First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 11, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 27

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Access to health care services in Kootenay East area and Angel Flight service

T. Shypitka

Response to overdose deaths

A. Walker

Hollyburn Family Services Society

K. Kirkpatrick

Willow Room project for women reporting violence to police

K. Paddon

Attacks on women in politics

S. Furstenau

COVID-19 response by Okanagan Spirits Craft Distillery

H. Sandhu

Ministerial Statements

Anniversary of declaration of COVID-19 pandemic

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Bond

S. Furstenau

Oral Questions

COVID-19 vaccination plan approach and priorities

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

COVID-19 vaccine booking system

R. Merrifield

Hon. A. Dix

Panel report recommendations on protection of old-growth forests

S. Furstenau

Hon. K. Conroy

Budget process and government spending

M. Bernier

Hon. S. Robinson

T. Stone

M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. S. Robinson

THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2021

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: G. Kyllo.

[10:05 a.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE SERVICES

IN KOOTENAY EAST AREA

AND

ANGEL FLIGHT SERVICE

T. Shypitka: As I’ve stated in this House on numerous occasions, access to

health care in my riding of Kootenay East is difficult, to say the

least. At one time, a simple two- to three-hour drive to Alberta has

been eliminated as an option, and now costly and impractical options are

to find your way over several mountain passes and 11-, 12-, 13-hour

drive times, if you’re lucky.

But there is good news in this story. A service has been created

that provides air transportation at no cost to patients requiring urgent

care. Angel Flight East Kootenay was founded in 2019 by Brent Bidston,

president and lead pilot. Together with his wife and partner, Janet

Bidston, and fellow pilot, Todd Weselake, this small but mighty team of

volunteers have helped over 120 patients from the East Kootenays access

much-needed medical care in Kelowna since it was founded. Identifying a

gap in services, Angel Flight has now grown from Kootenay East to the

Nelson, Creston and Invermere areas.

Last Friday the director of the regional district of East Kootenay

voted unanimously in favour to fund Angel Flight East Kootenay with a

sustainable $500,000 pledge to greatly assist this game-changing

not-for-profit organization. This money will greatly improve reliability

and safety by purchasing a more capable aircraft, which will, hopefully,

include twin engines with pressurized cabins and anti-icing

capabilities. Improving reliability will give Angel Flight more options

for patient transportation, including less cancellations due to volatile

weather conditions and quicker delivery time.

That said, Kootenay East and other jurisdictions, like Columbia

River–Revelstoke, still have a mountain to climb on getting access to

health care without financial and geographical barriers. We need to do

better to assure our citizens that they will not be forgotten in their

greatest time of need.

I would like to thank and congratulate the team at Angel Flight

East Kootenay for their accomplishments so far and their valued

service.

I would also like to thank the directors of the East Kootenay

regional district for their keen judgment in assisting Angel Flight and

securing this now Kootenay amenity.

RESPONSE TO OVERDOSE DEATHS

A. Walker: This morning I would like to introduce to this House Stephen. As a

teenager, Stephen enjoyed skateboarding and playing video games. He

spent time at cadets, where he had fun, developed close friends and

great memories, though as he grew older, he began experimenting with

illicit drugs and eventually started to use regularly. Stephen was a

good kid. As an adult, he found his passion for making jewelry, and he

found stability in a supportive housing complex in Parksville. He wanted

help, and he was making progress, but then the worst happened. Stephen

died alone in his home. He was 33 years old. Several drugs were found in

his system, including toxic levels of fentanyl.

His mother, Julia, through her grief and heartbreak, wants to be a

voice for others. She wants to make sure that no other mother, father,

partner or child experiences the unnecessary loss that she did. In

December of last year alone, there were 154 illicit drug toxicity deaths

in British Columbia, and Stephen was one of them.

I urge my colleagues to make sure that people in their communities

are aware of local drug-checking services; of the Lifeguard app, where

users will be automatically connected with emergency services in the

event of an unexpected overdose; of the non-emergency health information

available through 811, including how to access alternatives to the toxic

drug supply; and, of course, recognizing your local mental health,

substance use and treatment services.

We need to have open conversations about this. We need to

eliminate the stigma associated with drug use, and we need to work

together to save lives in all of our communities.

HOLLYBURN FAMILY SERVICES SOCIETY

K. Kirkpatrick: Happy Thursday to everyone, although today marks the grim

anniversary of the World Health Organization deeming the COVID-19

outbreak a global pandemic. Our lives have changed significantly since

that time, and non-profit heroes have stepped up to support those most

impacted.

Over the last few months, I’ve had the great honour to get to know

many more of the non-profit organizations in my riding of West

Vancouver–Capilano and to see the great work that they do, supporting

the North Shore residents.

[10:10 a.m.]

In mid-February, I had the pleasure of meeting with Joy Hayden and

David Ayriss of the Hollyburn Family Services Society. This society’s

focus is to put an end to social issues within the community, ensuring

that families and children are safe from violence and receiving the

tools and support required to lead a life free of violence and

oppression. In 2020, the Hollyburn Family Services Society supported

over 800 North Shore youth, seniors and families.

We have honoured women this week through International Women’s

Day. We know that violence against women has escalated during this

pandemic. I’d like to shine a light on Hollyburn’s victim support

program, which has done extraordinary work supporting victims of

domestic violence, sexualized assault and criminal harassment. Victim

support workers are highly-trained in trauma-informed

counselling.

We hear the term “trauma-informed” quite frequently, and the

explanation of what it means is really quite simple. These trained

counsellors approach their clients without judgment. The question is

always, although not asked, “What happened to you?” rather than: “What

did you do?” I don’t know that we can even begin to imagine the

emotional and physical impact this kind of work happens on those who do

it. Hollyburn is also a partner in the North Shore Integrated Domestic

Violence Unit.

No one goes into the non-profit sector to get rich. They do the

work because they know how important it is. As always, I want to remind

everyone that non-profits rely on donations and supports from the

communities they serve.

Thank you again to Hollyburn Family Services and its team of

extraordinary staff and board.

WILLOW ROOM PROJECT FOR

WOMEN REPORTING VIOLENCE TO

POLICE

K. Paddon: I recently had the opportunity to tour a unique space in our

province called the Willow Room. The Willow Room was created through

partnership between Ann Davis Transition Society, Wilma House, Pearl

Renewal Society, Women of Stó:lō and the RCMP domestic violence unit,

with the goal of ensuring that women who are reporting domestic,

gender-based or sexual violence are heard, supported and not further

victimized.

This space is specially designed to give women a warm, safe,

supportive and non-institutional place to report to the RCMP. This 24-7

resource opened to serve our community in December 2020 with a focus on

providing a trauma-informed, culturally sensitive environment for women

to safely tell their stories when they are ready. Law enforcement plays

a crucial role by using trauma-informed interview techniques and

fostering trust.

Imagine you had to tell a stranger about the worst thing that ever

happened to you — about the biggest hurt and the most devastating

betrayal — in a strange place, in detail, repeatedly. Once you imagine

it, you may understand why it is estimated that only about 10 percent of

domestic sexual assault and gender-based violence is reported to police.

You may understand that the most common reasons given for not reporting

are the fear of not being believed, feelings of shame and embarrassment,

lack of support or not knowing how to report.

So please know this. In Chilliwack-Kent, thanks to the hard work,

partnerships and commitment of so many, you can file a report by calling

the RCMP at 911 or the non-emergency line, and you can ask to make your

report at the Willow Room at Ann Davis.

Please join me in thanking the Ann Davis Transition society, Wilma

House, Pearl Renewal Society, Women of Stó:lō and the RCMP domestic

violence unit for the initiative, the work and the partnerships that

created this space for women.

ATTACKS ON WOMEN IN POLITICS

S. Furstenau: According to a 2016 study by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, 44

percent of female politicians report having received threats of death,

rape, assault or abduction. Reflecting on International Women’s Day,

these numbers are hard to bear. In the same year that the IPU study came

out, British MP Jo Cox was murdered in her constituency. There have been

many other prominent assassinations of female politicians.

Mexican mayor Gisela Mota, shot dead less than a day after she

took office.

Somali lawmaker Saado Ali Warsame, killed in a drive-by shooting

in Mogadishu.

Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh, killed at the age of

Sitara Achakzai, shot dead outside her home in

Af­ghan­istan.

Again in Afghanistan, Hanifa Safi, head of women’s affairs, killed

by a car bomb.

Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto,

assassinated.

Aqila al-Hashimi, shot by six men near her home in

Baghdad.

Galina Starovoitova, Russian democrat, attacked with a machine gun

and pistol, killed instantly.

Perhaps most famously, in 1984, Indira Gandhi shot at home by

members of her own security team.

[10:15 a.m.]

All of this happened before Donald Trump initiated the chant:

“Lock her up.”

Consider that roughly eight in ten female politicians also

indicated that they were survivors of psychological violence, hostile

behaviour that causes fear or psychological harm. That’s eight in ten of

us here.

I’m one of those eight. I know I’m not alone.

We do not have to feed the culture of violence towards each other,

which disproportionately affects women. To achieve better outcomes, we

must work across party lines to create a more welcoming environment so

that women of colour, Black, Indigenous, LGBTQ2S+, cis and trans women

will feel at ease in these halls that have for so long been dominated by

white men.

COVID-19 RESPONSE BY

OKANAGAN SPIRITS CRAFT

DISTILLERY

H. Sandhu: Today I’m rising in this House to acknowledge and appreciate one

of our businesses for their contribution to our riding during the

pandemic: Okanagan Spirits Craft Distillery, represented by Craft

Distiller Guild of B.C., in Vernon and in Kelowna.

Their distilleries have played a crucial role to help flatten the

COVID-19 curve by providing thousands of litres of free hand sanitizers

to many health care workers, front-line workers, including homeless

shelters, women’s shelters, public daycare staff, cashiers at grocery

stores and in banks, postal workers and many more. This list grew over

the months, and Craft Distiller Guild of B.C. and their hard-working

staff selflessly kept their distillery’s operation open during the

pandemic in order to help many of us and to meet the crucial demand for

hand sanitizers and surface sanitizers.

By June 2020, they had also covered all family doctors’ offices

from Penticton to Revelstoke, the entire Nicola-Thompson region, as well

as some hospitals. They also expanded to cover north, central and south

Okanagan band offices and a growing list of care homes. Businesses like

Okanagan Spirits Craft Distillery and other distilleries in B.C. deserve

all the appreciation we can provide to them.

May I please ask members of this House to join me to share our

great appreciation with everyone at the Okanagan Spirits Craft

Distillery and other distillers for their great contribution and hard

work during the most difficult times.

Ministerial Statements

ANNIVERSARY OF DECLARATION

OF COVID-19

PANDEMIC

Hon. J. Horgan: It is with some sadness that I rise today to acknowledge the

one-year anniversary of the World Health Organization declaration of the

COVID-19 worldwide pandemic. In the weeks and months that followed that

announcement, all of our lives were turned upside down. To date, 85,000

British Columbians have fallen sick from COVID-19, and almost 1,400 have

lost their lives.

Today British Columbia joins with provinces and the federal

government across the country in flying our flag at half-staff to

acknowledge the loss of life as a result of the global pandemic. So much

has been asked of British Columbians over the past 12 months as we fight

COVID-19. Many people have lost their jobs or had their hours reduced.

Small businesses have closed their doors to help protect customers and

workers. Students have had their schooling interrupted.

Others, despite the risks, have kept doing important work. Some of

those are on the front lines of our health care service, child care

operators, and many, many others. Some have driven trucks to keep food

on our shelves. Others have kept major infrastructure projects safely

operating. Everyone has pitched in to practise social distancing, to

keep our hands clean, to wear masks and do whatever we can as

individuals to protect ourselves, our families and our

communities.

Many people have faced loneliness. All of us have faced

uncertainty. This experience has changed us all. The last year has been

difficult, but it has also shown the best of British

Columbia.

[10:20 a.m.]

Despite the strains and stresses, people have kept looking out for

each other. I remember, as many will, standing on my porch at seven

o’clock banging pots to give a little bit of hope and thanks to health

care workers who were going, in the most uncertain of times, with

potentially inferior protective equipment, into health care units to

protect and work and save those who had been afflicted by

COVID-19.

The challenges have been immense, not just in the health care

sector but right across our economy. Despite these strains, people have

been doing the right thing. With very few exceptions, we have avoided

racism and division, and the past year has seen extraordinary

cooperation in this House and across the country.

Now, with vaccines on the horizon, we have new hope. Every day

people across the province will continue to work to fight the pandemic

to protect themselves and their communities. Every vaccination makes all

of us safer.

But we are far from out of the woods. We know that. We understand

that, and we’ll continue to collaborate in this House, outside of this

House and in our communities right across British Columbia to pay

tribute to those who have lost their lives, to acknowledge and recognize

the sacrifices people have made, to do our best to do what we can about

the loneliness and the uncertainty that all of us are

experiencing.

I believe, and I know you will agree, that although this has been

a challenging year, the best of B.C. is ahead of us. If we continue to

focus with uniform purpose on keeping ourselves and our communities

safe, we will get out of this, and we will be able to recognize those

who lost their lives, those who have made extraordinary sacrifices all

for the betterment of British Columbia.

Today is a sad day but is also a day for hope and optimism. I

believe that hope and optimism will get us through the next days, the

next weeks and the next months as we prepare for a better British

Columbia.

S. Bond: I want to thank the Premier for his comments, and today I want to

bring some remarks on behalf of the official opposition.

Today we commemorate one year since the declaration of a global

pandemic, after the unprecedented spread of COVID-19. Our flag flying at

half-mast is a visible symbol of the impact of the last year on our

province and our world.

Words can paint a very real picture of the past 12 months:

epidemic, COVID-19, pandemic, social distancing, “Wash your hands,” Zoom

calls, “You’re on mute,” Room Rater, loneliness, loss, separation,

kindness and compassion — month after month after month. Somehow it

feels so much longer than a year.

None of us in this chamber could have imagined the heart-wrenching

scenes or the moments of great inspiration that we have seen over the

past 52 weeks. Since the pandemic started in our province, we’ve

experienced 85,000 cases of COVID-19, over 4,500 hospitalizations and

nearly 1,400 deaths, each death heartbreaking for loved ones, for

communities, for British Columbians, for all of us. We share that sorrow

and loss — each case impacting individuals, their families, their

colleagues and those who cared for them as well.

The pandemic has impacted every aspect of our lives — how we live,

how we work, how we connect, how we care for one another. It has been

devastating. Families have lost loved ones. There have been tragic

outcomes in long-term care, job loss, businesses struggling to survive

and a significant toll on people’s mental well-being.

But through it all, we have seen the strength and the

determination of British Columbians, especially those who have carefully

followed all the guidelines and have done everything they have been

asked to do and more. The resilience of British Columbians has been

nothing short of remarkable. They have been innovative, creative and

persistent.

[10:25 a.m.]

Every member in this House has witnessed countless acts of

kindness and compassion. I know that because my family experienced them

personally. I love the phrase that was shared so often during the

pandemic: “And the world came together as the people stayed apart.”

British Columbians did come together, and none more heroically than our

front-line workers. They are grocery clerks and truck drivers, transit

workers, care aides, nurses and doctors, firefighters, paramedics,

teachers, police officers, child care workers. The list goes

on.

They went to work so that we could stay home, and we are so

grateful. Who will ever forget, as the Premier referenced, the nightly

scene of people banging pots and pans on their balconies, at the end of

their driveways and in the parking lots of health care

facilities?

Here in the Legislature, we must also recognize the tireless

efforts of Dr. Bonnie Henry and her team — also the Minister of Health

and the Health Ministry team — for their non-stop efforts to deal with

the pandemic.

Today we look back at a year that was like none other, and we look

forward with cautious optimism and with a hope that, not long from now,

we will be able to be together again with our families, in communities,

and with an even greater sense of pride for this incredible place we

call home and the amazing people who live here. While we may disagree

about many things in this House, I know we can all agree that British

Columbians came together as the people stayed apart.

We are proud, we are grateful, and we are hopeful that the

kindness, care and compassion that British Columbians demonstrated will

be a lasting legacy of our pandemic experience. That would make this

year memorable for all the right reasons.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition

for their heartfelt and inspiring words as we mark this day of

observance. A year ago today COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic,

and our lives were changed in ways that we could have never

imagined.

Acknowledging the people we’ve lost further allows us to heal,

although I know that that process, for many, is only just beginning.

Being unable to gather to grieve this year is a staggeringly cruel

element of this pandemic. Today I hold everyone who has passed and all

who have lost loved ones in my heart.

I’d also like to acknowledge those who have survived COVID-19 but

are struggling with long-term symptoms. We will strive to better protect

and support you every day.

Soon, I hope, we will once again be able to gather safely,

embrace, share a meal and follow the customs, religious practices and

ceremonies that have guided us through tragedies for generations. It has

been a horrible, horrible year. But we are finding our way through,

thanks to the continued dedication and service of front-line workers:

health care providers, teachers, first responders, janitorial staff,

grocery store workers, those who care for our elders and children, the

people who feed us, the people who ensure essential goods and services

are getting to where they need to be, transit workers.

After all we’ve been through, our world will be forever changed.

We have learned unequivocally that everything is interconnected, that

nothing matters more than the health and well-being of the people we

love and that we are all willing to make incredible sacrifices to

protect people we have never met. I have a glimmer of hope that some of

the changes we will carry forward will make our province and our world a

kinder, healthier, more just and caring place.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s have a moment of silence in the memory of all those who have

passed due to COVID-19 and to pray for the loved ones and the

families.

[The House observed a moment of silence.]

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Members.

[10:30 a.m.]

Oral Questions

COVID-19 VACCINATION PLAN

APPROACH AND

PRIORITIES

S. Bond: The Premier spoke eloquently in his remarks just moments ago about

the arrival of vaccines in British Columbia and the hope that it brings.

We certainly agree with that.

The AstraZeneca vaccine has arrived in British Columbia, and we

all know that it comes with an expiry date. British Columbians are still

waiting for details about how exactly that vaccine will be

used.

We have raised this question before and have asked that the

Premier provide clarity on the order and the criteria for vaccinating

priority groups. I know that members in this House and, certainly,

members in the opposition have heard from workers, from teachers, from

child care workers, from public transit workers and, of course, from

first responders.

I would once again ask the Premier today — I know he’s aware that

AstraZeneca comes with an expiry date — if the Premier could share with

us and, specifically, with those critical front-line workers the plan

for the use of AstraZeneca.

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

absolutely true that the first round of AstraZeneca does have a best

before date of April 2. Dr. Henry and her team and Dr. Ballem and the

immunization team are looking carefully at where we can best deploy that

precious resource to meet the needs of front-line workers and a whole

host of others.

The member talked about a range of workers who are concerned about

their place in the queue. I have to say…. I’m sure that the members in

this House have received the same amount of correspondence that I have

from firefighters, nurses, nurse practitioners and paramedics — the

range of front-line workers. The list is long. The mail is about two and

a half inches thick.

Every argument is a valid argument. Every one is carefully

considered by the public health office. Dr. Henry will be deploying the

resource as she best sees fit to contain outbreaks. We’ve heard, of

course, and you know, that there will be a blanket immunization process

underway in Prince Rupert, Port Ed and Haida Gwaii. There are examples

like that across the province.

I expect further questions on this. I’ll leave it to the Minister

of Health to go into more precision on how Dr. Henry plans to deploy

this.

I want to assure the member, all members of the House and, indeed,

all British Columbians that we are going to use what is now a precious

resource, which is coming in increasing abundance, that is fundamentally

important to us getting out of this. We’re going to deploy that resource

as we see best fit to protect the most vulnerable in our communities.

That’s what Dr. Henry has made abundantly clear through her regular

briefings, and that’s our commitment today.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: I appreciate the Premier’s response. I think British Columbians

and, certainly, members on this side of the House do have some very

specific questions about the timelines for providing the

information.

We all recognize that the pandemic…. In fact, we just talked about

that in very poignant terms. We recognize the year that it has been for

British Columbia and the world. The pandemic has been here for a year.

We have celebrated and honoured and respected front-line workers. When

we think about that group….

The Premier is accurate. There is a long list: teachers, first

responders, dentists, agricultural workers, transit workers. These

groups are waiting. They have been patient, resilient and hard-working.

They deserve to know where they fit on the priority list. We know that

it’s important. They’re critical front-line workers, and they are facing

risks every single day.

With the deadline that is attached to AstraZeneca, could the

Premier at least indicate the prioritization, which workers can expect

to get a vaccination, and when?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, Dr. Henry is the expert in this area. She is working with

the immunization team to make sure that we don’t leave one drop of

vaccine underutilized over the next number of weeks and

months.

I want to pause, though, and speak a little bit more

comprehensively on the context for the member’s question. We’ve all

agreed and acknowledged that there is no shortage of people deserving of

immediate immunization. But our challenge is not with this federal

government, not even with the last federal government. Successive

federal governments going back 25 years let our ability to immunize

ourselves atrophy.

[10:35 a.m.]

I’m not blaming anyone when I say that. I’m just stating the

facts. Our ability to do what other jurisdictions are doing has been

compromised. We now acknowledge that, and thank goodness, the life

sciences sector here in British Columbia is well placed to lead the

renewal of that ability here in B.C.

Having said all of that, we’re dependent on offshore supplies. We

saw a very disappointing drop in delivery in early February that took a

little bit of the wind out of all of our sails. We were absolutely

enthusiastic about the prospect of mass immunization, starting with the

most vulnerable, making sure that we could target the populations that

the member and I agree are critical to the well-being of our

communities.

Again, with a limited supply, we’re leaving it up to Dr. Henry to

give us the advice that we believe will best allow us to meet the needs

of everyone. Every vaccination delivered makes us a little bit safer,

whether we’re front-line workers, whether we’re elected representatives,

whether we’re family members in the various component parts of our

beautiful province.

I again will allow the Minister of Health, I’m sure, in subsequent

questions, to get into more precision on this.

I thank the member for her question. I want to acknowledge, as she

has, that we need to make sure we’re speaking with one voice coming out

of this. I know the two of us will keep doing that.

COVID-19 VACCINE BOOKING SYSTEM

R. Merrifield: As mentioned, we have a limited and sporadic supply. As the

AstraZeneca vaccine arrives and larger and larger numbers of British

Columbians need to be booked for appointments, we only have one health

authority in this province with an online system.

This is the most important public health effort in our lifetime,

but this government has failed to create an online registration option

despite having a year to get ready.

To the Premier, why is there no universal online booking

system?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the hon. member for her question.

I want to express my appreciation to the Leader of the Opposition,

to the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for

Vancouver-Quilchena, the Health critic, the former Health critic, the

member for Kelowna–Lake Country and the leader of the Green Party for

all of their questions but also their support and contribution and acts

of personal generosity over the past year, which I deeply

appreciate.

With respect to the booking system for COVID-19 vaccinations, as

members will know, starting at noon today, we are advancing to the next

group of British Columbians in our age-based effort — those born in 1936

or before, between the ages of 85 to 89. Over the last number of days,

as of nine o’clock today, 41,661 people have booked their

appointments.

I want to acknowledge the excellent work, in the last number of

days, of Telus and of the health authorities in improving systems and

responses to people such that in health authorities today there is a

one-minute wait time, on average, this morning for calls that we’ve

received. So all of that is good.

As you know, for the 75-to-79 category, starting with that, and

then, after that, in the pandemic…. There will also be, in addition to

call centres, an online platform at that time. This was part of the

presentation that was made to the opposition and everyone else a week

ago last Monday, and we should see that soon.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission on a supplemental.

R. Merrifield: Thanks for that answer. Based on that, we only have about 7.4

million more bookings to go.

The province of Quebec opened online registrations over two weeks

ago. They registered 100,000 people on day 1.

Laurie Dahlgren is one of thousands of frustrated British

Columbians. She says: “They’ve known this has been coming for a long

time. They’ve had plenty of time to get ready, and it’s unacceptable….

It should be online right now…. It just doesn’t make any sense, in this

day and age, that they couldn’t get with the program.”

Again to the Premier, why is there no online system

now?

Hon. A. Dix: In the first phase of the pandemic, public health organized 1,390

clinics across B.C., delivering full immunizations in long-term care and

assisted living, to many front-line health care workers, of course, and

to many other vulnerable people, including people in rural and remote

Indigenous communities.

[10:40 a.m.]

As vaccine came, that vaccine was delivered into people’s arms in

an efficient way, representing, I think, an extraordinary collective

effort by everybody in public health care, and that is what we’re

continuing to do.

The main limitation, as the member will know and as the Premier

noted, is the amount of vaccine we have. We have organized, based on

very important principles. Those principles, most importantly, are to

protect those who have the highest vulnerability to COVID-19

first.

That’s the reason we started with long-term care. We’ve seen the

effectiveness of the vaccine in that venue, and now we’re working

through, based on age, the general population. We’ll also be using the

AstraZeneca resource we have received. As the Leader of the Opposition

noted, 68,000 doses of AstraZeneca have now arrived. We’ll be receiving,

in late April, a further 136,000 and, in late May, a further 68,000

doses of AstraZeneca.

The priority right now, as the Premier has said and as Dr. Henry

has said, is dealing with outbreaks and exposures, in workplaces right

now in the most high-risk industries, to COVID-19. That is happening now

and will happen with the first doses of COVID-19, 41,000 of which, of

the 68,000, will expire on April 2. That is the approach being taken

there. Then next week we’ll be presenting the plan for the following

204,000 doses in the next two rounds.

This effort, I think — the immunization effort in B.C. — has been

highly organized. We organized and delivered vaccine to long-term care

before other jurisdictions, including some of the ones mentioned by the

hon. member. I think the team who is leading this immunization campaign

in public health is doing an exceptional job.

PANEL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

ON PROTECTION OF

OLD-GROWTH FORESTS

S. Furstenau: Today marks six months since the NDP government released the old

growth strategic review panel report — although, to be clear, this

government has had the report nearly a year. They received it in April

2020, but chose not to share it with the public until September. The

report called for a paradigm shift in our approach to forestry in

British Columbia, especially our ongoing gross mismanagement of old

growth.

One of the key recommendations is to immediately defer logging of

the most at-risk old growth to prevent loss of rare ecosystems. The

report specified that this must happen within six months. Here we are,

and this government still has not taken any meaningful action to protect

these forests. Instead, we are losing critical old-growth stands, as the

old strategy of talk and log continues.

My question, hon. Speaker, is to the Minister of Forests, Lands,

Natural Resource Operations. It has now been six months since government

released this report, and many months into her tenure as minister. Where

is the action that was promised to protect our most endangered

old-growth forests?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the Leader of the Third Party for this question. It’s

important to remember that for too long, there has been a divisive and

patchwork approach to how old-growth forests are managed in our

province. Those who are calling for a return to the status quo are

putting B.C.’s majestic old growth and vital biodiversity at risk, and

those who are calling for an immediate moratorium are ignoring the needs

of thousands of workers and families in forest-dependent communities

right across our province.

We want old-growth forests to be appreciated by people today and

in the years to come. It’s also a priority for our government to support

good jobs for people in B.C.’s forestry sector. That’s why our

government asked the independent panel to advise us on how we can do

better when it comes to protecting our old-growth forests. Our

government is dedicated to implementing the recommendations to ensure

new, holistic approaches to how we manage B.C.’s old-growth

forests.

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

S. Furstenau: Let’s just go through that answer a little bit. A divisive and

patchwork response is actually resulting in particularly divisive and

patchwork old-growth forests that are left in this province and which

are diminishing by the day. The minister talks about an immediate

moratorium, which is not what the panel recommended. They recommended

six months of work with a deadline for deferral, and when the minister

said she asked the panel to advise, that is exactly what they’ve

done.

What I pointed out in my question, hon. Speaker, is that the

government has not responded to that advice that was given — and that

promise that was made by the Premier during the September election

campaign — that all recommendations of that panel’s report would be

followed by this government.

[10:45 a.m.]

A necessary first step is the immediate interim protection across

B.C. to create some breathing room and protect what we have

left.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations. We can’t afford years of delay on this anymore.

When will she fulfil the promise that was made to implement the

old-growth panel recommendations, beginning with immediate interim

protections in our high-risk, old-growth forest?

Hon. K. Conroy: I’d like to correct some inaccuracies from the member. We have

taken some important first steps when it comes to taking action to

protect old growth and implement the recommendations from the

report.

The independent panel recommended we involve Indigenous

governments and organizations within the first six months of releasing

the report. We have done that and continue to engage with Indigenous

governments and organizations on this.

The panel also recommended we take immediate action to protect

ecosystems at very high risk. We have also done that. For example, over

170,000 hectares of old growth in the Clayoquot Sound. About 1,000

hectares of old growth in Stockdale Creek. Almost 10,000 hectares in

upper Southgate River. This coastal rainforest is home to wildlife and

multiple species of salmon. And that is just to name a few.

We’ve also initiated action on two other recommendations aimed at

improving public information and compliance. And while we have taken

these important first steps, as recommended by the panel, within six

months, we know there is much more work to do. We are dedicated to

continuing in this important work with government-to-government

discussions with Indigenous leaders, talking to our partners in labour,

industry, environmental organizations and communities.

We have taken those first initial steps. There is more to do, and

we are committed to following the recommendations of the old-growth

report.

BUDGET PROCESS

AND GOVERNMENT

SPENDING

M. Bernier: The Premier is asking this House to approve another $13 billion

without telling anyone how it will be spent, in defiance of the

Financial Administration Act.

The last time we approved $1.5 billion without knowing how it

would be spent, the Premier used that to craft his own election platform

and then never even got that money out the door. We’ve seen nothing but

a botched small business recovery grant, delayed COVID rebate program

and little in the way of any accountability from this

government.

How can the Premier rightly ask for another mystery fund of $13

billion when we have no idea how that money is going to be

spent?

Hon. S. Robinson: Let’s be really clear. We are in a pandemic. We’ve been here for a

year. Everyone here in this House has acknowledged how important it is

to support people. We’ve been here in this very hybrid style of doing

the people’s work and recognizing how important it is to support people.

That’s exactly what we’ve been doing this entire year. I want to thank

the members opposite for their collaboration.

We are still in the pandemic. We’re going to continue to support

people here in British Columbia. We’re going to continue to support

businesses in British Columbia because that’s what they need from their

government.

M. Bernier: Let’s be clear. The last time we’ve seen this type of disregard

for provincial financial rules was in the 1990s, when the NDP government

presented the infamous fudge-it budget.

The Premier should know this all too well. He was working in the

Ministry of Finance at that time. The now Health Minister was the

principal secretary for NDP Glen Clark, Premier at the time. And this

Premier’s chief of staff was also working back then in Glen Clark’s

office. Seems the same players are back on the field, and history is now

repeating itself.

Will the Premier admit he’s in violation of the purpose of the

Financial Administration Act by asking for another $13 billion without

even showing anybody how that money is going to be spent?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, back in the ’90s, I was raising some small babies. It was a

very busy time for me, so I don’t know what the member is referring to.

I wasn’t here in this place.

[10:50 a.m.]

Again, I want to be very clear. We have been in a pandemic. Every

one here stood in this place today acknowledging how difficult it has

been for so many, the sacrifices people have made, those who have been

going to work to make sure that we were healthy.

The demand on government has been to be there for people. We have

been there for people. We will continue to be there for people, because

that’s the kind of government we are.

T. Stone: Well, the Premier has, indeed, bungled his COVID recovery rebate.

He has completely botched the small business recovery grant program. He

has delayed the budget and quarterly reports, blaming that on an

election which he called.

Now he doesn’t seem to care about B.C.’s budget transparency

laws.

My question is this. How are we supposed to give the Premier a

blank cheque for $13 billion with no budget and no spending

plan?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, the members opposite will know full well that we do interim

supply every single spring. Given the state of affairs around this

pandemic, it’s absolutely critical that we continue to do the work that

British Columbians depend on us for, which is to be there for them, to

make sure that those supports are there.

In fact, the member opposite mentioned the B.C. recovery benefit.

Well, I’m very happy to rise in this House and point out that 2.3

million people have received a recovery benefit. They have received a

recovery benefit. That amounts to well over $1 billion, and not only

that, that’s $1 billion that’s going into the local

economies.

Interjections.

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

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to tell members a story about what it really means for

communities around this province. I heard from someone, a friend of mine

whose mother is 75 years old and was anxious about going online. She

went online. She got her recovery benefit within three or four days, and

then she did a Zoom call with two of her elderly friends.

They were making plans about where they were going to go in their

community to spend the recovery benefit, because that money is

circulating in communities. It’s making a difference for British

Columbian businesses. It’s making a difference for British Columbian

communities, and it is helping to take care of all of us through this

pandemic.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, the Premier has delayed the budget. He’s delayed the

quarterly reports. He’s expanded the use of special warrants. He hasn’t

released the Telus contract, which we’ve been calling for all week. He

hid a critical long-term-care report during the recent provincial

election, and now the Premier wants to spend $13 billion without a

budget and no spending plan, no details.

So my question, again, to the Premier: why is he, bit by bit,

manipulating B.C.’s budget process, and why does he no longer care about

B.C.’s budget transparency laws?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I think British Columbians know exactly how much this

government cares about them. That’s why we have been delivering for

them. That’s why we have recovery benefits. That’s why we have business

recovery opportunities. It is why we are making sure that we have robust

plans in place to get the vaccinations into people’s arms. British

Columbians know very much how much their government cares about

them.

M. de Jong: Well, as we’ve heard, there is another anniversary taking place

this spring. It was 25 years ago that the most notorious example of

budgetary manipulation and chicanery took place — the NDP fudge-it

budget.

The Finance Minister says, “ancient history,” except it was the

history of the Premier. It was the history of the Health Minister, the

history of the Premier’s chief of staff. Hey, the band’s back together

again.

Interjections.

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

M. de Jong: The Budgetary Blues Brothers are back on the road, and they’re

playing the same playlist. You know, over the last three

years….

Interjections.

[10:55 a.m.]

M. de Jong: You can always tell when the government is uncomfortable, can’t

you, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Member, continue.

M. de Jong: Over the last three years, this Premier and this government have

steadily dismantled the very statutory safeguards that were put in place

after the fudge-it budget to guard against budgetary chicanery. And now,

led by the same people that were involved in that, they are seeking

spending authority for $13 billion without a single line describing what

that money will be spent for.

Not only have they not provided a budget for the coming fiscal

year, and here’s the really fascinating part; they have tied spending

for the next three months to — get this — the budget that was presented

13 months ago, which the Premier himself acknowledged wasn’t accurate

three weeks after it was presented.

How can British Columbians have any confidence whatsoever in a

government that is ignoring the legal requirements of responsible

budgeting and basing its spending plans on a budget that the Premier

himself acknowledged was out of date days after it was presented in this

House 13 months ago?

Hon. S. Robinson: Certainly, the member is trying to spin a narrative that is so far

from reality that I think British Columbians should be embarrassed at

the official opposition.

There is a pandemic still, hon. Member. We just spoke about that

today, recognizing the sacrifices and the challenges that so many

British Columbians have endured for 12 months — the sacrifices that they

have made by going to work, by taking care of our children, by caring

for our aging parents, by making sure there are groceries there for us

when we need them.

Just as everybody else has really been challenged to accommodate

this change, there have been some changes, as a result of the pandemic,

here before this House. We are in an unprecedented time. There’s a

tremendous amount of work that needs to go into making sure that British

Columbians continue to get the supports that they need.

That’s why we’re delivering the budget on April 20, hon. Member.

You will see a budget that will detail exactly how we will move forward,

continuing to protect British Columbians, and build a road for economic

recovery.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: What is clear and becomes increasingly more clear every day is

that this government, this Premier and apparently this Finance Minister

are incapable of abiding by the basic legal requirements of budgeting

that, by the way, earned this province the reputation as a leader in

Canada — not a leader, the leader — for transparent and responsible

budgeting. Talk about fiscal sleight of hand.

I’m waiting for the minister to tell me what part of what I’m

about to say is inaccurate. The Premier and the Finance Minister are

actually asking the House to agree to this. They are asking the House to

agree that last year’s year pre-pandemic budget will be deemed to be

this year’s budget. They will deem it to be this year’s budget so that

they can spend $13 billion. Now, if anything I have just said is

inaccurate, the minister can stand up and rebut it.

The NDP must be the only government in the entire world using a

pre-pandemic 2020 budget as the basis for spending authority over a year

later, in the midst of a pandemic-plagued economy.

[11:00 a.m.]

This is my question. Why is the NDP consistently incapable of

following the basic rules around responsible and transparent budgeting,

and why does the Premier believe that his government should be given

permission to spend $13 billion on the basis of absolutely zero in the

way of description and by tying that spending to a budget that he

himself acknowledged was out of date days after it was tabled 13 months

ago??

Hon. S. Robinson: The member opposite mentions transparency. Well, I seem to recall

that there was an ICBC document, and pages got torn out. Wasn’t that

when they were on this side of the House? There’s something about that.

So I don’t think that the folks over on the other side can say much

about transparency.

What British Columbians need to know is that we have demonstrated

our commitment as a government to be there for them. We have brought in

supports; we’ve brought in services. We have been taking care of

businesses and people — their health care needs. We have been there for

them. We’re going to continue to be there for them. I’m very proud of

what our government has done and what we’re going to keep

doing.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 6, Home Owner Grant Act.

[11:05 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — HOME OWNER GRANT

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 6;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

On clause 20 (continued) .

M. Bernier: I’m almost finished on clause 20. I just want to bring us back to

where we were a couple of days ago now, I guess, on this bill.

Obviously, in clause 20, we’re talking about the whole application

process for the grants.

One of the areas I didn’t canvass yet…. I just want to maybe just

preface it by saying I’m not trying to make the minister down any rabbit

hole with these questions. These are legitimate questions I’m just

concerned about, and I’m hearing from people. It’s more of an

explanatory opportunity as well.

We’ve talked about people within the municipalities. We’ve talked

about regional districts and the regional districts which mostly have

been either on phone or online — the minister acknowledged earlier —

which is now what we’re moving to for municipalities when or if this

bill passes.

My first question and thought is: how does it work for First

Nations on reserve land? Can the minister explain? Now, I know it’s

federal, so there are differences around this. I think she and I both

know the answer, but I have had people in the public ask me about this.

Can she just put some clarification around reserve lands,

please?

Hon. S. Robinson: The answer is that it depends. It depends on whether the First

Nation is the taxing authority. In some cases, it is a municipal

government that is a taxing authority, depending on how it’s

established. If it’s a First Nation taxing authority, these amendments

have absolutely no change.

[11:10 a.m.]

M. Bernier: Just to confirm, though. The minister said at the very onset of

this that the First Nations weren’t impacted at all. So UNDRIP wasn’t

considered — what we passed in this House. First Nations weren’t

consulted on this bill at all. Did I hear her correctly at the beginning

of this?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the people speaking in my ear and all of their work

on this.

The member has been asking about treaty lands and the role of

First Nations. Because we’re taking…. The Home Owner Grant Amendment Act

doesn’t affect Indigenous Peoples wholesale, except in the case where

they pay taxes to municipality, for example. It’s just transferring over

the program. Those treaty First Nations that are the taxing authority —

it doesn’t have any impact on them. Should they want to talk with us

about any change, we’re certainly open to those

conversations.

M. Bernier: Well, I’m probably not going to expect an answer from the

minister, and I’m not going to go down too long on this issue. It just

does surprise me from that, though. When we stood in this House and we

passed UNDRIP, the very first thing that this government said is that

with every bill that was going to be in front of this House, they would

be consulting and working with First Nations. Obviously that was done,

then.

The minister is saying this doesn’t affect or impact First Nations

at all in the province. I’m assuming that consultation was done. Does

she have a document she can table in the House today to show that they

have allowed this to proceed after consultation and that it doesn’t

affect them?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, keeping in mind that we’re simply centralizing and

modernizing delivery of the homeowner grant program, we’re not changing

eligibility requirements. The Home Owner Grant Amendment Act does not

affect Indigenous People in B.C. in a unique way, and we have confirmed

that there’s no notification requirement under UNDRIP.

M. Bernier: Who confirmed that there was no notification required? Did the

First Nations Leadership Council or somebody say to the minister and to

government: “Don’t worry about contacting us”? Or did the minister or

her staff make that determination?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: As part of a matter of course since the passing of UNDRIP, we

consult with legal counsel that understands the minutia of that

legislation, and they provide legal advice about what the obligations

are. We follow their legal advice.

M. Bernier: That’s not what was discussed in this House. At no time do I

remember the Premier or any minister saying that they would be

determining through legal counsel whether the government chose to

consult with First Nations or not. Everybody stood in this House and

said that First Nations would be consulted on every law, every bill,

before it was brought to this House. At no time was there a caveat put

in by anyone that I remember.

I stand to be corrected if the minister wants to correct me and

say: “No, we stood in this House and said we would not consult on every

bill, that we would only seek legal counsel.” But I was here that day

when there was a lot of pomp and circumstance in this facility around

the UNDRIP bill. Now we’ve seen, for almost every bill that’s hit this

House, the government now tries to hide behind, “Well, we’ve sought

legal counsel, and we don’t have to consult with First Nations,” which

brings us back to: then why did the government put so much fanfare

around a bill to begin with, if they weren’t actually going to follow

that bill?

This is why we’re hearing comments out there. It was all politics.

It was not actually for First Nations. My question…. I’m going to move

on, because I think I’ve made my point. The minister has acknowledged

how she chooses to answer this, and government has acknowledged their

fact that they’re not following through with the promises that they made

in this House.

Just more on the technical point. The minister answered a question

a second ago around First Nations treaty land. Is there any difference

for a First Nations person who lives off reserve, who holds title of a

house off reserve, applying for a homeowner’s grant? Are they treated

the same and equal as everybody else?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, directly to the member’s specific question, yes. They’re

treated like everyone else. Nothing has changed in terms of the context

about who gets their homeowner’s grant.

I think it’s really important to get on the record that the

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act is legislation that

this House adopted. For every single bill that comes forward, it gets

vetted through that legislation. That’s what legal counsel does. They

are trained in the minutia of that bill. They provide advice for every

single bill that this government brings forward, look at the

requirements that we have as government in relation to that

bill.

There is certainly lots of work to do, for sure, about continuing

to follow through on our commitment as a government. We’re committed to

keep doing that. As part of the process, for every single bill we make,

that determination is made about our legal obligations.

I look forward to continued work with First Nations to make sure

that there’s justice and reconciliation happening on the

ground.

Clause 20 approved.

On clause 21.

M. Bernier: In reading through clause 21 here, it’s my understanding that it

adds new sections related to the adjustment of grants — allows for

grants to be adjusted if an applicant is entitled to more money than

they received.

My first question on this section, when I’m going through this:

will adjustments be reviewed and made by grant administrators as part of

the administration process, or will individuals themselves need to apply

for an adjustment for an amount that they receive?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The answer is both. The grant administrator will do periodic

reviews — I guess from an audit sort of perspective — to make sure that

people are getting their full entitlement. As well, the applicant is

also to make a request.

M. Bernier: We’re just trying to follow through with that. So the applicant is

supposed to make a request. There are times, then, if the administrator

is only doing an audit and the person doesn’t make the request, when

things don’t match up? I’m assuming the audit isn’t done on every single

1.1 million households, so it would be sporadic or however the

administrator chooses to do that. I think the minister acknowledged this

before, but just for clarity: there are times, then, if it’s not caught

in the audit and if it’s not caught by the person themselves that

obviously things don’t match up and the proper grants weren’t

administered or allowed?

Hon. S. Robinson: And hence, I think this is a good rationale for transferring the

program centrally, because it’ll be a more robust application. We’ll be

able to catch those examples where people night not realize that they’re

now eligible for the additional seniors benefit, for example, because

they have to put in their birth year, and it will automatically let them

know what they’re entitled to.

Whereas in the olden days of pen and

paper, you might not do that calculation. You do the calculation

yourself, so you might miss that opportunity. We are expecting that it

will actually catch those opportunities more efficiently so that we

would actually see more people get their full entitlement.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for that answer. It gets a little

convoluted, a little confusing sometimes for these. I know the minister

is probably very thankful herself to have people in her ear, as she

continues to say. I want to again thank staff for helping both of us out

in the House here as we work through this to make sure we’re getting the

information out for people.

Under subsection 10.2(4) of this part of the bill. I want to read

out, in (d) — this will explain a little bit of why I’m asking the

questions, trying to understand this: “despite the cancellation, the

previously approved grant applied or otherwise dealt with under this act

is deemed to have been applied or otherwise dealt with in relation to

the new applicant as if the amount of the previously approved grant were

part of an amount of the new grant.”

I know the minister is saying that’s so straightforward. But with

that, can the minister provide an example actually of how the amounts

are calculated under this section?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: It just so happens in this sentence, which is strung together in a

very long-winded way…. This is actually the mechanics of the example

that I used previously. So if I make an application for the grant, and I

am not yet a senior, but my spouse is, then it allows the spouse who’s

the senior…. It sort of cancels my application and puts in my spouse’s

application so that my spouse can get the senior grant. That would be

applied to the taxes. So we would send that to the municipality, and it

would readjust our taxes so that they get the full amount. This

section

is the mechanics of making sure that that can happen.

M. Bernier: The minister just sparked another question in my head with that

answer. I possibly should know this. When you are applying for the

grant, does it matter who is the title owner of that house? Not in every

situation does the spouse have it joint. Sometimes it can be under the

husband; sometimes can be under the wife. Does that have any determining

factor on who’s eligible to apply for the grant?

Hon. S. Robinson: And sometimes it’s the wife and the wife or the parent and the

child, in terms of who’s on title. For equity and inclusion, I want to

recognize that we have many different kinds of families. But you do need

to be on title in order to apply for the grant. That is the

requirement.

M. Bernier: Under subsection 10.3(2): “(

a) the collector of the jurisdiction

in which the property is located….” Does that mean the municipality

that’s administering the grant, when it talks about the collector of the

jurisdiction?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, that’s correct.

M. Bernier: Who’s responsible for providing a refund or collecting an amount

owing with that? Is it the municipality, or is it the province under

this new system?

Hon. S. Robinson: If it’s in a municipal area, it would be a

municipality.

Clauses 21 to 23 inclusive approved.

On clause 24.

M. Bernier: Again, I know there are a lot of changes going through in order to

enable the province to bring this in. Part of

section 24 is enabling the

reporting to and from province and municipalities, if I have this

correct. It also improves — we’ll determine what that means — data

sharing between the two.

[11:30 a.m.]

Maybe my first question will be: how much and what types of

information relating to approvals of grants will be shared between the

province and municipalities? What kind of information is going back and

forth?

Hon. S. Robinson: Municipalities will be required to send tax amounts for each

property to the province. They’ll have to gather that information and

share that with the province. The province will share back property

details and grant amounts for each property.

M. Bernier: We canvassed it a little bit yesterday. A couple of questions, I

think, came up on the collection of social insurance numbers, so I won’t

go into too much detail on that. The minister has acknowledged that

change. I might ask some more questions later on, again, about why

that’s so important, outside of the homeowner’s grant application

process.

My question, I guess, is around this. Now that the province is

going to be gathering more information, such as the social insurance

number, it appears that that information might be moving around within

government or municipalities a little bit more freely. The minister has

acknowledged that, and they say that they have adequate protections in

place for that. Was a privacy impact assessment done for this

initiative?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member that the social insurance information

— or personal information, broadly — is not being sent back to

municipalities. That’s not what is being considered here. A privacy

assessment was done, both for the legislation and for the

program.

M. Bernier: Is the minister able to share what concerns, if any, were raised

during that assessment and that the ministry would have had to look at,

maybe, as they were formulating this bill?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member that no issues were raised through the

privacy impact assessment.

M. Bernier: Okay, I appreciate hearing that.

Will the information that’s being gathered — this extra

information, with the social insurance number and whatever is taking

place within the ministry, and within the administering of this — be

used as part of any other part of data merging or data sharing within

government? The minister did speak a little bit to this — I politely

say, vaguely — yesterday.

[11:35 a.m.]

I’m just curious, though. This is going into one specific

administrator under the homeowner’s grant, but government is collecting

this information, and the minister acknowledged, in some of her previous

comments, that part of this is to try to alleviate and stop fraud. But

she’s also mentioned comments before, and we referenced back to the

vacancy tax, for instance, and others.

Is the ministry going to be able to share this information,

possibly, with other branches within the ministry for any other programs

they are presently doing or maybe even in the future?

Hon. S. Robinson: The tax administration authorities have existed for many years,

around gathering personal information in order to provide appropriate

taxation. The tax administration department within the ministry already

has a lot of personal information, as a taxing authority. So this

information resides within the same department.

There’s nothing new that is being added. The tax administration

authorities already have…. There’s really no change in what they do with

the information that they currently gather. This is the same. It goes

into the same part of my administration that already has information

related to taxing.

M. Bernier: With that answer, what’s the reason for collecting the social

insurance number from everybody, if the minister’s saying government

already has everybody’s information?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: What’s different is that we didn’t have that information to the

homeowner grant. So that’s what we’re doing here. We’ve always had the

authority to have that information. That’s always existed as part of the

tax administration component. It’s just about tying it to the homeowner

grant.

M. Bernier: It sounds like the minister is saying they’ve always had the

authority, but they didn’t always initiate on that authority, so they

don’t actually have all the information. They actually are increasing

personal information within the ministry.

I guess one of the questions on that, though, would be: is there a

possibility or any initiative to share that information throughout

different departments for different reasons? Obviously, if so, there

would be additional security safeguards that would need to be put into

place, then, if we are truly gathering information the ministry doesn’t

have already.

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that the member opposite likely knows that the tax

administration in my ministry doesn’t share any information with any

other part of government. This would be treated in the exact same way.

It wouldn’t be used for any other purposes.

M. Bernier: Could the information be used by the minister within her ministry

to create any new tax initiatives or tax policy, then?

Hon. S. Robinson: I wanted to take a moment to remind the member about the whole

purpose of doing this.

[11:45 a.m.]

While I certainly speak to the fact that municipalities are

really, I think, pleased that we’re doing this as an… I don’t want to

say an upgrab. It’s the opposite of a download. An upload? It’s an

upload.

We need to remember that this is about making sure that we’re

reducing fraud and making sure that people get their full entitlements

so that we can sort of cross-reference. We need to have the tools in

order to do that, to make sure that seniors are getting their full

eligibility, but also to make sure that people aren’t getting homeowner

grants in two or three different municipalities, because you’re only

entitled to one homeowner grant.

This is a tool that we have available to us by centralizing the

entire system. The best place to do that is within our tax department.

This is a central repository for all the personal information, where

everything is kept for all the taxation purposes. So it’s for that

reason, again, that we’re making sure that we understand who is applying

for the grants. Are they entitled to the grants? Are they getting their

full entitlement to the grant?

Having a centralized process for doing that is really important to

making sure that we can maximize benefits for those who are entitled to

the grant and make sure that those who aren’t entitled to it, aren’t

taking advantage of a…. I’m not going to call it piecemeal. It’s just

that every municipality has been doing it on their own, and they’re not

talking to each other. So it’s really through this mechanism that we’re

able to deliver this and make sure that it works well for British

Columbians.

M. Bernier: That was a great answer explaining what we’re doing here, except

it didn’t quite cover the theme of my question. I mean, obviously, the

minister has been saying throughout this that taking away a

responsibility, I guess, of local government and centralizing it…. But

again, it does come down to the fact that government is going to be

collecting more personal information of individuals.

As the minister has rightfully said, if there are situations out

there of fraud, or duplicate or multiple applications under the

homeowner grant situation, to try to catch those…. A couple of days ago

we heard the minister say that that could be upwards of …. Just a spot

check, an estimation of up to 33,000 homes. It’ll be interesting to see

how that actually translates now when this becomes centralized into

government — the reality of that.

But the minister didn’t quite answer where I was going with the

question. It’s not so much today. It’s not so much this homeowner grant

specifically. It’s the fact that within the ministry, they’re going to

be continuing to gather more personal information of people that they

could now use outside of the homeowner grant situation.

That’s why my question is more around “can.” Maybe not will, but

can the ministry use this information that they have gathered when they

— in the future, at any time — decide, on any other tax policy, where

they want to go?

Hon. S. Robinson: I suspect that the member opposite wants to take what I’ll call a

political lens or perhaps a partisan lens on this. The reality is — and

the member knows this full well — that governments can use whatever

information they have to help inform public policy. So should the member

opposite be fortunate in, I don’t know, another 15 years to have the

opportunity to be on this side of the House, then perhaps they too will

be able to take a look at what information government has and make

policy decisions based on the information that they gather. That is how

all governments operate.

M. Bernier: I’m actually hopefully going to have an opportunity to be on that

side of the House a lot sooner than that. The fact will be whether I’m

running again or not. But next election, obviously…. The way the NDP are

rolling things out right now, there are a lot of questions. That’s why

we’re asking them in the House today.

[11:50 a.m.]

I mean, this is one of the concerns. I guess by the minister’s

answer…. The answer was yes, by the minister saying that government can

use whatever information they have as they’re moving forward with future

policy or tax initiatives. This just goes back to the point of some of

the concerns we’re hearing of yet again — this government trying to

collect more information. It does make some people worried about: “Big

Brother government wants more of my information. How are they going to

use that against me in future years?”

Again, not to take away from the whole intent of the act itself

that we’re talking about today, in Bill 6, but is the minister

contemplating maybe introducing any new housing taxes now that she’ll

have this information? I look at that because the minister has said that

1.1 million or more people — and, we hope, a lot more, down the road —

are working hard and fortunate enough to be homeowners in the

province.

Outside of the grant process itself, this information gathered,

does the minister, then, look at maybe any new housing taxes that could

be applied now that she’ll have that information?

Hon. S. Robinson: No.

M. Bernier: Well, I’m sure there are lots of people excited by that answer. I

guess we’ll have to see if that answer means tomorrow or years down the

road. It’s yet to be seen.

I just want to go to a different point before we leave this

section, looking at the clock here. When we talk about the data sharing,

can the minister explain again, so I can understand, the role of the

municipality, specifically? Under this act, some things are going to

change. But what communication has been made and what criteria is there

and what is the role of the municipality when it comes to data

sharing?

Hon. S. Robinson: This is similar, I think, to an earlier question, so I’ll go back

again. The municipality’s role is to send the tax amount for each

property to the province. The province will then calculate the grant

amount for each property and then send the information back so that the

municipality applies the approved amount to each property.

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

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

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

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.