is

set aside for, some of which, yes, can be used over the coming months of

the year to help the process now that the business case has been

approved. Some of that resource can be used to facilitate the rest of

the artifacts that need to be packed, that need to be identified, that

need to be moved, as they look to move forward with the business

case.

P. Milobar: The twisting…. It’s taken a half-hour on two questions of four

very professional staff, so two hours’ worth of staff time, to come up

with two non-answers.

Let’s look at that latest answer. The justification, which had

nothing to do with the question that was asked yesterday for the $56

million, is now about needing to start packaging the collection up on

September 6, 2022, to move to the new building that the RFP process just

finished on — the new building that’s not slated to be open, according

to this budget book, until 2025.

So now the justification for closing the museum on September 6,

2022, is to take three years to pack up the collection to move it into

its new storage facility. That’s what the minister essentially just

said. In asking where the money was to do any work in that museum after

it closes on September 6 of 2022 — when previous questions indicated

that there was no capital money available until April 1, 2023, at the

earliest — this minister’s response was, “There’s $56 million on page

195 in the blue book,” to do work for the final six months of this

fiscal year.

She’s now saying that work is a three-year process to package up

because it’s complicated to move things out of a museum. Why can we not

just get straight answers on a project that has dominated the news for a

week now? No one knows what exactly is going on. No one knows the scope

and scale. No one can understand the timelines. With each question and

convoluted answer, the answers make things even less clear.

[3:20 p.m.]

How does packaging up a collection need to start on September 6,

2022, for a building that hasn’t even been commissioned to be built yet

— because the RFPs just went out, according to the minister — let alone

will be lucky to actually be completed on time in 2025? How does the

minister expect anyone to actually believe that that is a reasonable

explanation for her answer that was, one minute apart yesterday, from

there’s no money in the budget this year for the museum to there’s $56

million in the budget this year for the museum?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I certainly continue to listen to the member ask queries

that really are more appropriate to the minister responsible for this

project.

What I can tell the member is that we have put in the budget, and

he can see it in the capital plan…. The collections and research

building has been approved. It’s in the $50 million table. There are

additional resources set aside as part of this budget to facilitate the

works that need to be undertaken as identified by the ministry, by the

experts over there who specialize in how much time is needed to

facilitate such a move and make sure that artifacts are well

protected.

If he has more specific questions about why it takes so long, or

if he has more questions about what the process is for making sure that

those artifacts are well protected and preserved, then he really does

have to take those to the minister responsible. That’s where they have

the details. That’s where they have the expert staff.

I’m happy to answer the member’s questions around what we’ve

budgeted for, how we’ve taken the overall framework for how we’ve been

doing this budgeting. I’m happy to take those questions. But the

specifics in terms of the timing, what needs to happen, in what way it

needs to happen, who the experts are that are being consulted, all of

that…. It’s very important information. I’m not suggesting that it’s not

important. It is important, but it does need to be asked of the

appropriate minister.

P. Milobar: Why did the minister approve $56 million of capital spending for

the demolition of the museum with the December expense submission

deadline in this year’s budget for a project that did not get presented

to Treasury Board until March?

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s not for demolition. That’s not an appropriate…. My answer to

the question is that it’s not what it’s for.

P. Milobar: Then I go back to the original question. If there’s no money in

this year for demolition…. If the stuff that needs to be packed up, with

the most imminent threat — it’s a long process; apparently, it’s a

three-year process — is mainly located in the basement, where the public

doesn’t go, and there’s no money in this year’s budget to start any type

of demolition work, why do the public access areas of the museum need to

be shut down on September 6 if this minister has not approved any

capital dollars to be spent on its demolition until April 1, 2023, at

the earliest?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I’ve said before, the specific details of what needs to happen

when, what the planning is…. Those are questions that are most

appropriate for the minister responsible.

P. Milobar: This is the minister responsible. This is the minister responsible

for the provincial treasury. This is the minister responsible for every

dollar of revenue that comes in and every dollar of expenditure that

goes out and every project that gets approved. This is the chair of

Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance. This is the appropriate

minister to be asking why things were approved in this budget or

not.

[3:25 p.m.]

The business case was approved by Treasury Board, which she

chairs. The business case was approved with a September 6, 2022, closure

date, with no money identified in the budget for the six months leading

up to the next fiscal year. Why did the minister approve such a program

that will then see the museum go dark to the public in the public areas

for six months unnecessarily, instead of approving dollars to start the

demolition?

Hon. S. Robinson: We canvassed this a fair bit yesterday, and I’m going to repeat an

answer from yesterday, which may frustrate the member. I’m not sure, but

it may. As Minister of Finance and chair of Treasury Board, I am

responsible for the broad capital plan and the process by which Treasury

Board considers projects. The ministers are responsible for planning and

delivery of their projects.

Once again, the member has very specific questions, specific

planning questions that are better directed to the minister responsible

for this project. I could point him down the hall to where she resides.

He’s welcome to ask her, and she will have the specific details. Her

staff, I’m sure, would be happy to oblige the member on these sorts of

questions.

P. Milobar: Well, I said something similar yesterday, and I’ll say it again to

the minister: that’s a sorry day for us in B.C., in an answer, to hear.

Every minister refers questions to the Finance Minister during

estimates; it’s not the other way around. Every single year that

happens. It’s not the other way around.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

For the Finance Minister to say that once Treasury Board approves

a project, she’s hands-off and never gets any updates and has no

concerns about what the financial tracking of a project is or how the

funds are being expended and that the only one that can answer a

question like that is the minister of the ministry that that project is

in…. That’s beyond the pale.

Maybe we’ll see if the minister will answer these questions, then.

We talked about the property transfer tax. We talked about the minister

continuing to budget, to collect windfall dollar figures off of it and

not wanting to adjust it down, because adjusting the taxes down would

actually increase the price of housing.

[3:30 p.m.]

We talked about removing gas tax to help people with affordability

at the pump. Removing taxes would not lower the price of gas, because it

would just go back at the pump. Can the minister explain the rationale,

then, of why removing the PST on electric vehicles, which are also in

scarce supply and very hard to access, in this year’s budget will

somehow lower the price of electric vehicles but actually increase the

price of gas, or houses, if taxation was removed on those scarce in

supply and demand items?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Welcome, Madame Chair. It’s nice to see you.

First of all, I need to correct the member’s frame that he’s

using. When we chose to eliminate the PST on electric vehicles…. This is

the vehicle market. The people have choice. They can go with a

combustion fuel engine. If they’re looking for a new car, they could go

for an EV. They can go with a used combustion engine car, a used EV. So

in that respect, we removed the PST to incent between two choices that

are available to people.

But it also does one other thing. It says to car dealers and

manufacturers that there is an appetite here. We want them to increase

production, and with increased production you would actually bring down

the prices of electric vehicles.

This is a good thing. I can’t imagine anyone in this chamber not

thinking that having more EVs on the roads, as opposed to combustion

engines, is a bad thing. I think everyone would agree it’s a good thing.

The impact that would have would be that the supply-constrained market,

which is a very different market on gasoline…. The end, the long-term

goal would be that it wouldn’t be so constrained. There would be fewer

combustion engines on the road and less demand for gasoline. It wouldn’t

be as expensive as it is now.

They’re very different products with very different markets that

are challenged in different ways. One is of choice between options. The

other one is that there are really no options. It’s just a constrained

supply, and it requires a different way to address those

challenges.

P. Milobar: Well, the Premier had options for people. “Don’t buy gas. Think

before you drive. Hop in someone else’s car. Take a bus.” He seemed to

be full of options.

The premise, the minister said…. People have options for houses.

They have options for neighbourhoods. They have options for cities,

options of whether it’s near transit or not, a wide variety of options —

size, stand-alone, freehold, strata, condo, apartment-style condo. You

name it. Lots of options for housing, yet constrained supply.

The minister’s answer to why not adjust the property transfer tax,

why not adjust the threshold for first-time homebuyers upwards so they

could afford to get into the market, was: “It would actually make things

more expensive.”

There are options to gas. There are options of gas companies. Not

every station charges the same. Costco charges less if you have a card.

That’s a choice as a consumer. There are points cards you can have if

you choose to link your credit cards and things of that nature that can

save you money at the tank, depending on the company you want to go to.

It’s not priced the same all the way around the province like vehicles

typically are, at least new ones.

Yet bringing any relief to people at the pumps by the way of

taxation, which has worked in Alberta…. It actually dropped their rate

of inflation by 0.4 percent this last month compared to the rest of the

country, including B.C. The minister says that wouldn’t work despite the

fact it’s working right next door.

Now we have a budget where the logic is to remove PST on electric

vehicles, which are in scarce supply. It can take upwards of a year or

two to order in advance. There are limited models. There is actually

more selection in the housing market for people in terms of style of

housing than there are electric vehicles currently available, for

models. But the minister says that car dealers won’t put the price up to

account for the room that they vacated on the taxation.

[3:40 p.m.]

Can the minister explain to me why realtors and sellers of homes

will fill the gap if tax is removed, gas stations and oil companies will

fill the gap and put the prices up if tax is removed but sellers of

electric vehicles won’t?

Hon. S. Robinson: I was listening to the member make, I think, some interesting

comparisons between two products that really have constrained supply in

a significant way.

Our housing market, which I see…. I have been witnessing, for the

last 12, 14 years, a very constrained supply in housing. There hadn’t

been rental built for well over 15 years in our province, purpose-built

rental. There had been almost no, certainly not enough, subsidized

housing for a very long time. The federal government had gotten out of

that business. I want to say local governments hadn’t been building the

kind of housing that they needed to be building. They’re getting better

now.

As a result, when you have that kind of constrained supply, you

don’t have the same kind of competition that actually helps with the

pricing. Gasoline is the same. I mean, the member talks about different

gas stations, but I’m sure he has witnessed in Kamloops, just as I have,

on some corners where there might be four gas stations, and two have one

cent below the other, and then two have another cent below. You want

them to compete, but then they just all bump them up to the same

price.

That’s constrained supply. Some might argue that it’s price

fixing. We’re still trying to figure out what that gap is. But we do

know that right now for gasoline, it is constrained supply. That those

are very intractable challenges, because essentially, there isn’t the

competition. There isn’t the choice available.

The member talks about choice between strata and rental and, I

think he said, freehold. Well, the reality is there’s not much choice,

because there’s not that much available, and that actually is what

pushes up the price. Automotives are very, very different. Different

dealerships. Different kinds of vehicles, and making electric vehicles.

I can’t imagine anyone suggesting that making electric vehicles more

attractive is a bad thing. We want to see more of that. We want to get

off fossil fuels. I believe the member wants that. At least, I hope

that’s what he wants.

That’s why we eliminated PST on used EVs, because we want to

encourage that, get people off of combustion engines. The side effect of

that is a signal to the market — those that are selling these vehicles,

those that are manufacturing these vehicles — that there is an appetite

here. Do more of this. That, again, will create more choice for

consumers and help drive down prices.

The side effect, over the long-term, would be that with

constrained supply on gasoline, if there’s fewer vehicles needing the

gasoline, it actually loosens up the supply. I’m not saying that that’s

the plan, but it’s a side effect. I just worry that the member reads

more into my response than I’m intending, so I’m just wanting to corral

my response about a long-term potential side effect, which is, I think,

a good thing for consumers and a good thing for the world as we all work

hard to reduce GHG emissions.

[3:45 p.m.]

P. Milobar: I’m not trying to read too much into the minister’s answers. We’re

facing record inflation, cost pressures around…. The minister’s been

tasked with trying to come up with inflationary measures, over a month

ago now, by the Premier. People are still waiting. I’m trying to

understand the logic, both how the NDP interpret supply and demand

pressures on pricing and also why one constrained commodity is not going

to be impacted the same way by taxation.

I’m really glad when the minister talks about housing and is

talking about constrained supply driving and how important supply is,

because when she was the Housing Minister back on June 26, 2019, that’s

not what she thought. In fact, she said at the time: “The B.C. Liberals

— supply, supply, supply. That strategy did not lead to affordability.”

So I’m glad, now that she’s the Finance Minister, supply has become a

little more critical to her. I note that the current Housing Minister,

who is the Attorney General, has actually recently noted that you can’t

tax your way to affordability — that there is a supply issue.

But to suggest that automobiles…. I don’t know when was the last

time the minister bought a vehicle at a new lot. But to suggest that

they are not priced very similarly, dealer to dealer, and to suggest

that they are in much easier supply to acquire, especially if it’s a

certain type of electric vehicle you want, much like if there’s a

certain type of house you would like…. So I’m trying to understand

better why, with extreme unaffordability issues for the average working

person, the priority in this budget is to remove taxation from an

electric vehicle?

The minister is right. I don’t mind that everyone is transferring

over to electric vehicles. I fully think everyone will be — whether we

regulate it or not or mandate it or not, as a government. There are

already rebates that you can get once you buy the vehicle. But now we’ve

added a layer of removing taxation from it, provincial taxation, under

the premise that it will lower the price of the vehicle. Yet the

minister is on record as saying that doing the same thing to property

transfer tax and gas taxes will not help with people’s affordability in

this province.

Why it’s important to drill into this a bit is because, on page 91

in the budget, there is a tax change to how used vehicles are bought and

sold in this province. It very clearly says that that change will impact

low- and middle-income families, especially in rural B.C., because the

government will now say what the vehicle is worth. That’s what the tax

you will pay on it is, regardless of what you actually paid, unless you

want to pay someone to try to verify otherwise. It’s supposed to be

seamless. It’s supposed to come out in the fall. It’s supposed to be

very quick. You walk in with papers and away you go.

That was another affordability issue that we tried offering to the

government as a way to help people get by in these extraordinary times.

We were not resisting the removal of the PST on the electric vehicles,

actually, in that bill, Bill 6. What we brought forward was an amendment

that would align the removal of PST on used combustion engine vehicles

to be the same as the removal of the PST on used electric vehicles so

people could have more choice for an affordable way to get around this

province.

To counter the recommendation from the ministry staff — or the

warning, I guess — that the tax change would actually hurt low- and

middle-income families, we proposed an amendment that would actually

help low- and middle-income families find an affordable, safe used car

and bring the price down by removing the tax. So is the minister now

saying that if we remove the tax on a gas used vehicle, that would not

lower the price?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: There was certainly a lot in the member’s question. I want to

correct a bit of the record, if I might.

First of all, my comments about supply are really about right

supply. I’ve never…. My experience, I will say, with housing supply and

my frustration with housing supply was that it was never about right

supply. For example….

I know the member is rolling his eyes. He doesn’t want to hear

this, but I think it’s important that he understand. He was on city

council. He was the mayor.

[3:55 p.m.]

I don’t know what was happening in Kamloops, but I can tell him

what was happening in Coquitlam. When developers were coming, from

2009-2010 right through till my time sitting on council, 500-square-foot

condos were being sold unmarketed offshore. They were being sold before

anybody locally could ever put in an offer on a condo — hundreds of

them, right by a SkyTrain station that was on its way.

You know what, Madam Chair? The parkade was empty. You know why it

was empty? Because no one was living in it. You know why no one was

living in it? Because they were making investment purchases. That’s

it.

These weren’t homes. Yes, there was supply, but it wasn’t the

right kind of supply for families to live in. It has to be the right

kind of supply, the supply that’s needed for the locals, the people that

are here, right in British Columbia, who are looking for family homes.

That hadn’t been my experience as a city councillor, and we’re changing

that. I think it is about having the right supply.

If the member didn’t want me to comment on that, then I suggest

that maybe he not reflect back on things that he is quoting, perhaps,

out of context. I really feel like I need to put on the record my

perspective.

Now, in terms of the member’s commentary about used EVs and people

can get grants…. There is only one grant. It’s the SCRAP-IT program. I

can do a little bit more digging, if the member would like, but I

believe it’s just the SCRAP-IT program. You can get $500 for your

combustion engine vehicle. There are no other grants. There are no other

incentives to encourage people to switch over. All the other grants that

are available are for new purchases.

Part of the rationale for bringing this forward now is…. We’re

starting to see EV users sell their used EVs and get new ones, get the

latest, greatest version. There is a market now for used EVs, so we want

to continue to, I guess, drive those choices. It’s within that context,

I think…. I wanted to make sure that the member understood

that.

I also think it’s important to get on the record the sort of

timeline we’re talking about here in terms of how things have changed. I

will say, in my two years as Minister of Finance, engaging with

economists and talking with, certainly, other Finance Ministers around

the country…. We’re all sitting here saying: “You know, four months ago

we were looking at a different climate, a different economic

climate.”

I will say…. Over the last couple of months, we’ve certainly seen

the impact of Russia’s war in Ukraine and the impact that’s having. I

presented my budget on February 22, and Russia marched into Ukraine on

February 24. Its impact is being felt around the world, very quickly, in

terms of constraining, certainly, oil and gas. That’s creating

significant challenges.

The member has made the suggestion around removing the PST from

used vehicles. I appreciate the suggestion. We’re always open to hearing

good ideas, and I take it under advisement.

P. Milobar: Well, one would hope that if there was an empty parkade next to a

SkyTrain station, it’s because it was a building next to a SkyTrain

station and people were taking a SkyTrain.

These questions are actually quite important to the broader

public. We’re experiencing record unaffordability.

The minister says: “Always open to take suggestions.” Well, we

actually had an amendment on the floor, which went to a standing vote,

that the government voted against. The amendment was in the exact same

wording as the electric vehicle used car wording, except it added in

combustion vehicles. That was the wording on the electric vehicles that

the government had brought in for used cars.

The reason it’s important is…. We’re trying to offer to the

government…. We’ve offered an amendment about removing the PST on used

vehicles under $20,000. We know that that hurts low- and middle-income

families, especially in rural B.C. How do we know that? Because the

ministry staff advised the minister that that tax hurts them, that

increasing that tax will hurt them. What did this minister do in this

budget? She increased that.

The minister can say she didn’t increase, but the funny thing is

that it’s slated to collect an extra $29 million. If you’re not

increasing a tax, I don’t know how you can have an extra $29 million of

revenue coming in. That would indicate an increased tax.

[4:00 p.m.]

There is a new survey out from Stats Canada today. Maybe the

minister hasn’t seen it yet, but it ranks hopefulness of

resi­dents in a province, all ten major provinces. B.C. is the

worst. B.C. has seen the largest decline of residents with hopefulness

of what is going on in their province, of all provinces. The timeline

for that drop is 2016 to 2021-2022, 14 percent. It’s gone from 76

percent to 62 percent.

These are people that can’t afford — low- and middle-income

households — electric vehicles, used or otherwise, because there is a

premium for those, even used ones. They can barely afford rent. They can

barely afford their mortgage. They can’t tie up borrowing power by

taking out a car loan. For every $400 of a car loan, and this was before

the interest rates rose, you tie up $100,000 worth of borrowing power

for a mortgage, for living — every $400. And $400 a month is not an

expensive car these days, for a car payment. It’s probably a used car,

and it’s probably at a higher interest rate than normal.

When we brought in an amendment to try to reduce the cost of used

cars, it wasn’t just ignored by the government. They proudly stood up in

opposition and voted it down.

Can the minister explain why it’s okay to waive approximately $30

million of PST on still priced largely out of reach to the average

population in B.C. electric vehicles while, at the same time, budgeting

to collect $30 million more in provincial sales tax on used car sales to

low- and middle-income households?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to make sure that the member understands the rationale for

this process that we’ve put in place, because the tax was always there.

It was. It’s been there since 2008, I think it was — earlier. I can get

the year, if the member wants. I can ask staff.

The measure really is estimated to decrease revenue lost due to

under-reporting. This is about a tax fairness piece. We’ve done a random

sampling of vehicle transfer data. We did this in 2014. It was estimated

that at least $20 million in tax was being lost annually because people

were choosing to under-report their purchase price.

Over one million vehicle transfers occur annually here in British

Columbia, and it would be impossible to identify all such cases of

people choosing to under-report in order to recover all applicable tax

amounts due. In fiscal 2019-20, about 110,000, 112,000 vehicles were

transferred with a purchase price identified as less than 90 percent of

the fair market value of the vehicle.

The ministry did undertake an audit. They audited 2,580 vehicle

transfers during the fiscal year, and the recoveries were $5 million. So

most people, I believe, are honest in the reporting, but there are some

who make a choice to under-report.

All the other provinces have adopted a strategy to better manage

the situation, make it more difficult for people to misrepresent the

actual price of the vehicle. Bringing this in is an opportunity to make

sure that everyone is being treated fairly, that all taxpayers abide by

the same protocols. It results in a fairer tax system, which is one that

I am sure the members opposite believe in strongly as a value. I think

everybody here in the House values that.

P. Milobar: Well, that’s where our amendment to remove the PST on used gas

vehicles under $20,000 was both fair and a way to bring affordability to

low- and middle-income households instead of impacting them negatively,

like the minister was warned by her staff on page 91 of the

budget.

The question I have for the minister is: what has the ministry

anticipated for a PST loss with the removal of PST from electric

vehicles in this year’s budget?

Hon. S. Robinson: Before I answer the member’s question, I want to welcome Charlotte

and Beatrix back, if they’re watching their dad on television. When I

suggested that maybe they’re watching again, he said: “They better not

be. They better be at school.” I pointed out that it was after four

o’clock, and he said: “Okay. They don’t have to be at school.” So

welcome back to Beatrix and Charlotte, if they’re watching.

The member I’m sure knows and can see it on page 87 of the budget

book. It says: “Introduce exemption for used zero-emission vehicles” —

$21 million in ’22-23 and $29 million in ’23-24.

[4:10 p.m.]

P. Milobar: We have reduced revenues by $21 million this year. On page 25 of

the budget book, if I could just clarify, for electric vehicle rebates,

there is $67 million budgeted in addition to that. So that would put us

up to $88 million. Then an increased passenger vehicle surtax threshold

for zero-emission vehicles of another $12 million, which would get us to

$100 million of lost revenue for PST and rebate-type exemptions for

electric vehicles on page 25. Am I reading that correctly?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member was pointing to page 25 in the budget and fiscal plan,

and the table is all of our investments in CleanBC. That is in one table

that includes the tax measures.

P. Milobar: I’ll take that that I added 67 plus 21 plus 12 up correctly, which

was the question, and that it’s $100 million worth of incentives, in one

form or another, around electric vehicle purchases.

[4:15 p.m.]

Over to page 87. It appears that the adjusted purchased price of

private vehicle sales for tax purposes this year is slated to collect an

extra $15 million of taxation because it only takes effect on October 1.

Then next year, with the full fiscal year under it, it’s slated to

collect $30 million. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, that’s correct.

P. Milobar: Just to clarify, the adjusted purchase price of private vehicle

sales for tax purposes which will collect $15 million this year and $30

million next year…. On page 91 is the same tax that says: “Individuals

involved in private vehicle transactions are more likely to be low to

medium income, living in rural areas and male.” Is that correct? That’s

where the extra $15 million to $30 million will be collected

from?

Hon. S. Robinson: It will be collected from the people who under-report.

P. Milobar: I guess in a roundabout way the minister was advised by her staff

that individuals that are low, middle income and living in rural areas

are more likely to not report accurately. That’s what she is

saying.

Again, back to the fairness, then, we had proposed an amendment

that would remove the PST completely from used vehicles — $20,000 or

less. The exact same wording as electric vehicle used car removal. That

PST exemption for used vehicles in this year’s budget is going to cost

the taxpayers $21 million while collecting an extra $15 million from

low- and middle-income families.

Next year when it costs low- and middle-income fami­lies $30

million of extra taxation, you will be removing $29 million to subsidize

the purchase of used electric vehicles. So it seems the tax policy of

this government is to make sure to tax low- and middle-income people to

fund electric vehicle purchases. That’s almost dollar for dollar what is

happening here over the next two years.

So I guess I’m still trying to understand then — back to supply,

demand, affordability — what the minister has been tasked with by this

Premier to bring forward for affordability. We’ve suggested adjusting

the property transfer tax to help with affordability. We’ve suggested

gas tax to help with affordability. We made an amendment to remove PST

on used cars to help low- and middle-income families with affordability.

All have been rejected by this government. Instead they’ve added $100

million to the budget to subsidize higher-end electric vehicle

purchases.

When exactly will the minister be bringing forward the

inflationary-fighting affordability measures the Premier said four weeks

ago he tasked her to come forward with in the coming days?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Before I proceed with my answer, I want to point out the way the

member is reading the sentence on page 91. It says, “Individuals

involved in private vehicle transactions,” and it’s a descriptor of

those individuals. The descriptor of who is likely to be engaged in a

private vehicle transaction is people who are of low to medium income,

living in rural areas and male. That’s just what we know about private

transactions.

What we’re saying is that there needs to be a framework for how

those transactions transpire. All people — regardless of gender, where

they live — are expected to report accurately, and we now have a

mechanism for reporting. I want to make sure that the member understands

what that sentence means.

The member has taken an interesting look at an assessment about

how tax policy works for government. It worked the same when folks on

the other side were on this side of the aisle.

When we look at a tax system…. When you look at the overall tax

system, one tax measure doesn’t necessarily pay for some other activity

or action. That’s not how our tax system is structured. The entire

system is combined. It’s fair and competitive. That is the philosophical

framework for doing it.

Since we’re talking about taxes overall, I think it’s really

important…. I want to read into the record our government’s actions on

taxes. I think the member is picking up on one piece, but again, in the

totality, speaking to all the measures we have taken….

We eliminated MSP. That’s a significant regressive tax that was

put on British Columbians that every year kept going up higher and

higher. Who did it hurt? It hurt those that were least able to

contribute, because it was a regressive tax. Whether you made $300,000

or $80,000, you still paid the same amount. It wasn’t a progressive tax.

We got rid of that.

The same thing with bridge tolls. That’s a tax, and it didn’t

matter what your income level was. It didn’t matter if you earned

$300,000 or $30,000. You still had to pay, every single time, the user

fee. Every single time you crossed the bridge, you had to do

that.

[4:25 p.m.]

We cut small business tax by 20 percent. It makes a difference to

small businesses. We also have the second-lowest small business tax rate

in the country.

We also introduced the child opportunity benefit, and it took

effect just as COVID was doing its thing here in British Columbia. We

really all got consumed with COVID, but I promise you that those

families that are getting those cheques until their children are 18 are

really benefitting with money in their pockets. That’s making a

difference. Again, it’s targeted to those on the lower

income.

We also know, since we formed government, that when you look at

the totality, again, of taxes and what people are paying, an average

family with two kids used to pay…. If you were a family earning

$100,000, they used to pay $7,473 in taxes. They now pay $5,658 in the

totality. That’s a 24 percent net reduction.

A family that earned $80,000 used to pay $5,637 in taxes. They now

pay $3,342. That’s a 40 percent net reduction.

An average family with two kids earning $60,000 — they used to pay

$4,238. They now pay $1,539. That’s a 64 percent net

reduction.

For those who make just $30,000 a year, they used to pay $177 in

taxes. They now get $1,442 back in their pocket.

Now having said that, we know that families are continuing to be

challenged. No one is denying that, not at all. I think, if we hadn’t

taken these measures, of how much harder it would be for families. The

member across the way is chuckling. I’m not laughing at all. I think

it’s really hard for families. I think it’s really hard for

them.

The Premier has asked me to take a look at what more we can do.

We’ve taken significant steps since we formed government, and we’re

going to be taking some more.

P. Milobar: Well, I’m chuckling because the minister makes it seem as if we

would have not adjusted anything we were doing if we were still

government from when we were government as revenues change, as pandemics

hit, as priorities change — as flexibility and financial plans change

because of revenues. The bottom line is that when this government took

over, they were collecting roughly $50 billion in fees and taxes. This

year it’s $68 billion — from five-zero to 68. Only an NDP Finance

Minister could say that life’s more affordable after they’ve collected

an extra almost $20 billion in fees and taxes off of the population over

that time frame.

But the question was around when we can expect…. Despite what the

minister wants to think…. I appreciate that money and budgets all come

in as an aggregate and all goes out as an aggregate to various things

and that it’s not a one-for-one. But if the minister can’t see how the

general public views tax changes in this year’s budget that almost line

up dollar-for-dollar….

If nothing else, it’s very symbolic of what this minister seems to

feel about trying to provide relief to low- and middle-income families

on something like purchasing a vehicle. They are the most likely to

purchase a gas combustion used vehicle, and why is that? Because it’s

the most affordable, safe way for them to get their families around. Why

are they most likely to be in rural areas? Because car dealerships don’t

exist in great supply in rural areas. It’s private sales. Our amendment

was private sales and used car lots.

[4:30 p.m.]

Our amendment aligned exactly with the new PST exemption on used

zero-emission vehicles to actually try to bring that fairness that the

minister wants to talk about, so if you could afford to buy a used

electric vehicle, you got a little tax relief. But if you could only

afford to buy a gas vehicle to meet your needs, you could get a little

bit of tax relief.

There’s not a used pickup truck to buy to go to work right now

that’s electric. In great parts of rural B.C., rural and mail, that’s

exactly what they need to go to work or they don’t have a job to provide

for their family.

At a time of record unaffordability, at a time when the Premier

has tasked this minister, very publicly, with coming forward with

affordability options for people, we provide an amendment to the House

that the minister proudly stands up and votes against, with the backdrop

of a new StatsCan report that says hopefulness of British Columbia

residents is the worst drop in Canada — on a timeline that pretty much

matches up when this government took over — from 76 percent to

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The public are speaking. The public are saying they need help.

They need something for affordability, something that will actually help

with government policy to help them. I know that this may seem a little

disjointed, but I’ll get to the roundabout way once I get the first

answer.

I had asked around the collection of the fuel import fees and how

much revenue was coming in over the change that happened January 1 to

the end of the fiscal as well as what was projected in this year’s

budget for revenues coming in based on the importation fee of 25 cents a

litre for fuel being trucked in from Alberta. Could the minister update

me on those, please?

[4:35 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: Welcome back to the chair.

I appreciate the member coming back to this question. He did ask

this on Monday. I was able to check in with staff. There is no

25-cent-a-litre fee on imported fuels. There’s no fee or border tax or

other adjustment that is charged on any out-of-province

fuels.

P. Milobar: Well, that’s interesting, because I’m reading a B.C. exemption

outlook from the province: “Exemption overview. The Regulation allows

companies that supplied less than 25 million litres of fuel in 2021 to

apply for exemption from the renewable or the low-carbon fuel

requirements.” Now, when it was first brought in, it was 75 million.

Under CleanBC in 2021, the threshold got kicked into 21 million. Then

the limit was reduced to 200,000 litres starting in 2022.

We also have gas suppliers from Alberta that have notified gas

stations in B.C. that they wouldn’t be able to supply them as of January

1, because it would be over the 200,000-litre threshold and it would be

subject to a 25-cent importation fee from British Columbia.

I’m just wondering how the minister that’s responsible for the

revenue generation of the province could have a different ministry

sending out notifications and bulletins around revenues coming back to

government and fees being charged by government if they don’t actually

exist? That’s what the industry all seems to think, and it’s creating

confusion in terms of supply of gas into British Columbia, and what it

actually costs to supply.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member sticking with this question, because I

think I now understand. He did ask this on Monday. I believe that what

he’s referring to is the low-carbon fuel standard, which is a regulatory

system. It’s not a tax. It does not generate revenue for the province.

It’s really under the responsibility of EMLI, and they will have more

details.

If there is confusion…. The member suggested that there was

confusion. I’m happy to pass along to the minister responsible that

there’s confusion among industry. I would suggest that if the member has

more questions specific to the low-carbon fuel standard, the minister

responsible would have more details for him.

P. Milobar: I’ll get some other paperwork on that. That doesn’t line up,

frankly. There’s no point having importation rules around low-carbon

fuel if there’s no mechanism for the fee to be paid or an exemption to

be sought or anything of that nature, if there’s nothing coming back to

the provincial government. There has to be a monetized piece to the

credits. We’ll dig into that a little bit more.

I’ll stay on some of this other pricing for the time being though.

Is the intention of the government…? My understanding is that in 2023,

the federal carbon tax goes up to $65. It appears that in this budget,

carbon tax is calculated at $50 a year for all three years of this

fiscal plan. Is it calculated at the $50, or is there an ever-increasing

carbon taxation structure within this fiscal plan?

Hon. S. Robinson: If the member wants to turn to page 161 of the budget book, he’ll

see, sort of midway down, it says, “Carbon tax rates, April 1,” and the

rate is right there — $50 a tonne, in each of the three years of the

plan.

P. Milobar: Okay. That’s what I had assumed it was in the budget. I guess my

confusion is…. My understanding is the federal bulletin, “Update to the

pan-Canadian approach to carbon pollution pricing, 2023-2030,” has a

schedule of the minimum carbon pollution price in 2023 being $65 and in

2024 being $80. And if the province doesn’t tax to that level, it

appears the feds say that they’ll fill the difference.

Is it the expectation of the Minister of Finance that instead of

collecting the full amount of carbon tax at $65, the province of B.C.

would be foregoing 30 percent of carbon tax revenue to the federal

government?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: As general practice, and I believe this was the practice when the

members on the other side were in government, we don’t book tax revenue

until we introduce or announce plans. We are very well aware of the

federal government’s plan, as the member so aptly read into the record,

and the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Environment and Climate

Change Strategy are working together to review B.C.’s carbon pricing

policy, and they’ll be bringing recommendations forward to us by the end

of this year.

P. Milobar: Well, I don’t understand why it wouldn’t be in as a notional

revenue. It’s federal law. Unless there’s a plan to vacate that tax base

to the federal government, surely showing it as coming in would be

prudent. People can see the signal, if carbon pricing’s all about

transparency, and people can start making decisions. Especially if

they’re buying something like a vehicle that they might be needing for

the next few years before they change it to another one, I think they

might like to know that that carbon tax is slated to go next year to $65

a tonne and the following year to $80 a tonne. That’s an extra 6½, seven

cents a litre at the pumps.

They may like to know that as they’re making vehicle purchase

decisions in the here and the now, with gas already at $2.30-plus a

litre. It’s significant, because based on the emission profile in the

current budget for the years moving forward, it’s a difference next year

of $700 million in revenue — $700 million next year alone extra, going

from $50 to $65, based on your own budget numbers. In 2024, it’s $1.5

billion.

[4:50 p.m.]

In the effort of transparency of what people have coming at them —

so they can start making decisions around home heating appliances, cars,

transportation modes, all of those things — I think it would be prudent

that they know that in fact, in ’24-25, the provincial government is

budgeting to collect $3.8 billion in carbon tax, not $2.3

billion.

I get the expense programs might not be figured out yet in terms

of how that’s going to get distributed to people, but it would make for

a very interesting public conversation about how that should happen, how

it should be disbursed, what the highest and best use is of an extra

$2.2 billion, over two years, in carbon tax. Why would there not have

been at least a footnote, a mention, a disclaimer, you name it? They’re

all over these; there are always little numbers next to things, and then

a description at the bottom for further description.

There’s $700 million more in revenue slated to come in next year,

if the carbon tax stays synced with the federal government. And if it

doesn’t stay synced with the federal government, the federal government

will collect $700 million, and we may or may not get that back, as

British Columbians.

Could the minister confirm that the intention of the government is

to sustain compliance with the pan-Canadian approach to carbon pollution

pricing and keep the B.C. carbon tax rates on

schedule with the federal

laws and rules so that B.C. is not giving up any of that taxation space,

and they’re collecting the full amount?

Hon. S. Robinson: I just notice, as I get to my feet, that we have a couple of

visitors in the gallery. Laura Dupont is a councillor at the city of

Port Coquitlam, and Pete Fry is a city councillor for the city of

Vancouver, here joining us today. I’d like to welcome them and ask all

members to welcome them to this riveting exchange.

First of all, I want to point to the member…. I’m hoping that

after my answers, we could take a bit of a five-minute break. I want to

point to page 59 of the budget book, second paragraph, right in the

middle. It says: “The prov­ince has committed to meeting or

exceeding growth in the federal benchmark and will evaluate the effects

of the carbon tax on household affordability in line with the increasing

federal carbon price requirements.” So it is in our budget book — our

commitment, as we talk about the carbon tax.

I also want to point the member to the Roadmap to 2030 that we

released in October of 2021. We said that B.C. is committed to meeting

or exceeding the federal price for the upcoming 2023 to 2030 benchmark

period.

We continue to let British Columbians know what they can expect of

their government around this. We have been leaders on this file. The

previous government introduced carbon tax, and we’re certainly committed

to continue to work with our federal partners, making sure that we

understand what their expectations are so that we can all do our parts

to reduce GHG emissions and help save the planet.

With that, Mr. Chair, I ask for a few minutes of

recess.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

This House will be in recess for ten minutes. Thank

you.

The committee recessed from 4:54 p.m. to 5:02 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

P. Milobar: The minister was referring to page 59 and earlier on in the carbon

tax questions. When I asked why we didn’t show it going to $65, the

answer was, essentially, that we don’t like to forecast ahead in the

budget. Yet on page 55, “Revenue by source,” every other source seems to

have projections for the next two years based on assumptions. The

assumption for the carbon tax revenue on page 59 is projected to average

1.6 percent growth, reflecting volume growth, and no change in tax

rates. Yet the very next sentence is: “The province has committed to

meeting or exceeding growth in the federal benchmark.”

When this was written, the federal benchmarks were out. It’s a

$700 million difference. That’s a significant change, at $700 million

difference, because there are ever-growing emissions. So when this

government took office, carbon tax was being collected on 41.6

megatonnes of emissions. Now, the minister has referred several times to

this budget since its introduction, about how it’s all about greening

the environment and cleaning the environment. Everything we’re doing in

it is about the environment.

[5:05 p.m.]

Well, in 2018, 41.6 jumped to 42.5. It hovered around 42, dipped a

little in one COVID year but not much. And 2021 came roaring back to

45.5 megatonnes of carbon tax emissions. In 2022, 46, 46, almost 48 by

the end of this budget book.

Emissions keep rising. Carbon tax dollars are rising, but it goes

up even higher because of the rise in emissions. We see a $700 million

rise next year. We see a $1.5 billion rise the following year. Yet, in

this budget book, for the carbon action tax credit, which is for low-and

moderate-income families, there’s only $120 million put in it in the

third year of this financial plan. There’s not extra money, that I can

find, put in this year’s financial plan or next year’s financial

plan.

Now, typically, when carbon tax has gone up by $5, the carbon

action tax credit needs more money put into it to be able to distribute

money to those low- and middle-income families at the same ratio per $5

of carbon tax that it has in previous years. Did the carbon action tax

credit get adjusted upwards this year when carbon went from $45 to $50,

and if so, by how much?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I hope this is going to answer the member’s question, because

there was a lot in there. We were talking about a number of things. I

believe this the question that he was asking.

Currently for the ’21-22 fiscal year, an adult receives, on the

climate action tax credit, $174. That’s a single adult. Their oldest

child will also receive $174, and then each child is $51. Then for

’22-23, it goes up to $193.50 for adults and the oldest child, if it’s a

single-parent family, and $56.50 for a child.

[5:15 p.m.]

P. Milobar: That’s why, I guess, it’s important to have forward-looking,

accurate numbers in a budget so that the public knows what the

intentions are.

The only reference to the climate action tax credit on page 25 is

$120 million going into the fund in ’24-25 — none going into the fund

this year, none going into the fund next year, despite carbon tax going

up by $5. Each $5 it goes up, it takes around $36 million, say $35

million, to make the program whole, to make sure that the lift to those

payments going up stays consistent with the same ratio per $5 of carbon

tax.

Now when you go to page 170 in the budget, table A7, “Material

assumptions, expenses,” climate action tax credit for individuals is

there — $330 million last year, $363 million this year. That would be in

keeping with that $33 million, $35 million, $36 million per $5, so that

makes sense. Then because carbon tax shows on the books as staying at

$50, even though we’ve now determined it will be going to $65 next year,

it only shows $10 million coming in when, in fact, it needs $108 million

to stay whole.

More puzzling, though, is in ’24-25, it stays at that $10 million

raise. Yet on page 25, it says it should go up by $120 million. This

year’s budget estimates don’t show any new money going into the program,

yet we see $33 million going in. Next year’s budget shows no money going

in, yet there’s an additional $10 million going in. Then in

year 3, when page 25 says $120 million is going in, we see no

money going in. It’s troubling that there’s not consistency in the

material assumptions with what’s actually presented in the much more

upfront, easy-to-read

section of the budget, for the average

person.

Can the minister commit today that when next year’s budget goes to

a $65 carbon tax, in fact the climate action tax credit will see an

extra $105 million to $110 million put into it, because that would be

three units of $5 increments at $35 million to $36 million each

increment, to make sure that low and middle-income families are not

unduly harmed by the carbon tax going up to $65?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to draw the member’s attention and the public’s attention

to page 27 of the budget book, where we talk about other measures,

towards the bottom. It’s in there: “B.C. will continue to look at the

effects of the carbon tax on household affordability as the federal

carbon price requirements increase.” That’s noted in there as a major

priority for our government. It’s the policy work that is being

undertaken right now by my ministry in combination with the Ministry of

Environment and Climate Change.

We appreciate the tension that comes with needing to do our part

to change behaviours to get off fossil fuel, to switch to cleaner forms

of energy. That’s a huge undertaking. It’s a global undertaking. We are

doing our

part in a myriad of ways.

We also recognize that by pricing carbon…. That puts particular

pressure on certain British Columbians more than others, middle- and

low-income British Columbians. That’s why we’re undertaking a wholesome

review of what current actions we are taking and what additional actions

we ought to be taking — so that household affordability is addressed as

part of the increasing cost of carbon.

P. Milobar: Well, the paragraph on 27 that the minister refers to is just a

further description of the chart that I referenced that shows the years.

In fact, that description very clearly says that the $120 million to

continue the climate action tax credit is in ’24-25.

My point is that there is no money, according to the minister’s

charts on page 25, in this year or next year for the climate action tax

credit to continue. In ’24-25, there’s about $100 million less allocated

than would need to be, because in ’24-25 carbon tax will be at $80 a

tonne.

When I went looking in the budget book to figure out if, well,

maybe it was somewhere else and I found Table A7, material assumptions

of expenses, in the back on page 170, I was surprised to see that the

material assumption for this exact program is that the government will

be spending an extra $36 million this year on it, despite saying no

spending on page 25.

I agree with the program. I want to be clear with that. I’m

starting to question the accuracy of the charts and the corresponding

back pages though. Then next year it says, in fact, from this year there

will be $43 million more, based from ’21-22. On page 25, it says no

money. By my calculation should show $10 million. This year should show

$33 million.

[5:25 p.m.]

Then in ’24-25, where page 27 very clearly describes it and page

25 has it in chart form, even if you based it on the ’21-22 number, the

dollar figure that should be in there should be $450 million, not $373

million.

These next two years are going to be very unnerving for people.

They’re going to be very nervous about what’s going to happen to their

affordability.

This is a budget that purports to be about the environment and

affordability, yet there’s no clear direction forward on whether or not

a fundamental program that has transferred carbon tax back to low- and

middle-income families so they don’t get penalized because they’re low-

and middle-income…. They recognize that their carbon footprint is much

less than someone with lots of disposable income — that’