British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, May 3, 2023, p.m., Issue 321 (42nd Parliament, 4th Session)

20230503pm-House-Blues

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, May 3, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 321

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Township of Langley

M. Dykeman

Buddhist Culture Day

T. Wat

World Press Freedom Day

A. Singh

Response to racist incident at Surrey minor hockey team game

T. Halford

Innovation in rural communities

R. Russell

College of New Caledonia skills training program excellence award

S. Bond

Oral Questions

Government action on housing affordability and supply

K. Falcon

Hon. R. Kahlon

K. Kirkpatrick

Affordable housing for seniors

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. R. Kahlon

Government support for small business

S. Furstenau

Hon. B. Bailey

Support for displaced RidgeView Place tenants in Langford

T. Stone

Hon. R. Kahlon

Health needs of supportive housing residents and provision of services

S. Bond

Hon. R. Kahlon

Release of B.C. Housing audit report

P. Milobar

Hon. R. Kahlon

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

P. Milobar

B. Stewart

Hon. K. Conroy

G. Kyllo

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. M. Farnworth

T. Halford

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2023

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: T. Wat.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Coulter: In the precinct today, I have a very good friend, Walt Krahn. Walt was

on the Chilliwack school board with me for six years and is a lifelong

supporter of public education. He has been an administrator for 33 years; 31

of those years were as a principal. He was a principal in both Langley and

Chilliwack school districts. After retiring, not being one to sit on his

laurels, Walt went to work for B.C. Lottery Corp., and he developed the

GameSense program.

Would all those in the House please welcome my friend Walt

Krahn.

T. Wat: It’s my honour to welcome an unprecedented Buddhist delegation with

more than 300 members to our Legislature.

Due to the high demand for seats in our public gallery, only about 80

Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Hindu and Jewish representatives as well as

community leaders are seated here. The rest of them are exiting from the

Hall of Honour, where we just finished a celebration of the proclamation of

the first ever Buddhist Culture Day by the Premier.

The Buddhist masters and followers are from different schools of

Buddhism from China, including Tibet, Taiwan and Hong Kong; Sri Lanka;

Thailand; Vietnam; Myanmar; Laos; Nepal; and Japan.

The noon celebration included a Buddha bathing ceremony and different

amazing cultural performances. In the afternoon, starting at 2 p.m., if

members have time and take leave to go out, there will be cultural

performances on the front lawn of the Legislature and a dharma conference in

the Ned DeBeck room, for those who want to know more about Buddhism, all the

way until 3:30.

The purpose of the proclamation is to raise awareness about the

Buddha’s universal teachings of generosity, compassion and selfless service

to help contribute to building a stronger, fairer and more inclusive

province and country.

Please join me in giving the biggest round of applause to the Buddhist

delegation and community leaders.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

T. Wat: Will the chamber also extend a warm welcome to students and staff at

Richmond Jewish Day School, led by principal Sabrina Bhojani. Sabrina has

recently received an honourable mention for the B.C. Multiculturalism and

Anti-Racism Award in the intercultural trust category for her efforts in

teaching interfaith to children. They’re here today to witness the Buddhism

ceremony as well.

Please join me in welcoming Richmond Jewish Day School, which was

voted No. 1 private school in Richmond.

Congratulations to Sabrina and the school for your outstanding

contribution to our province.

Hon. J. Osborne: Today we are joined by Chief Harley Chingee and Deputy Chief Jayde

Chingee of the McLeod Lake Indian Band. This morning we celebrated the

signing of two new agreements outlining how co-management and stewardship of

the land and natural resources in the nation’s territory, in Treaty 8

territory, will evolve.

[1:40 p.m.]

We’re also joined by Dave LaVallie and Matt Buchholz of Mixt Energy,

which is McLeod Lake’s business entity that is pursuing some very exciting

hydrogen opportunities in their territory that will help decarbonize British

Columbia’s economy.

Would the House please join me in making our guests feel very welcome

today.

R. Merrifield: I want to echo the introductions. I know we’re not allowed to, so I

was remaining seated, but I wanted to echo the minister’s introductions to

the Chief and Deputy Chief of the McLeod Lake Indian Band, Harley Chingee

and Jayde Chingee, as well as the CEO for Mixt Energy, Dave LaVallie and

Matt Buchholz, who is the adviser. Thank you so much.

We enjoyed a meeting with them as well, hearing about the exciting

projects coming forward.

Hon. G. Lore: I have two sets of introductions today, provided my voice will let

me.

It’s my pleasure to introduce the chair of the Business Improvement

Areas of B.C., Teri Smith. Teri Smith is also the executive director of the

West End BIA. I’d also like to introduce Jeff Bray, CEO of the Downtown

Victoria Business Association of my community. Of course, my friend Jeff

Bray is also a former member of this House, representing the beautiful

constituency of Victoria–Beacon Hill from 2001 to 2005. The BIABC represents

over 65 business improvement associations in B.C., and they are just

completing a successful provincial conference here in downtown

Victoria.

I’d also like to welcome to the House, though not to the gallery due

to the popularity of question period, the Coalition of Neighbourhood Houses

Capital Region. They are the source of many services and wraparound care for

children, youth, families and seniors. They provide food security,

connection, care and fun. I cannot say enough about the services they

provide across the region.

Joining us are Vanya McDonell, Chantille Viaud, Corinne Hilton, Nicky

Logins, Kelly Greenwell and Suzanne Cole.

Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

C. Oakes: Today we have 12 students and their professor in the public gallery to

observe question period. They are part of the Canadian-American studies

program at Western Washington University. They are spending the day with our

parliamentary education office to learn about the work of the Legislative

Assembly. I had the opportunity to meet with them today. They asked me lots

of questions about how the B.C. United caucus and the opposition

works.

I want to say that I asked you lots of questions about your public

education system and post-secondary, your hopes, your dreams. Finishing that

meeting, I just want to say how hopeful I am after having had the

opportunity to meet such outstanding students.

Welcome to British Columbia.

Hon. R. Singh: Would the House join me in wishing the Minister of Jobs, Economic

Development and Innovation a very happy birthday.

K. Paddon: It is my pleasure to welcome Sardis Secondary students to the precinct

today. The first group, I believe, is up there probably behind me, and the

second group will be in later. I graduated from Sardis Secondary a while

ago, so I just want to say go, Falcons.

I had the opportunity to visit the school recently, and the work done

there by the administration, the teachers and the students is really

inspiring.

Go, Falcons, and welcome.

Would the House please join me in welcoming the students.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure to welcome Teri Smith to this chamber. She

started at the Robson business improvement association, now with the West

End Business Improvement Association, BIABC, with the West End. Next, to the

world.

Thank you, Teri, for your great work for our community and all the

staff of the business improvement association for helping our neighbourhood

be all it can be.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, I see my good friend Debbie Chen, who is

visiting Victoria today. She is a mother, a career woman and a very good

friend. She’s a professional journalist, a respectable news broadcaster. I’m

just so happy to see her here today.

Would the House please make her feel very welcome.

R. Russell: It’s my pleasure to introduce and welcome three guests that have been

in the building for the last couple of days and again today: Marleen Morris,

Greg Halseth and Sean Markey.

Marleen is the co-director of the Community Development Institute and

an adjunct at UNBC. Greg is a professor there as well as the Canada Research

Chair in Rural and Small Town Studies, and Sean is a prof at SFU in the

School of Resource and Environmental Management. I really appreciate all the

work that they do on behalf of communities across B.C.

Please make them feel welcome.

S. Furstenau: I have two very special guests today in the Legislature, Amy Robinson

and Kristina Egyed. They are both with LOCO B.C., a non-profit organization

that really looks to strengthen local, resilient communities and economies.

They use research to understand the economic impact from small businesses.

They work with business groups, businesses and government.

Their signature program is B.C. Buy Local to encourage local shopping,

which I think we can all agree is such a great thing to do. They understand

the impact of local businesses, 4.6 times that of multinationals; local

jobs, charitable donations; and employment.

Can the House please make Amy and Kristina most welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Members, today I am pleased to introduce 17 college and university

students from around British Columbia, who will be joining the parliamentary

education office this summer. You will see them offering free guided tours

of the Parliament Buildings and theatrical performances on the lawns to the

tens of thousands of people who will be visiting us over the next few

months.

Will the House please make them feel very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY

M. Dykeman: The township of Langley, which resides on the traditional

territories of the Kwantlen, Katzie, Matsqui and Semiahmoo Nations,

turns 150 years old this year. Incorporated in Fort Langley in 1873, two

years after the establishment of the province, the township of Langley

is in fact the third-oldest municipality in British Columbia and is

known as the birthplace of B.C.

A municipality unlike any other, it is a place where the rich

heritage of the past is combined with a vibrant vision for the future.

Because of its deep history, Langley has been firmly tied to stories

about the establishment of the province, such as the gold rush of 1858,

the Hudson’s Bay Company, its role in provincial and national

consolidation and its diverse agricultural heritage.

Langley’s early trade centres created the downtown cores of today.

Its streetscapes and neighbourhood nodes, its distinct community

businesses, its cultural landscapes and transportation infrastructure

remain key elements of the township. Despite being one of the

fastest-growing municipalities in British Columbia, the township of

Langley is a fusion of rich agricultural land and a lively, growing

urban core, with over 75 percent of the land in the ALR.

Throughout this year, the township of Langley will be celebrating

its milestone with events around the community.

There is so much to do in the township of Langley, from checking

out the shops and restaurants in historic Fort Langley to coming out to

watch the Vancouver Football Club, a Canadian Premier League team, at

the newly constructed stadium at the Langley Events Centre. They are

playing their inaugural home game this Sunday.

It’s sure to be an action-packed summer in the township, and I

hope everybody takes an opportunity to come out to Langley and take in

the fantastic events over the rest of the year.

BUDDHIST CULTURE DAY

T. Wat: Today was a great day for British Columbia as we gathered to

celebrate the official proclamation of Buddhist Culture Day. This day

marked the culmination of months of hard work and dedication towards

recognizing the contributions of the Buddhist community to our

province.

[1:50 p.m.]

I was particularly grateful for the thousands of British

Columbians who signed my online petition in support of Buddhist Culture

Day.

My most sincere gratitude must be given to Master Diana, who’s the

founding president of Bai Gong International Buddhist Society. Master

Diana has led the volunteers of Bai Gong to help solicit signatures from

the community from day one all the way for the first few months, which

is the most challenging period, until February 27, when I introduced my

private member’s bill, the Buddhist Culture Day Act, 2023.

Over 200 Buddhist masters, monks and followers joined me in the

Legislature to witness my introduction. I would like to take this

opportunity to thank the 300 guests led by Tsengdok Rinpoche, the Leader

of the Opposition, the Premier and, of course, my fellow colleagues who

joined us at the proclamation event at noon. Your presence makes the

celebration of Buddhist Culture Day even more meaningful.

The event was made even more special by the presence of students

and staff from the Jewish Day School in Richmond, who join us in the

gallery. I would like to warmly welcome them and thank them for their

important contribution to building a more harmonious, inclusive and

accepting society.

I was particularly inspired by the Highway to Heaven interfaith

event that the Jewish Day School organized a few months prior, because

it brought together members of different faith communities to promote

understanding and respect. It is a testament to our province’s

inclusivity that we can come together to celebrate the richness and

diversity of our cultural mosaic.

Finally, I would also like to thank everyone who was involved in

making Buddhist culture day a reality. Your hard work and dedication

have helped to ensure that British Columbia remains a place where all

cultures and traditions are respected and celebrated.

WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY

A. Singh: It’s Richmond’s turn today, I guess.

Today on World Press Freedom Day, we celebrate the crucial role of

journalists and media workers in promoting transparency, accountability

and democracy. It’s been 30 years since the UN marked this day, May 3,

as international day for press freedom.

Press freedom is a cornerstone of democratic societies. It allows

us to hold those in power to account, to uncover corruption and abuse

and to ensure that all voices are heard. It empowers individuals to make

informed decisions, and it strengthens the institutions that uphold our

democratic values.

Unfortunately, press freedom continues to be under threat around

the world. Journalists and media workers face harassment, intimidation

and violence simply for doing their jobs. Governments and other powerful

actors use various tactics to silence critical voices.

In this day and age of proliferation of misinformation, there are

other dangers — the erosion of trust and the subtle attacks on

journalists’ integrity and reputation, seemingly small, insignificant

blows but ultimately death by attrition and a million cuts.

We here as legislators need to be cognizant of that. When we see

it, we need to come out. We need to come to the defense of our

colleagues in the press. And yes, they are our colleagues in this

experiment that we call democracy.

On this day, we call on all governments to respect and protect

press freedom to ensure that journalists can do their work without fear

of reprisal or censorship. We urge media outlets to uphold the highest

standards of journalistic integrity and to resist pressure to compromise

their independence or editorial freedom.

We also celebrate the resilience of journalists and media workers

who continue to report on the news and to hold power to account. Despite

facing unprecedented challenges, their work is more important than ever

now. As we navigate a rapidly changing and often chaotic world, let us

remember that press freedom is not just a right but a responsibility. We

all have a role to play in upholding that and defending that

freedom.

RESPONSE TO RACIST INCIDENT AT

SURREY MINOR HOCKEY TEAM

GAME

T. Halford: Racism has no place in our community. Whether in our schools, in

the workplace or on the ice, it has no place in our society. I was

deeply disturbed to learn of the racist incident that happened at a

youth hockey game in Surrey in which players were subjected to racial

insults and hurtful, unacceptable comments that no one should be

subjected to.

[1:55 p.m.]

We must stand together as a community and speak out against

racism, intolerance and discrimination of all kinds every single time.

We have an obligation to do everything possible to ensure our children

grow up in a world without racism.

I know that this is something recently that the Minister of Labour

has spoken on as well. I support him in his comments

wholeheartedly.

I want to commend the actions of the coach, Brian MacGillivray,

for standing up for his team and doing the right thing. He did the right

thing. He protected his players at a time that they needed to be

protected. I think everyone in this House stands with that coach today

and tomorrow.

I am very disappointed to hear about the actions that were taken

against this coach. They were wrong. They were unacceptable. This coach

did the right thing, and I would be proud to have him coaching my

children.

Parents of young kids on this team are speaking up, and they’re

asking for clarity. I, in this House, support them on that clarity. I

know members across the way have done the same. We must stand up and do

the right thing every single time, like this coach did.

I am hopeful that Surrey Minor Hockey will revisit this decision

immediately, do the right thing and actually stand beside somebody that

protected our children when they needed it the most.

INNOVATION IN RURAL COMMUNITIES

R. Russell: Necessity is the mother of invention. This is clearly evident in

remote communities across this province. Inherent challenges of

geographic, social and service isolation foster a remarkable degree of

organizational service and economic innovation in these

communities.

Transit is an example of a problem in many rural areas, where we

see communities coming up with creative solutions, such as the

demand-responsive transit system pilot on Bowen Island or the Kootenay

rideshare program, matching riders with drivers in near real

time.

Economic and social challenges of limited capacity and tools has

necessitated creation of municipal subsidiaries that help deliver

targeted solutions with innovative and effective governance models. Many

nations, for example, are utilizing their ec dev corps to deliver

generative and identity-inspiring projects, like Top Dog at Tk’emlúps te

Secwépemc.

Access to health care, of course, is a primary challenge for many

rural communities. As I’ve said here before, remote health care

professionals are constantly adapting services, losing some sleep and

occasionally bending rules in order to improve access and save time and

resources for both patients and care providers.

In the realm of food security, organizations like Kettle River

Food Share, the Okanagan Gleaners and the Kettle Valley Food Co-op are

examples of creative community-built models to help address food

security in very real ways.

Connectivity, of course, is a gap historically in communities, but

organizations like the Columbia Basin Broadband are bringing the digital

divide shallower by prioritizing and supporting the delivery of

broadband, working with local communities and the B.C. government. By

doing so, they ensure that rural communities have access to the kinds of

connectivity they need.

In education, we see innovative solutions like the NVIT welding

trailer, which brings welding training to people rather than vice versa,

providing opportunities for local residents to gain skills and knowledge

they need.

Rural communities in B.C. face unique challenges, but they carry a

strong tradition of ingenuity and innovation. Please help me in

appreciating and acknowledging that.

COLLEGE OF NEW CALEDONIA SKILLS

TRAINING PROGRAM

EXCELLENCE AWARD

S. Bond: The Colleges and Institutes Canada Awards of Excellence recognize

and promote excellence within Canadian colleges and institutes. I am

very proud to share the good news that recently the College of New

Caledonia was this year’s recipient of the gold medal in the Program

Excellence category for their reintegration industry readiness training

program.

The program is a partnership with Correctional Service Canada. It

provides for a post-secondary education experience for previously

incarcerated individuals seeking meaningful employment and healing.

Since 2015, the program has served over 80 participants, providing

people with the skills necessary to enhance their opportunities to

secure employment and continue their education in the trades.

[2:00 p.m.]

Participants complete three months of in-person skills training at

CNC that involve a mix of in-class job skills and hands-on learning

opportunities for the trades. Recent cohorts have achieved a 70 percent

employment rate within three months of graduation. CICan’s program

excellence award recognizes a program that is innovative, portable,

sustainable and effective.

Through the RIRT program, students are introduced to three CNC

trades programs: automotive, carpentry and pro-cook. They can also earn

13 worksite safety and equipment operator tickets. Students learn

job-readiness skills through mock interviews and presentations with

local employers. It is the only program of its kind in

Canada.

One program grad said: “Everyone at CNC was kind and helped me

figure out what to do next. Knowing I had their support made me feel

more comfortable applying to the welding program once I

finished.”

I want to congratulate and thank everyone who made the program

possible. It is a great example of lifelong learning opportunities, no

matter what your background.

Well done, CNC, and congratulations on this significant

recognition for a program that is literally changing lives.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND

SUPPLY

K. Falcon: Another day, another damning housing report for British

Columbians. This time it’s the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.’s

housing market outlook. It spells more bad news for this Premier but,

depressingly, really bad news for young families desperate to own a

home.

Now, despite housing being the NDP government’s signature promise

in 2017 when they got elected — housing affordability, their signature

promise — we find that the announcements and reannouncements and empty

rhetoric have resulted in millennials suffering the worst housing

outcomes in the country.

This report confirms that, under the Premier’s watch for two years

as Housing Minister and now as Premier, B.C. is not only the worst in

the country but things are about to get a whole lot worse. Through to

the end of 2025, the severe lack of housing affordability will continue

to worsen, housing starts will plummet, and vacancy rates are forecast

to bottom right out — rock bottom.

What the public is really starting to understand is that there is

this huge chasm, once again, between what this NDP government promises

and the results that we actually get.

My question to the Premier: does the Premier not realize that

empty announcements and rhetoric and reannouncements are utterly

meaningless for young families who, under the NDP, find their dream of

owning a home to be devastatingly shattered by the reality of what’s

actually happening?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I really appreciate the question from the member. You know, I

think the issues we hear from people in our communities are similar.

Young people want to find opportunities to raise their families here in

British Columbia, raise their families in communities, perhaps, that

they grew up in. Seniors want to make sure that their kids and their

grandkids can be close to them.

That’s why the Homes for People strategy that we launched has so

many initiatives to help support that, building on top of the success

that we’ve already had building housing in British Columbia.

We know we are decades behind. We know there are decades of

underinvestment in this province when it comes to affordable housing.

That’s how we got here. But we know we have to continue to not only

invest…. We can’t come into a situation where we say: “Well, let’s do

nothing. Let’s just step out of the way.” We’ve been there. We’ve seen

that formula. It doesn’t work.

That’s why the strategy we have in front of us lays out things

like small-scale multi-units, so when an expensive home gets torn down,

there are more options on that site for more types of housing to be

built, allowing the private sector to build some of that important

housing.

I certainly hope the member across the way and members across the

way support our initiatives as we go forward. Certainly, the early

indication is that they don’t. But these types of initiatives are going

to be vitally important to ensure we have the affordable housing for

people across the province.

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

K. Falcon: Well, the minister shouldn’t be surprised that we’re hardly going

to support the kind of efforts that have got us the highest housing

prices in North America and the highest rents in the entire

country.

[2:05 p.m.]

This devastatingly bleak report not only exposes the Premier’s

many failures as a Housing Minister but also drives home how things are

going to continue to get a lot worse for millennials under his

watch.

I quote directly from the report: “Millennials are now well into

their 30s…. Many will not be able to afford to buy” and “Large swaths of

aging millennials will delay the move to home ownership.”

Adding insult to injury, this delayed home ownership will put more

pressure on rents, forcing Vancouver renters to face increases of over

$600 per month for a two-bedroom apartment by 2025. That’s on top of the

over $400 a month increases they’ve already faced under this NDP

government since 2017.

Let’s think about this for a second. Since they formed government

in 2017, that means over $1,000 more a month in rent. It’s no wonder

that we now have people leaving for Alberta at the greatest rate we’ve

seen since the last time they were in government, in the

1990s.

My question to the Premier. How can anyone possibly trust this

Premier and this government when he is causing the worst housing results

not just in Canada, but, indeed, in North America?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I have a report here as well that says: “Canada’s most expensive

cities continue to rise significantly. Those on the lower end of the

spectrum have seen rents trend lower, but the most expensive cities in

the province in B.C.…” This is October 2016, when they were on this side

of the House.

British Columbia has been one of the most desirable places for

people to live. I think the member may also know that we have been

seeing record numbers of people come to British Columbia, historic

numbers in fact. Never seen in this province’s history. We welcome

people. We want them here, but we want them to be successful when they

arrive.

That’s why the Homes for People strategy advances important

initiatives, like small-scale multi-units as one example of that, where

we get to see, when an expensive home comes down, more options being

built so that young people get an opportunity to actually buy into the

market.

This builds on the work we’ve done and the historic amount of

units that we’ve seen come on line. We know there’s a lot more work to

do, and that’s why I hope that all members in this House support the

Homes for People strategy — overwhelmingly popular amongst the

development community, private sector and not-for-profit communities,

advocates, the housing advocates.

All of them are saying this strategy hits the mark. I certainly

hope that they’ll support it.

K. Kirkpatrick: With respect to the minister, it is under this government’s watch

and under this NDP government that rents have gone up $600 more by the

end of 2025, and $400 since this government came in. So it’s this

government. They need look in the mirror and take responsibility for

this.

CMHC is also saying that the Premier’s failures on housing are set

to create disastrous bottlenecks in Vancouver’s housing market: “Supply

growth hasn’t kept pace with demand. Average two-bedroom rents are set

to increase significantly over the forecast horizon.”

Things are getting worse. They are not getting better. Homes for

People. We hear the minister talk about Homes for People. Well, what

people are those homes for? In Surrey, renters like Linda De Gonzalez, a

70-year-old senior on a fixed income, now faces a 42 percent increase in

her rent due to the broken and unaffordable rental market under this

Premier.

Why are people having to pay higher and higher rents under this

Premier when he promised them results?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the members raising this question. I think it’s an

important topic, but it’s important to acknowledge we’re two decades

behind when it comes to investment in housing. I appreciate them saying

there’s not enough housing now, but when they were on this side of the

House, they weren’t making the investments in housing that’s required to

ensure we can build affordable housing. They just simply

weren’t.

Right now we have more homes under construction than at any point

in the last 60 years. We know we’re going to need to continue to see

housing investments being made in this province. We know we’re going to

need not-for-profits to build more housing and make sure they can

address the type of housing the private sector is not able to do, but we

also need to enable the private sector to build homes faster.

[2:10 p.m.]

That’s why the small-scale, multi-unit is a prime example. A home

comes down. We want to ensure that if the market wants a single family

home and people can afford it, they’ll continue to build it. But if they

can’t, we want to make sure that there are options available for young

families to actually purchase.

That’s what the goal of the plan is to be about. It builds on the

work we’ve already done. We’ve already brought thousands of units back

online. The speculation tax, for example, brought 20,000 units back

online — a single policy which brought 20,000 units back on the market.

The opposition opposed it. They said it’s unfair, for a person who owns

multiple homes, to have to pay an additional tax.

We’re making different choices over here. We’re going to continue

to invest in housing, work with the private sector, work with our

partners to build the affordable housing in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SENIORS

K. Kirkpatrick: Well, this minister can say what he wants and use all the rhetoric

that he wants, but it is not helping British Columbians, and it’s not

helping millennials get into housing.

B.C. seniors receive the lowest support in the entire country

while grappling with an affordability crisis that continues to get

worse. Under this Premier, the number of vulnerable seniors waiting for

subsidized seniors housing has, shockingly, surged by 72 percent, with

an average wait time of three years. The Premier has failed seniors and

left thousands in desperate need.

This is what Linda said when she was told about the 42 percent

increase: “I nearly fainted. I just sat on the floor and

cried.”

How does this Premier justify his complete failure to provide

adequate affordable housing for seniors in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have thousands of units being built across this province for

young families, for seniors.

To the folks who are struggling, we know the struggle is

real.

That’s why the investments we’re making are to the significant

numbers that the public is seeing.

Imagine where those individuals would be if we hadn’t changed the

amount that can be increased on rent. We have now a 2 percent cap. The

B.C. United party or Liberal Party or whatever they call themselves, had

2 percent plus CPI. Imagine where those families would be if we hadn’t

made those changes.

We have a lot more work to do. We’re going to continue to do that

work.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR SMALL

BUSINESS

S. Furstenau: We’ve heard a lot of concerns about public safety being raised in

this Legislature. We’ve heard about mental health care. We’ve heard

about housing needs. But we rarely hear about the people who own and

operate small businesses.

Small businesses are the backbones of all of our communities.

These businesses play such an essential role in our towns, our

communities, our economy, but they operate on very small profit margins

and tend to have to go month to month. Challenges are spilling over onto

their bottom lines and doorsteps. Whether it’s repairing shattered

glass, removing graffiti, or attracting customers or employees, small

businesses are truly struggling. They’re struggling to respond, and

they’re struggling to be heard.

To the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation, is

the minister willing to work with small business groups to work out the

details of a fund that would help small businesses with the reactionary

costs that they’re having to deal with right now?

Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you to the leader of the opposition for the question on this

very important topic. I absolutely agree that small businesses are so

integral to our communities. Not only are they 98 percent of all

businesses, but they contribute so significantly to our economy and to

the communities that they’re based in.

We know that small businesses are facing a number of significant

headwinds — global inflation, the cost of borrowing and, essentially,

what we can refer to as a hangover from the pandemic in many ways. Some

small businesses continue to struggle.

I’ve been taking the opportunity to meet with small businesses to

hear their concerns, and we’re looking at opportunities to support small

businesses going forward. In short, in answer to the member’s question,

yes.

[2:15 p.m.]

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

S. Furstenau: It’s nice when there is a topic that really unites all of us. I

think everybody in this House agrees that we care about small

businesses. We want to see them succeed. I really appreciate the

minister’s response.

There are local businesses, local business associations, chambers

of commerce that have been really working towards solutions that would

help small businesses stay viable in this very challenging economy that

the minister just described. They want to be a partner in putting

solutions forward for those challenges.

My question, again to the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development

and Innovation: can the minister commit to sitting down with these small

business advocate groups by the end of the legislative session to begin

the work on the solutions?

Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you again to the member for the question. I have been taking

meetings with many of these organizations. I’m happy to take more, of

course.

I’ve met with people across the province, representatives of small

businesses and many, many small businesses themselves. We’ve held round

tables throughout the province, including recent trips to Kamloops, to

Quesnel, to 100 Mile House, to Williams Lake and Prince George. We’ve

met with folks on the Island. We’ve met with folks in

Vancouver.

It’s very, very important to me that I’m listening to small

businesses, and we’re certainly doing that work.

SUPPORT FOR DISPLACED RIDGEVIEW

PLACE TENANTS IN

LANGFORD

T. Stone: Well, first off, I think it’s fantastic to hear the Green Party

stand in the House here today and express support for flowing some

supports to hard-hit small businesses that have been hit with

vandalism.

I can suggest one thing better, though, than more meetings and

engagement would be to actually call the bill this side of the House has

put on the order paper that would flow this issue today. Call the bill.

There’s multi-party support, the two parties on this side. The only

party that’s missing is the government. Let’s call the bill and actually

get some support flowing for small business.

On a different topic, a week ago we raised concerns about a

chaotic evacuation of RidgeView Place in Langford, where nearly 200

people were displaced from their building. Despite the assurances and

announcements from this government, these residents have received little

in the way of answers or assistance from this government.

Yesterday Linda and Robert Taylor, an elderly couple, and their

son, who has Down syndrome, had to leave their temporary hotel by 11

o’clock in the morning. They left with absolutely nowhere to go. The

overwhelming stress of the situation caused Linda to collapse, and she

was subsequently rushed to the hospital.

People need immediate assistance, and they’re simply not getting

it from the minister or from B.C. Housing. Frankly, it’s a disgrace that

community organizers are having to resort to GoFundMe in an effort to

aid residents who have been displaced.

My question to the Premier is this. When is the Premier going to

offer more than empty words, to step up and do something to help these

displaced residents?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. Certainly, this is an awful

situation. We would not want this on anyone. My heart goes out to these

individuals, these families.

I can share with the member that we met with the mayor multiple

times, met with the staff multiple times, to identify ways we can

support them. The member may know we provided up to five days of hotel

and all the supports that individuals need to support them. The Ministry

of Emergency Management has also funded a navigator for individuals to

go to — to get supports, to get access to housing. Certainly, if the

member has that individual’s name, the navigator will be able to help

find them the supports they need.

Again, an awful situation. I’ve been in touch with the mayor

multiple times to find ways that we can support these individuals. We’ve

also contacted the Insurance Bureau of Canada to find out about what

supports these individuals have when it comes to insurance relief

because of the situation that they’re in.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader for the official opposition, supplemental.

T. Stone: If there was ever an example of empty and hollow words that are

going to land like a thud with people, it would be what the minister

just said. These are people for whom there is no support.

[2:20 p.m.]

They have, in many cases, been kicked out of the hotel, which was

a very, very temporary solution only intended to support them for a day

or two. Many of them have absolutely nowhere to go.

It’s wonderful to hear that the minister or officials from the

ministry have met with the mayor and local officials. Maybe the minister

should meet with the residents and actually get this problem solved. No

more meetings. No more words. No more hollow announcements. Just solve

it.

Government’s got to do better. We’re hearing story after story of

people who feel absolutely abandoned. They feel that this government is

failing them in this dire situation.

Langford resident Lisa Foxall says: “We’re talking about people’s

lives. One person spoke about how his mental health is now affected. It

took everything for him to get up and speak. He was in tears. His

partner was there having a nervous breakdown. People just can’t handle

it, and there’s nobody there helping them.”

People deserve more than just nice but hollow words from this

government. They urgently require direct contact and immediate support.

Again, what is the Premier going to do today to give these displaced

Langford residents the immediate and long-term support they so

desperately need and deserve?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s certainly a challenging situation for all these families and

for everyone involved. We’ve, again, been working….

Langford is the lead on this. It was well understood that Langford

was leading the situation, but we were there to support them. We have

been supporting them. We have a dedicated person that is there to help

them navigate any challenges and to find housing.

The member knows that we are in a housing crisis. We’re trying to

find housing solutions as best we can.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I should remind the member that we, as a province, step in…. B.C.

Housing steps in to help communities whenever these issues

arise.

The member for Skeena will tell you and tell the members of this

House…. There was an issue in his community where people were displaced.

B.C. Housing and our ministry worked around the clock to find solutions

in the short term, medium term and, now, long term. This happens in

community after community.

It’s not an easy situation. Nobody wants to be in this type of a

situation. We have supports on the ground to help people navigate the

system, but we fully acknowledge that this will be a challenging time

for many individuals and families.

HEALTH NEEDS OF SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

RESIDENTS AND

PROVISION OF SERVICES

S. Bond: Only the minister would think that providing supports results in

an elderly couple with absolutely nowhere to go. Nowhere to go. Did the

minister hear those words?

That’s not the only story. One after another…. It’s not just the

CMHC.

Now the B.C. Medical Journal has provided further

confirmation of the utter failures of B.C. Housing and the Premier’s

approach as Housing Minister. The Premier placed people with severe

mental health and addictions all together in the same B.C. Housing

building only to abandon them without any support. The research

conclusively finds that “health needs are not being sufficiently

addressed within supportive housing sites.” Health needs are not being

sufficiently met — the B.C. Medical Journal .

When is the Premier going to listen to anyone — the CMHC, the

B.C. Medical Journal — and actually find help for people

facing mental health and addictions challenges in British Columbia? This

government is simply failing them, and it is time they did

better.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for the question. I’m sure the member read

the entire report and knows…. In the report, they

highlighted….

The study was done during the height of the pandemic, where there

were real challenges in finding people that were able to go into many of

these sites that provide supports. We were dealing with a global

pandemic. Individuals, staff…. We were dealing with challenges with

people getting COVID. We were dealing with people not reporting to work.

It was a challenging time. Everyone acknowledges that.

[2:25 p.m.]

The member knows, as well, I’m sure, that the person who did the

interviews on this topic — in particular, in Kelowna — also acknowledged

there are positive things happening now for mental health supports for

individuals. Since then, Interior Health has actually increased the

amount of supports for individuals that are in housing. That’s a

positive step. We’re going to continue to do a lot more, because we

know, coming out of the pandemic, the need has grown.

I have to push back on the member’s assertion that people are all

being moved into one site. I think the member should remember…. When

there was an encampment here in Victoria, the former Minister of Housing

on the other side moved all those individuals into one site.

Often they stand in this House and criticize us about Pandora but

don’t acknowledge the fact that that was a decision made by their

government. The contracts were signed by their government, and we are

dealing with some of the challenges because of that structure that was

built at the time.

We’ve learned a lot from then. Now the work we do with the

not-for-profit providers is identifying the right needs for

individuals…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Please continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: …and making sure, for people who go into supportive housing that

there us a mix — some that have more needs, some that have less — so

that it’s more manageable for the staff, so we can ensure they are

successful.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

S. Bond: Two terms, six years, and it’s always somebody or something else.

The results speak for themselves. Let’s look at what that report

said.

A staggering 72 percent of respondents reported unmet health

needs. That’s on this Premier’s shoulders. The most shocking revelation

is that numerous tenants developed substance use addictions after moving

into the so-called supportive housing “due to the close proximity to

other users and open substance use.”

This is what one study participant reported: “In all honesty, I

never smoked meth before I moved in here. What’s the saying? If you sit

in the barbershop long enough, eventually you’re going to get a

haircut.”

That is on the shoulders of this Premier. The minister can get up

and wax eloquently all he wants. The fact of the matter is that the

Premier needs to stop warehousing people in British Columbia and provide

the supports he brags about every single day.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I have to remind the member that this is not warehousing. These

are individuals. These are people’s loved ones. It’s absolutely

shameful.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member can yell at me from across the way all she wants. These

are human beings we’re talking about. These are not units.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Members will listen to the Chair, please.

The minister will continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the reason why they use the terminology “warehouse” is….

Perhaps they don’t see these individuals for what they are.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Shame on this….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please. It’s okay.

Hold on. Hold it.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The handpicked president of the B.C. United party….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Take your time. Take your time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Perhaps the reason why they talk about it the way they do is

because in the comments from the handpicked B.C. United president, he

said: “We should focus on the 60 percent and essentially not bother with

some demographics that will not likely or absolutely never support us,

like ‘homeless people’ or those that are ‘dependent on social

supports.’”

Perhaps those types of comments are reflective of why they use the

terms that they use.

RELEASE OF B.C. HOUSING AUDIT REPORT

P. Milobar: Report after report comes forward. This government dismisses the

reports.

These are people’s words about how they’re being treated under

this government’s watch. It has had six years, and it’s failing

miserably — be it on rent levels, be it on home purchasing, be it on the

warehousing of people without proper supports which they should have to

help treat their serious mental health challenges.

[2:30 p.m.]

Without the supports, that is all it is. The government can not

like that term all they want, but that’s the reality of what they’ve

created.

Now we have another report — another report that this government

has had for two months now. Now, I can appreciate….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just a second, Member.

When the minister was answering, this side was shouting and

yelling at them. Now the other side is doing it. Please, both sides,

stay calm.

The member will continue.

P. Milobar: This government has been in possession of the forensic audit for

two months now. I can appreciate that perhaps the Solicitor General was

hogging the Sharpie as he was blacking up the Surrey police report, but

one would think the Housing Minister has had enough time to go to town

on that report to at least release 20 percent of it, like the Solicitor

General did.

It was over a month ago now that this minister was on Simi

Sara and said: “I’m hoping that within a month, we’re able to

get this out.” Well, the Housing Minister has successfully dodged

releasing this report while his budget estimates would have been open so

he could have actually had to answer some questions in this chamber, at

length, on this. Convenient timing for that. We don’t have a long

weekend for a little while, coming up, so it won’t be released until

then, probably.

This Premier has his estimates coming up next week, and he was the

Housing Minister in the time frame this forensic audit is dealing with.

Can the Premier commit today to release the forensic audit of B.C.

Housing before his estimates start so the public of British Columbia can

have a proper airing and proper questioning of the forensic audit of

B.C. Housing by the person who was the minister at the time?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Now let’s listen to the answer.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, we will not take lectures from a party that ripped out

entire pages of ICBC reports to hide them from the public.

I have made it clear that I believe it’s in the public interest

for this report to be made public as much as legally possible. We right

now have informed….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Members. Members, please.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I notified the House that I met with the Privacy Commissioner. I

shared with the Privacy Commissioner our plan to inform certain entities

that are named in the report, our time frame of how we’re proceeding to

engage with them and how we will release the report. Those engagements

are happening, and the members will have that report very

soon.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply

with the Ministry of Finance.

In committee room A, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply

for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

[2:35 p.m.]

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 2:38 p.m.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $338,869,000

(continued).

P. Milobar: Just for the minister’s knowledge, my colleague from Kelowna West

has a follow-up question or two on the pension issues that we were

talking about with BCFSA, and then I have a question or two as well.

We’ll have a few questions for B.C. Lotteries and then a few questions

around B.C. Infrastructure Benefits after that. We’ll just get into the

Part of the problem is not just with the rush fee but also how the

minutes and such are billed. In 2000, the last time it was amended, 23

years ago, it was all based on a per page charge of 25 cents a page.

With electronic distribution, which is much different than faxing or

photocopying, obviously, sending off a large strata minute document

electronically…. They’re still charging 25 cents a page for however many

pages are within that attachment, which starts to get very costly, as

the minister, I’m sure, can relate to.

The long and short of it is this. Is there anything underway? I

mean, we’ve had strata bills come to this House, like 44. We just had

one or two other ones just recently come as well. This wasn’t addressed

in any of those. It hasn’t been addressed, obviously, in any

miscellaneous housekeeping bills either.

Is there any work ongoing? If not, will there be some work

starting to be undertaken this year to see about changing and

modernizing the disbursement of strata documents and the fees associated

with it to recognize electronic distribution and recognize that it

should be a faster timeline to process an electronic file and ship it

electronically? As well as the per page charge, which is no longer

relevant.

What is the status of any update to this 23-year-old piece of

legislation that obviously hasn’t met changing modern times?

Hon. K. Conroy: Can I just get the member to clarify which legislation he’s

actually referring to?

P. Milobar: This is directly from the realtors. They’re saying it’s the Strata

Property Act, which dictates the fees and timelines for obtaining strata

documents. The act has not been amended or reviewed since the year 2000

in relation to this piece. Obviously, the Strata Act has had some

changes done over the 23 years, but this is about any updates or

amendments made for this type of document production for realtors and

purchasers.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: That’s what we thought. The Strata Property Act is actually under

the Ministry of Housing, so you would need to ask them if they are doing

anything. I’ll give the minister a heads-up that you’ll be asking

him.

P. Milobar: Okay. My error. I assumed that it was BCFSA that would have been

overseeing with the realtors, given that it was a realtor

request.

With that then, I’ll move over to B.C. Lotteries.

Thank you to B.C. Lotteries for joining us today. I only have a

few questions, hopefully, depending on the answers, and then we’ll keep

moving on.

Several years ago, recognizing it was a completely different

minister responsible, there were plans, obviously, for the capital

expansion and rebuild of the Kamloops headquarters. That was shelved.

COVID hit. There were remote-workplace policies brought into place,

which I’m assuming did help some of the space constraints in

Kamloops.

I’m just wondering if we can get an update on the physical

employment numbers within Kamloops — working remotely but, more

importantly, located within the building — and where we are at with

space-utilization rates within that building now, given that COVID has,

kind of, worked its way through and a lot of work-from-home situations

have stopped happening.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to introduce staff that are with me. Of course, I’ve got my

deputy minister Heather Wood, and we have associate deputy minister

Cheryl May. Also with us is the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corp., Pat

Davis; and Alan Kerr, the CFO of the corporation.

The Lottery Corp. has 1,271 employees in total. Of that, 575 work

in Kamloops, including Pat Davis, the newly appointed CEO. Three of the

six executive officers also work in Kamloops. That has grown by

approximately 14 percent over the last three years, the number in

Kamloops.

The utilization fluctuates because some people want to work at

home. Some don’t. Some, they’re a hybrid model.

We’ve got some totals of the entire organization. They’re trying

to get just Kamloops, but for…. They feel that it’s fairly equitable in

some ways. So 33 percent of employees for the entire corporation work in

the office, 27 percent fully work at home and 40 percent are

hybrid.

Just to let the member know, about 575 work in Kamloops, about the

same amount in Vancouver and then the rest are scattered throughout the

province, doing various jobs throughout the province.

P. Milobar: I won’t take issue with Pat’s history in Kamloops. We actually

went to junior high even, I think, as well as high school together. So

very well rooted in Kamloops and the volunteer community and all of

that. There’s no debate from the opposition around that.

In terms of future planning though, there’s a very large piece of

cleared land now. The old dry cleaner on the site was bought. The site

was cleaned up. It was all part of that bigger vision. What are the

future plans, then, for Lotteries within Kamloops?

[3:10 p.m.]

Obviously, we take a lot of pride in the fact that we have a head

office in Kamloops and that it’s a very stable head office, in terms of

job numbers and things of that nature. But we’re also very protective of

it because of other head offices like Telus and others that we’ve lost

over the years, going way, way back.

What is the overall strategy for the Kamloops site overall — the

whole complex, the empty lot as well as the existing building, and where

those next few years are planned to go with capital

improvements?

Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to let the member know that the B.C. Lottery Corp. is

absolutely committed to Kamloops. It’s not leaving. It’s not going

anywhere. I couldn’t convince them to come to Castlegar. They’re staying

in Kamloops. It’s been there since 1985, and it’s staying

there.

The building is quite old. It’s been around…. It was built in

the’60s. So the corporation is currently looking at plans which include

looking to enhance the energy efficiency of the building and to meet

safety standards — things like that. Address systems that are near end

of life, if it’s been built since the’60s. There are some end-of-life

systems in there that need to be replaced.

[3:15 p.m.]

Also supporting climate action commitments, what they can do….

They also are looking at evolving needs. Now that they have employees

with the hybrid…. Some work at home, some work in the building. So

they’re looking at, once things have settled down from COVID, what kind

of needs do they have in the building? Looking at renovations and what

they can do.

P. Milobar: As part of all that work, is there going to be a cost-benefit

analysis done in terms of layering on things like energy efficiencies,

overall timeline left of a viable building to use? As the minister said,

it was built in the ’60s. It was actually a Woodward’s department store,

and it’s gone through several iterations before Lotteries even moved in.

It’s probably been renovated and hacked up as much as it possibly can,

as a concrete bunker can be.

But there are just certain realities in this day and age in terms

of, at a certain point, saying: “Okay, we’re committed to Kamloops.” We

know Lotteries likely isn’t going to go bankrupt any day soon. It’s

going to be in operation for a long time, kind of like a courthouse. So

you build for the future.

You eventually have to replace the courthouse with a newer

courthouse. That’s just happened in Kamloops. In fact, the old

courthouse is right across the street from B.C. Lotteries, and the new

one’s up by the hospital. So that happens, and that’s what happens with

public buildings and public infrastructure. I view, and, I think, most

people would view B.C. Lotteries as that public-type institution as

well.

Is there going to be a proper cost-benefit analysis done? Not

worry so much about adhering to, “It has to be a renovation, or it has

to be a new build,” but what will actually serve the long-term needs of

B.C. Lotteries and, by extension, the public most cost-effectively over

the long term as opposed to a very short five- or six-year window of

time, where we may spend $150 million renovating something when, for

$200 million, we could have built a brand-new building that was going to

operate for a long, long time, versus what seemed to be the short-term,

cheaper option?

Hon. K. Conroy: The CFO assures me it’s a very decided yes.

P. Milobar: I ask that question because when I first started this role, we had

a tour. There had been a plan to essentially build a new building, hence

the creation of the new lot and the purchases next door and things of

that nature. There were plans well underway. A lot of work had been

done. The building was deemed to be not in great condition. A change of

government happened, and, magically, the building was better and just

needed — I’m simplifying a little — a couple of new wires and a coat of

paint here and there and we’re good to go, and we can reshape things and

make things work.

My understanding is that it very much felt like…. The member for

Kamloops–South Thompson and myself took a tour of the building. It very

much felt like the decision was much more that of a new government

wanting to put their own stamp on an organization. Not just Lotteries,

it was happening across government. Fair enough. But that was six years

ago now.

This building is now six years older. Systems are six years older.

There are space constraints. My understanding is there’s an offsite,

fairly significant storage area now for either B.C. Lotteries directly

or one of their contractors, with a lot of the gaming equipment in an

area that’s going to be redeveloped in the very near future, as well, in

Kamloops.

So this game of leapfrogging around with satellite areas starts to

get problematic. It also starts to get expensive because it’s constant

moving. I would think it’s a security issue, too, in terms of extra

security costs and oversight needed for things being stored that

directly impact the gaming industry.

Again, it’s great that that analysis is going to be undertaken,

but how committed is the government…? Does the government have a

preference, ahead of time, what they would like to see in terms of a

renovation or rebuild? Because we’ve been down this road. We were well

down that road when, kind of, the rug was pulled out, and suddenly the

reports that were previously done and the reviews were no longer deemed

to be as valid, even though all of the main players that created those

reports were still within B.C. Lotteries at that time.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The member can be assured that all of those issues that the member

raised will be part of the analysis for the plans to the existing

building.

P. Milobar: Thank you to B.C. Lotteries for making the trek down. It’s one I’m

fond of. I do it weekly, it seems.

I’m not going to continue. We are short of time as it is. Fair

enough. I’ll take everything at its word right now. I don’t think B.C.

Lotteries will be stunned to know that both myself and the

Kamloops–South Thompson MLA will be keeping a close eye on Kamloops

operations, as we always do, as well as the overall operations. But the

numbers and revenue estimations always seem to come in pretty bang-on

with B.C. Lotteries. There’s good work done there.

I guess my final question, and then we’ll transition over to B.C.

Infrastructure and CBAs, is around online gaming in terms of sports.

We’re being inundated right now. I’d probably be remiss if I didn’t ask

about this right now.

Now obviously, Bet99 and other ones like that are Ontario-only.

They’re supposed to be geofenced. There are others that are supposed to

be. But there are a lot that are pretty easy to work around. What steps

is B.C. Lotteries taking to try to block that from happening? Is there a

way for them to try to electronically interfere with that or work with

the other governments across the country or try to keep that leakage out

from online gaming?

At least we finally have gone to the single-game sports betting,

so that, hopefully, has helped a bit. But if people don’t want to go to

Play Now, and they want to go to one of the other sites, what prevention

measures are in place? What is coming in the future to try to keep that

solidified, given that the bulk of the advertising we see right now,

through the playoffs of various sports, is geared directly to much

larger population markets out east but technically shouldn’t be

available to people in B.C.?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The Gaming Control Act mandates that the BCLC is responsible for

the conduct and management of all commercial gambling, including online

gambling, in B.C.

Unregulated operators continue to scale up marketing in B.C., like

the member’s alluded to, but across Canada, as well, where hundreds of

unregulated gambling websites are targeting players through marketing

campaigns and enticing sign-up bonuses.

BCLC has joined a coalition with other provincial entities,

working with stakeholders in the system, to protect Canadians from the

misleading advertising and operation of unregulated gambling websites,

which do not provide employment or financial benefits to provinces and

present risks related to money laundering, addiction and game

integrity.

Ontario’s licensing of online gambling, in April 2022, has also

led to increases in online gambling advertising across Canada, creating

market confusion for customers and oversaturation of advertisements of

gambling websites that are operating outside of the regulated industry

in B.C. There are a number of tools to address these issues, but they

lie with the federal government. I just want to let the member know

that. Also, the gaming policy and enforcement branch is in PSSG, so the

actual regulations are within the Ministry of PSSG.

P. Milobar: Has B.C. Lotteries done any calculations on what the anticipated,

or estimated, leakage of revenues is to these sites?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The BCLC has about 62 percent of the market share of online gaming

in the province. That was done by an external contractor with expertise

in gaming marketing — that provided that analysis. So we’re missing

about 38 percent of the market. There’s an updated analysis that is

currently underway that they’re working on to get exact

numbers.

I think it’s important to recognize that BCLC’s PlayNow.com

channel is the fastest-growing part of the business, with consistent

year-over-year growth. In fiscal year ’23-24, PlayNow.com expects to

achieve revenue growth of 9 percent over last year’s fiscal year, with

continued growth expected through to ’25-26. And PlayNow.com

generates higher revenue per capita than any other regulated platform in

all of Canada.

BCLC continues to drive the success of PlayNow.com, including

through investments in strategic growth initiatives that include

modernization of the platform and new products. Since 2013, BCLC has

provided PlayNow.com to Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries, and in

November ’22, it also launched in Saskatchewan under the contract to the

Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority and Sask Gaming.

P. Milobar: So there’s a 38 percent leakage. What does the 38 percent

translate to in actual dollars? That’s really kind of more of the crux

in terms of what the taxpayers of B.C. are missing out on in terms of

that 38 percent.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: They figured out last year’s numbers, which they feel is

approximately $280 million, which is a significant amount. That’s why

they’re doing the work they are doing to try to change that

trajectory.

P. Milobar: Thanks for that. It’s definitely something to keep an eye on. The

dollars are definitely large enough to make sure steps are

taken.

With that, I think we’ll transition over to the community benefit

agreement questions. I’m doubtful Lotteries will want to answer those,

but if they want to, they’re more than welcome. It’s up to the

minister.

Hon. K. Conroy: If the member could just ask the first question, because then we

can determine who we actually need to come in.

G. Kyllo: I certainly appreciate the time allotted me by the member for

Kamloops–North Thompson.

With respect to the community benefit agreements, it was one of

the hallmark changes that the current government actually undertook.

With that, when the CBA agreements were initially put forward, British

Columbians were informed that they were going to, at first, just apply

to the Pattullo Bridge and Trans-Canada Highway construction four-laning

improvements, largely.

[3:40 p.m.]

At the time that the CBAs were put in place, there was a focus on

the building trade unions, at the conclusion of what would be considered

more progressive unions — Christian Labour Association of Canada, Canada

West, CISIWU, All Nations union.

Can the minister indicate or share what work was undertaken to

determine which unions would participate and which unions would not be

provided an opportunity to participate in community benefit

agreements?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We just went and got staff in, and we wanted to confirm. With me

in the room, additionally, is Assistant Deputy Minister Tiffany Ma,

Carol Bishop from the Ministry of Finance and the CEO of BCIB, Irene

Kerr.

We were just making sure staff got in here because the question

the member was asking was when the CBA was the responsibility of the

Minister of Transportation. None of the people here have that

information. So what we’ll do is I’ll make sure that the question gets

relayed to the Ministry of Transportation and get that question for the

member in writing.

G. Kyllo: Great.

We’ve certainly seen significant cost escalation, both in

horizontal and vertical construction projects, over the last number of

years. We’ve also heard a lot of that cost attributable to what’s been

identified both by government and the media and opposition as being a

shortage of available skilled labour.

There are literally tens of thousands of additional workers that

are ready, willing and able to work both on horizontal and vertical

construction projects in the province today that are members of some of

the more progressive unions — Christian Labour Association of Canada,

Canada West, CISIWU, All Nations union.

As we see these significant cost pressures…. As even government

has indicated, a lot of those cost pressures are attributable to a

shortage of available labour. I wonder if the minister has given

consideration and will give consideration to expanding the opportunity

for progressive unions to actually bid and work on projects that are

identified under the community benefits agreement.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: About 65 percent of the contractors working on the projects with

the CBA are members of the Progressive Contractors Association, and all

skilled workers can apply to work at BCIB, regardless of their union

affiliation.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister, but it was not the

question that I’d asked. The Progressive Contractors Association is an

association of a large number of companies, both unionized and

non-unionized.

My question to the minister is that…. Currently the CBAs provide

an exclusion where only members of 19 handpicked unions, members of the

B.C. Building Trades, or they’re under the umbrella of the B.C. Building

Trades, are actually allowed to work on community benefit agreement

projects.

There are literally tens of thousands of additional unionized

workers, members of the Christian Labour Association of Canada as one,

probably one of the larger ones in B.C. with, I believe, upwards of

20,000 members. There’s also Canada West, CSWU, All Nations Union. There

are a number of other unions.

The minister wasn’t able to share an answer earlier on what was a

determining factor on why Building Trades’ unions were provided a

monopoly at the exclusion of other, more progressive unions. As a

follow-up to that…. The minister, I appreciate, was not there and part

of that decision-making process.

The question now is: with significant cost pressure largely

attributable, and the government has announced this themselves, to a

shortage of labour, will the minister give consideration to expanding

the scope of CBAs to also allow progressive unions, bringing in a lot

more workers potentially able to work on these projects?

Will the minister look at considering expanding the CBA agreements

to also provide the opportunity for other unions like Christian Labour

Association of Canada, Canada West, CSWU or All Nations Union to

actually participate and work on community benefit

agreements?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Actually, there is no intention to change the policy right now,

but there is so much work in this province that any tradesperson who

wants to work in our province can be working. BCIB actually encourages

all tradespersons who want to work to apply. In fact, they actually

recruit them.

[4:00 p.m.]

When a tradesperson is hired, after 30 days, they are required to

join one of the 19 affiliated unions, but they can keep their CLAC

membership, for instance, if they choose. Tradespersons quite regularly

can hold two or three union cards, depending on what projects they’re

working on. Construction work is very cyclical. The member seems to be

upset by that answer, but it’s reality in this province.

My father had two union cards. He did two different jobs. I did,

briefly, for a while myself. I’ve talked to many union people that have

multiple memberships because it depends on which project they’re working

on. As I said, construction is cyclical. You don’t have one construction

project for the rest of your life. It’s not like you’re working in a

pulp mill for the rest of your life like many people I know in my

community.

There’s no bias to other unions. In fact, as I said, tradespersons

can have the opportunity to hold more than one card, and there is so

much work in this province that there’s no reason for any tradesperson

not to be working.

G. Kyllo: The minister mentioned there’s no bias, but there certainly was

bias when excluding a significant number of workers that chose to be

represented by different union affiliations.

This government has provided a monopoly to the building trades

unions at the exclusion of all others. That’s very unfortunate. I’m

going to move on, though.

Can the minister share with this House what efforts are undertaken

within the Ministry of Finance to monitor and track what the costs

attributable to CBAs are?

When the Minister of Transportation initially announced that the

CBA project was going to be applicable to the Pattullo Bridge and

Trans-Canada Highway expansion projects, the minister at the time

indicated that the estimated cost of CBAs was between 4 and 7 percent. A

considerable range but those were the numbers that the minister shared

in the House.

Can the minister share what work has been undertaken to monitor

and track the true costs associated with CBA agreements and what the

magnitude of those costs may be? The minister may be able to confirm

that cost variation of 4 to 7 percent is still true and, after the last

four years of projects, may be able to validate that, or is it a

different number?

[4:05 p.m. - 4:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Once the business cases for projects are approved by Treasury

Board, the ministry works with the ministries that are responsible for

those capital projects to update project costs on a quarterly basis,

based upon spending, and any updates on CBAs are included in this as

well.

[4:15 p.m.]

We know that CBAs cost between 1 percent to 4 percent of a

project’s total budget. I believe that was the amount that was said last

year, as well, in estimates. This is based on actual results, on

completed CBA projects.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister. The minister is

indicating that CBA costs are only 1 to 4 percent, and that’s

interesting.

Infrastructure B.C. undertook a fairly extensive cost analysis and

review of the Cowichan Hospital before it actually went to tender. My

understanding was that that internal cost evaluation — about a 334-page

report — clearly identified the two scenarios: a typical design-build or

a CBA-type contract tender. My understanding is that the additional cost

magnitude of moving to a CBA on that particular project was initially

identified at over 24 percent.

I don’t have the exact numbers, because of course, I wasn’t

provided a copy of the report. I think it’s an important internal

government analysis of what the costs — the true costs, estimated costs

— of CBA agreements are.

Is the minister willing to share and release the internal review

that was undertaken of the Cowichan Hospital prior to it going to

tender, which establishes a couple of different cost analyses on whether

the project was tendered as a design-build or under a CBA

agreement?

Again, my understanding is that that cost magnitude was actually a

24 percent increase of cost to let that contract go as a CBA. Now, I

appreciate the minister may not have direct access to it, so if the

minister would be agreeable to respond to that specific question in

writing, I’d certainly appreciate that.

That’d allow me to maybe move on to an additional question. That

has to do with the fact that the community benefit agreement applicable

to the Cowichan Hospital….

I believe it was in early December that the Ministry of Finance

came out with a revised cost estimate for the Cowichan Hospital.

Although it was certainly government’s choice to move forward with the

Cowichan Hospital as a community benefit agreement at a higher cost

estimate, initially estimated between $600 million and $800 million,

there was a revised estimate that came out by the Minister of Finance, I

believe, in the last week of November or early December that pegged that

project with a $455 million additional cost increase — the tune of, I

believe, $1.45 billion.

Is the minister able to share with this House what the reasons and

justification were for that significant cost increase of $455 million?

What portions were attributable to material cost increases, and what

portion of that cost increase was attributable to labour?

As a bit of context, Island Health came out with a news release

that indicated that the cost increase was attributable to supply chain

challenges and a shortage of available skilled labour. Again, I hope the

minister might be able to provide a bit of information and context and

whether she is tracking the difference in cost escalations.

What portion is material? What portion is labour? Then, also, if

she has an opportunity to share with us: what work was undertaken by the

ministry to determine that $455 million cost increase on the Cowichan

Hospital?

[4:20 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The Ministry of Finance is responsible for reporting all of the

changes across all of the ministries. We don’t report on why project

budgets have changed for specific projects. So for that information, you

need to go and ask the specific ministry.

What we do report on is what I said, and the revised estimate for

Cowichan was publicly provided in our second quarterly report

in’22-23.

[4:30 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Can the minister confirm which ministry would actually have the

responsibility? It’s my understanding that Island Health wouldn’t

necessarily be responsible for the contract tendering process. The

minister indicated that she’s not monitoring or managing the budget with

respect to the Cowichan Hospital. Which specific ministry or Crown

corporation would we be looking to, to seek that advice?

The Chair: Minister.

Interjection.

G. Kyllo: I certainly appreciate that. With respect to the community benefit

agreement, the original agreement — the very first one, actually, in the

province — was a project in my riding, Salmon Arm West. It was

originally about 6.1 kilometres of four-laning. A community benefit

agreement was put forward, which included a master section. The

agreements, to my understanding, were let on an individual project

basis. A different project came online. There was a CBA agreement that

was specific to that project.

There was a change that was undertaken just a few years ago where

the existing CB agreements were bundled into what’s called a harmonized

community benefit agreement. I just wanted to confirm that the minister

is familiar with that change and if she has the ability to actually

answer any questions specific to the change from the original community

benefit agreement to the harmonized community benefit

agreement.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: There’s always just been one document. The original document

included only two projects, and as new projects were added, project

definition appendixes, like the scope of the work for the projects, were

developed and added to the original CBA,which became the harmonized

version. It’s still the one document.

This is a public document. It’s readily available. In fact, the

CEO and her team would be happy to walk you through it and answer any

questions that you might have.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for that response. I appreciate

that.

The master

section of the agreement and the original agreements

that went out on July 17, 2018…. It’s my understanding that is the date

on the first master

section of the CBA agreement. Within that specific

agreement, there was an

article 9.505 of the CBA, and in this particular

section it reads: “Indigenous contractors or Indigenous persons working

on a project subject to, or as a result of, an agreement between the

government of British Columbia and an Indigenous group may elect to

obtain a permit under

article 8.400, in which case a permit will be

guaranteed by the union for the scope of the work set out in the permit

request.”

Now, that was the language that was included in the initial CBA

agreement. On March 1, 2022, which I believe coincides with the date of

the harmonized agreement, that particular clause was removed. That

clause diminishes the rights of First Nations to contract directly with

the lead contractor for work on CBA projects. In

article E on page 8 of

the CDHRP addendum within the harmonized CBA agreement, it reads:

“Article 9.505 of the community benefit agreement will not apply with

respect to this project.” Now, that is in respect to the Cowichan

District Hospital, specifically.

Can the minister advise or indicate why there was a modification

and an exclusion which diminishes the rights of First Nations to

contract work directly on the Cowichan Hospital, and, with that removal

of that specific clause, which again diminishes the rights of First

Nations, what consultation was undertaken, either directly with Cowichan

Tribes themselves or any other First Nations groups within the province

of B.C.?

[4:40 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The

article the member refers to only pertains to projects where

there is an impact-benefit agreement or an accommodation agreement with

a First Nation. Impact-benefit agreements only occur on

transportation-related agreements, not vertical projects like hospitals

or schools. So that

article doesn’t apply to the Cowichan project, for

instance.

I realize there was a lot of misunderstanding about this. Again,

the

article only applies where there is an impact-benefit agreement or

an accommodation agreement.

G. Kyllo: Thank you for that answer.

There’s, obviously, a great amount of concern both within Cowichan

and a number of contractors. Jon-co Contracting, for one, continues to

be sidelined and not to have the ability to work directly on that

project.

The minister references the impact-benefit agreements, yet there

is no reference to that anywhere within the master

section that I could

see. What I have heard from First Nation members in the province is….

They’re concerned that the exclusion of this specific clause diminishes

the opportunity for First Nations to directly contract with the lead

contractor to work unimpeded within their traditional territory and be

forced to actually join one of these 19 handpicked unions. It’s a

considerable concern to First Nations.

Can the minister share what information was shared or otherwise

communicated with First Nations clearly setting out or identifying or

indicating the reason for the exclusion of that specific

clause?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: As this is a Ministry of Health project, the member would have to

refer the questions re consultation to the Ministry of

Health.

I want to clarify that no contractor is required or at risk of

becoming a unionized contractor. There’s very specific language in the

CBA that protects them on current and future projects.

Actually, there’s a reference to this in the CBA. It’s

article

9.505:

[4:55 p.m.]

“This

article 9.505 applies only to and only in respect of the

existing projects. Indigenous contractors or Indigenous persons working

on a project subject to, or as a result of, an agreement between the

government of British Columbia and an Indigenous group may elect to

obtain a permit under

article 8.400 in which case a permit will be

guaranteed by the union for the scope of work set out in the permit

request. For certainty, the provisions of articles 8.402, 8.403 and

8.408 will not apply to such permits. For clarity, an ‘Indigenous

contractor’ and an ‘Indigenous person’ shall be those determined between

the applicable Indigenous group and the government of British Columbia

as communicated to the employer by the government of British

Columbia.”

So it is there.

I want to just further state that one of my colleagues, the

Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, has talked to Chief

Lydia of the Cowichan Tribes, and she has expressed that they are very

pleased with how things are progressing on the project.

It is also my understanding that the contractor the member refers

to has been awarded significant numbers of work packages on this

project.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister. Certainly, it’s my

understanding, as recently as last week, that Jon-co Contracting is

still unable to actually work directly on the Cowichan

project.

I appreciate the response from the ministry. The minister is

responsible for the CBA projects, and it’s challenging when different

projects and questions are put back to different ministries.

We had sent a letter specifically to the House Leader, asking

specifically where we should bring any of the questions in and around

community benefit agreements and BCIB, and we were directed that it was

with the Ministry of Finance. So it’s unfortunate that the minister is

not able to provide clarity on some of the questions and queries we have

around some cost escalations on projects, which we believe is, in part,

due to the community benefit agreements.

Just more in closing, there were a couple of things that I had

asked for early on, and I just was hoping the minister might be able to

confirm her willingness to provide those documents.

One has to do with the Infrastructure B.C. initial review of the

different cost scenarios associated with the contracting of the Cowichan

Hospital. It’s about a 334-page report that I referenced earlier. I’m

just wondering if the minister may be willing to actually provide or

release that report, so we actually have an actual copy of

it.

Then the other piece would be with respect to the community

benefit agreements.

The minister has referenced that the new cost estimate that has

been undertaken by the ministry is that the CBA costs are between 1 and

4 percent.

Again, can the minister provide or direct us to any documentation

or any report or an internal analysis that actually draws that

conclusion? I certainly would be more than happy to receive and better

understand what analysis the government is undertaking to determine that

full cost.

If we go back to when these CBAs were first announced, back in

2018, the Minister of Transportation at the time indicated the cost was

between 4 and 7 percent.

In my understanding, through this internal analysis that was

initially done by Infrastructure B.C., it was 24 percent. So the

minister’s comments about 1 to 4 percent…. If she has any data or any

information that would support that, I certainly would be more than

happy and welcome to receive it.

With that, I’ve come to the end of my time.

[5:00 p.m. - 5:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: A lot of information here. In reference to the 1.4 percent that

the member has referenced and that BCIB….

What it is, is BCIB costs, and then the differential costs that

they actually do.

For example, they do considerable additional training for people

that come and work on the projects, like Indigenous cultural training.

They provide outreach.

They do considerable recruiting of underrepresented workers. There

are more women, more Indigenous people working on CBA projects than most

other construction projects in the province.

They’re actually doing payroll services for contractors who

provide their services to the project. We know that 92 percent of the

contractors in the province actually have less than 20 employees, and

the BCIB will do HR work for them.

We actually have a quote from Mike. He’s a subcontractor on the

Chase East project that I think the member referenced, Chase West to

Chase Creek bridge, and he says: “As a subcontractor, it doesn’t cost me

anything to work with BCIB. BCIB helps new tradespeople enter the

workforce and join the union, which is good for the workers. BCIB offers

win-win solutions to help the project move forward. I can name hire, so

I pick and choose my crew. I pay one paycheque to BCIB instead of paying

a dozen paycheques to my crew, so it’s a smooth process.”

So it’s actually helping contractors in the province too. There

are quotes from other contractors, and there are also quotes from people

that are working on the projects who talk about getting pension and

benefits and good wages. There are a number of positive things, but

that’s also what’s contributing to the 1.4 percent that the member keeps

referring to.

As far as the report that the member is referring to, it is not a

report that any of us have. We’ll have to get some more information and

get that back to you in writing.

With that, Mr. Chair, we need to take a quick break.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. We will take a short recess. Thank you,

Members.

The committee recessed from 5:12 p.m. to 5:18 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, let’s call this committee back to order. We’re here

with the Ministry of Finance estimates.

P. Milobar: I’ve got a few questions for the minister. It’s in relation to

page 26 of the budget book, the 2022 shared recovery mandate. Very quick

and easy — quick one. Can the minister confirm that the first year, year

1, was fiscal year 2022-2023 of the three-year agreement?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

P. Milobar: That would mean we’re in year 2 of it. The BCNU has settled and

ratified, which, from my understanding, is the final agreement that

needed to be done. There are the wage mandate contingencies for ’23-24,

and the description is not knowing what inflation rates were going to be

and other issues within a settlement. But in year 2, it’s 5.5 percent,

plus the potential cost-of-living adjustment to a maximum of 6.75

percent.

[5:20 p.m.]

How much of the wage mandate contingencies for ’23-24 of the $2.2

billion set aside has actually been needed to be used, now that most of

these cost pressures have actually been fleshed out over the length of

time here?

Hon. K. Conroy: If the member would like to ask another question while she’s

looking up the actual number, then we can speed things along.

P. Milobar: Sure. Thank you.

My understanding, in seeing what was published in media around the

BCNU agreement, was that they were happy that there were some

commitments made around staffing ratios and patient ratios and things of

that nature with the nurses — other areas that were being described as

very unique and first-time-ever type of clauses.

Most unions…. The government has me-too clauses within their

collective agreements that would have been settled well in advance of

the BCNU. Did the BCNU agreement trigger me-too clauses with the other

unions?

Hon. K. Conroy: No to the me-too clause. Even though we’ve ratified or have

tentative agreements on 90 percent of the agreements, we still have 61

outstanding agreements. So it wouldn’t be appropriate to share what’s

left in the contingencies. We’re still bargaining.

P. Milobar: Was there any consideration given, any evaluation done, when the

agreement with the BCNU…?

I guess I’ll preface this. I don’t want the Nurses Union to think

I’m attacking them. They just happen to be the latest agreement, and I

fully respect and understand the collective bargaining agreement and the

rights of people to bargain and get the best deal for their members.

That’s their job as union representatives.

It was the last current bigger agreement. It was characterized as

completely new areas that they were going into. Was there an evaluation

done in terms of the potential me-too clauses kicking in with other

unions? If they haven’t already, was there any anticipation that that

might actually happen, moving forward?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The answer is yes. They did do an evaluation, looked at all of the

other negotiated contracts, and there are no concerns. So yes, they did

some work.

P. Milobar: What was the final cost-of-living increase for year 2? Was it the

5.5 percent, was it 6.75, or was it somewhere in the middle?

Hon. K. Conroy: We’re just confirming the number, if the member would like to ask

another question.

P. Milobar: Just further clarification on the descriptions. It could be that

the ’22-23 was missing when I looked at the numbers.

I’m assuming that the…. The description is that the 2022 shared

recovery mandate is estimated to cost $10.8 billion over the three-year

mandate term, 2022-23 to ’24-25, with an annual ongoing cost of $5.4

billion. But when you add in the ministry-based budget increases, it’s

$4.8 billion. The numbers don’t quite jibe with where this is at with

the $10.8 billion. I’m on page 26, just so that your staff can be

looking at the same chart.

It says $15 billion over the three years. Again, I’m back to that

original question. I’m just trying to figure out the total cost

structure now that there are much better lines of sight on what the

percentage increase in year 2 was, which is significant. It’s

understandable that there would have to be a contingency

there.

Outstanding agreements that have now been settled with most of the

major unions out there in terms of numbers of people. The year 1 and 2

flexibility allocation of up to a quarter of a percent in years 1 and 2

to support mutually beneficial outcomes of both parties would be known

by now. So all those various cost pressures are known. I’m trying to get

a sense of what the actual, true cost of the 2022 mandate has been in

year 1, will be in year 2 and what it’s projected to be in year

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The reason that ’22-23 isn’t here is because this is a

forward-looking document.

In ’22-23, the number was $1.2 billion. The COLA for…. The member

was asking for the COLA. It was 6.75 percent.

P. Milobar: The total cost increase, in actual dollars, in 2022-2023 was $1.2

billion. A 6.75 percent wage increase.

What is the actual dollar value increase that’s being assigned to

the overall package of wages and benefits? The reason I’m asking this

is….

A lot of the focus on agreements ties in heavily with the wage

increase, the percentage of the wage increase. We all know that benefit

packages make a big difference, and changes to a benefit plan make a big

difference to the cost structure and to the taxpayer. We also

know….

There were several agreements where this happened. There was a

jumping of steps. If you were at step 4, you suddenly went to step 6 on

the pay grid, things of that nature, which can actually accelerate and

accumulate very quickly what the actual dollar value of an agreement is.

On paper, it may have been a 6.75 percent increase, but in actuality,

the cost is much higher than that.

What is the actual dollar figure value increase for each

individual year, the cost to the taxpayer? How does that translate to

what the ministry feels is the percentage increase to what the overall

cost of the same comparable was the previous years before this 2022

mandate came in to be?

[5:35 p.m. - 5:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The benefits or changes to steps or…. They all come out of the

same mandate, and the ministry takes into account the total cost of

incremental steps. They do a very refined drilldown when they assess the

costs. So they take into consideration steps that are moving up. They

take that all into consideration for the total cost. So the 6.75 percent

is based on the total compensation.

The member asked about the specific numbers, and they’re exactly

as they’re portrayed on page 26: $1.2 billion in 2022-23, $4.341 billion

in 2023-24, and $5.301 billion in 2024-25.

The member also asked if this year’s wage mandate was any

different and how we determined it. It’s determined exactly the same as

it was in 2019, as well as in 2014.

P. Milobar: Well, some of that didn’t make sense in that if I’m the worker and

I’m being paid, for the sake of easy math, $100,000 a year, the 6.75

percent increase goes directly to the worker. It’s not that the worker

gets…. The step and everything else is irrelevant to that 6.75

percent.

That was the purpose of the question. When there are step changes,

if somebody goes…. We’ll just say that if you’re making $100,000 a year

and your next step change would take you to $105,000, and you get your

6.75 percent on top of that, which would be standard, that would be

$112,000.

If I go from $100,000, jump past the $105,000 step and go straight

to $110,000 step, which some of these agreements have done — not the

dollar figure, but they’ve taken you from step 4 to step 6, I think it

was, or in that nature, where you were leapfrogging and bypassing a step

in pay — that person now would go from $100,000 to $106,000 to,

suddenly, $110,000, which translates to $117,000 with the 6.7 percent

wage hike on top of it. So the step actually makes a big difference to

the overall pay packet, cost-wise, to the government.

What I’m trying to drill into…. We’ve seen in the past where wage

mandates were billed as zero, zero and three, and with further

investigation, the zero, zero and three actually equalled 11, as a cost

to the taxpayer, not three.

I get that the public likes to look at…. We all talk about it, in

terms of the percentage of wage increase on wage settlements, but we all

know that there are significant other costs associated with any type of

collective bargaining. That’s a change to a benefit plan which could

change the cost structure quite dramatically, either adding or dropping

medications or services, deductible levels, all of those types of

things, all part of the negotiation. But so does moving around how

people are classified and which pay level they’re at, especially if they

get to advance past one more quickly.

Now, the minister has said that the number is the same as in the

budget, except the minister can’t confirm how much of that $4.3 billion,

of which $2.2 billion is contingencies, is actually needed. There’s a

base cost of staffing costs before the ’22 mandate came in for

government.

[5:45 p.m.]

I’m simply asking not what percentage of the wage increase, the

6.75 percent was, but: what is the percentage increase, in real terms,

between what was being spent by government on wages and benefits for the

same employee groups versus now?

In other words, again to use round numbers, if $50 billion was

being paid on wages and benefits, which I know is high, but if that was

the number, did it go up by 5 percent, 6 percent, 8 percent? Not what

the individual wage increase was; the overall cost percentage

increase.

By the looks of the staff nodding their heads, they get where I’m

going with this and what question I’m asking. So I’m hoping we can get

an answer.

It’s not meant to be a gotcha question. We could do the math

ourselves, but until we know how much of the wage mandate contingencies

are needed, we can’t do that math, as opposition. We need that number.

It’s a pretty critical number when it’s $2.2 billion out of a $4.3

billion line item.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to be clear, if there are no changes to the increment system

— no changes at all — it’s not costed. It’s part of just regular costs.

If there are changes to the increment system, then it’s costed as part

of the mandate. There are no changes to the mandate if it’s not costed.

But there are changes to the mandate if it’s costed to the mandate, if

there are changes. So they take everything into consideration.

Everything that the member said — they take that into consideration. I’m

not sure if that answers your question.

Also, the numbers I gave at the bottom of page 26 are the numbers

we can share. Again, we’re not finished bargaining. So we’re not

releasing numbers right now on what’s still available.

P. Milobar: Well, that didn’t actually address the question. Again, I get that

the general wage increase in year 2 is 6.75 percent. But there are other

costs that go into wages and benefits. I’m trying to make sure that we

are using accurate numbers, because if I start pulling out from each

ministry, then we’ll find out: “Oh, no, that really was a different

number.”

If you’re spending $20 billion in wages and benefits with this new

mandate, it’s more than $20 billion plus 6.75 percent, because there

have been step changes. That’s just one of the factors that would go

into a cost. I would find it hard to believe that benefit plans have

gotten cheaper, let alone that unions would negotiate a lesser benefit

plan for their members. Now, they may have, as the trade-off of getting

the 6.75. But I doubt it. That would be within their right as a

bargaining unit to do that.

I’m not taking issue with any of that. I’m trying to get to the

bottom of what the true cost to the taxpayer was with the settlements.

Based on what the base costs of wages and benefits were to the taxpayers

of British Columbia going into negotiations of the 2022 shared recovery

mandate….

[5:55 p.m.]

We’ve already dealt with one full year. We’re already trucking

along in year 2, which is the biggest lift of the three-year deal. The

steps would have all been adjusted for. The retroactive pay would’ve

been accounted for now, as bargaining happened through year

I’m trying to get what the actual percentage cost change to the

taxpayer was, not what the wage percentage increase to an individual

employee was; what the percentage cost increase was based on the cost

for wages and benefits previous to this new three-year deal.

Hon. K. Conroy: What I can say to the member is the overall cost that you see in

the budget includes the wages and any other costs. But things like

pensions, for instance, are part of the wage costs. That’s not an

additional cost. So it includes all the costs in the number there, the

overall wage cost.

It’s really too premature to be sharing the actual overall cost

with the member or anyone, because the process is still ongoing. There

are still a number of agreements that haven’t been signed yet or

ratified.

[6:00 p.m.]

Until all the agreements are ratified, we can’t answer that

question. We’re not trying to…. The number there is what we’re

estimating is the cost, but we can’t give actual numbers until

bargaining is completed and contracts are ratified.

P. Milobar: Well, I asked about the $10.8 billion. When you add the $1.2

billion the minister mentioned for ’22-23, with the $4.3 billion and the

$5.3 billion, that gets you the $10.8 billion over the three years. So I

can understand where that number came from.

What I can’t understand though, is how $1.2 billion in ’22-23

covered off a flat increase of 25 cents an hour — which, according to

some unions, equated to about a 0.76 percent wage hike — as well as a 3¼

percent wage hike, 3.24 percent. All of that was able to be covered off

with $1.2 billion.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Then you go to year 2 and a 6.75 percent wage hike, which is

essentially doubled from year 1. You now need not $2.4 billion — and not

even, because of compounding, $3 billion or $3½ billion — but $4.3

billion.

There have to be significant added costs, at some point, in year

2, based on the number the minister has provided for year 1 of the

agreement. That’s the problem, right now, that people are having with

trying to understand where this agreement is landing: what is the true

percentage cost increase to taxpayers?

I’ve only had estimates with this minister this year for a couple

of days, but I know enough of where to cut my losses. She’s not going to

cough up any more numbers, I would suspect, on this. The math isn’t

making any sense, in what is being identified — if there are not

significant cost pressure changes within year 2, in the laddering and

acceleration of changes to people’s pay grids — because we go from $1.2

billion to $4.3 billion.

I’ll move on to the employer health tax instead, because time is

precious these days in estimates. I found it interesting yesterday, when

the Third Party was in, questioning the minister about employer health

tax. Perhaps she found it strange too, because last I checked, the Third

Party was still part of CASA when the employer health tax came in. In

fact, they voted in favour of the employer health tax.

At the time, we, in the opposition, were pointing out things

around thresholds, around the percentage, about needing to have it

flexible to start being adjusted moving forward. Believe me, we’re glad

to hear that the Green Party has finally come on board with that. We’re

a little disappointed that they voted to support it in the first place,

when we were pointing out that it was flawed and going to have a

significant cost pressure, moving forward — to small businesses,

especially.

Nonetheless, this is always an interesting place, with how

people’s opinions change as election cycles come and go. The Leader of

the Third Party wasn’t wrong in questioning the minister on this year’s

budget, in particular, as it relates to the employer health tax. Last

year, I believe, it was projected to be collecting around $2.2 billion

for this year. Instead, it has now increased to $2.7 billion. So an

extra $500 million is projected to be collected by employer health

tax.

I asked the former minister, last year, the same question, as to

why there’s not an adjustment back — either on the percentage paid on

your payroll or a lifting of the threshold where it triggers that you

will have to pay this tax, or a combination of both.

When the employer health tax was first brought in, there were

forward-looking projections of the employer health tax for the

government to offset medical costs. It is now far exceeding what the

government was projecting it was going to collect. In fact, it’s far

exceeding what MSP was collecting when it was replaced with the employer

health tax.

[6:05 p.m.]

I guess the question is: why is the government not adjusting the

thresholds and/or the percentage paid when you start looking at the

competitive structure, cost structure of business in B.C., when you

compare it to neighbouring jurisdictions on something around

this?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to clarify, in reference to the last statement the member

made, the $1.2 billion, as far as the wage mandate goes, is reflective

of the cost of the agreements the ministry expected to ratify by March

31, at the time we finalized the budget. It doesn’t include all the

agreements we expect to ratify by the third year. Just to answer that

for the member.

The employer health tax is a critical part of how we fund health

care services in B.C. It’s actually the lowest payroll tax in Canada.

More than 85 percent of B.C. businesses, including many small

businesses, don’t pay the employer health tax. Every year we take a look

at the thresholds as part of the budget process, and we will do that

again this year.

P. Milobar: I’m sorry. I’m just confused by the minister’s….

My understanding is that the 2022 mandate is dealing with

contracts that were expiring in the 2022-2023 fiscal year. That would be

for year 1. Year 2 is ’23-24, and so on. We’re in year 2, ’23-24. These

would all be retroactive agreements. People were not working last year

without a contract while they were negotiating. Or am I

misunderstanding? That cost would still need to be picked up.

Is the minister saying that because the fiscal year closed out…?

They just closed it out at $1.2 billion, and then they’re going to have

to, basically, back-date money to finish up the agreements as these

agreements get signed off. That is the first part.

With the employer health tax…. Ontario and Quebec have been taking

steps to look at the competitiveness of small businesses. B.C. has been

layering on costs to small businesses at the same time. There is a

national competitiveness issue happening, let alone that we’re right

next door to Alberta, which has a great many less taxes than British

Columbia does.

In the modelling that was used this year to try to anticipate $2.7

billion worth of revenues…. Did that already take into account the

anticipated…? At that point, short of guidance from government, the law

would say that the minimum wage had to go up by the rate of inflation,

which would be 6.9 percent, and that turns out what government still

stuck to.

Did the ministry calculate the $2.7 billion coming in on minimum

wage going up by 6.9 percent into their calculations, or is that going

to be an extra bonanza of funds for government now that that is what the

new wage structure will be moving forward in June?

[6:15 p.m. - 6:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We forecast EHT based on total growth of B.C. compensation in

wages and salaries across the economy. The member can actually go to

page 106 of the budget, and it discloses the numbers that were used to

calculate the EHT.

P. Milobar: I’ll peruse that while waiting for the next answer

then.

The minister has indicated several times, and previous ministers

as well, with employers health tax, that 85 percent of businesses do not

pay the tax. However, our understanding is that a significant portion of

the 85 percent would include self-incorporated contractors and holding

companies — those types of businesses that have no employees so would

automatically not pay the tax.

Can the minister share with us just how much of that 85 percent is

actually made up of those types of businesses versus actual small

businesses that would be like a corner store with an employee-type

scenario?

Hon. K. Conroy: Just in light of time, we’re just going to find that number and

relay it to you. If not, we will…. The businesses that the member

referred to. But if the member was referring to a small business grocery

— the member said a corner store that had one employee — they obviously

wouldn’t pay the tax either.

[6:25 p.m.]

P. Milobar: No, I understand they wouldn’t. But the minister and the

government continually say 85 percent of small businesses don’t pay the

tax. We’re trying to find out how many that most people would not

consider small businesses. As I say, the holding companies. That is why.

I was using the corner store as a representative of what someone would,

in their mind’s eye — or a flower shop or something like that — consider

a small business. Where there are one or two employees, and it conducts

regular transactions with other people and things of that nature, and it

interacts in their community. When people hear small business, that’s

what people think.

When they hear 85 percent of small businesses don’t pay the

employer health tax…. That’s, frankly…. The framing and the marketing

the government has to make it sound as if all these small businesses

don’t pay employer health tax. There’s a very large portion of GCPE that

would help with that messaging, I’m sure. The point being that, with the

minimum wage increase now, a business with 14 full-time employees will

need to be paying employer health tax. Now 14 full-time employees is not

that large of a store or a small business.

So of the 15 percent of businesses that are paying, that makes up

a large, large portion of what people out in…. I think most people don’t

understand or realize, nor why would they care, just how many holding

companies and things like that are out there on the books and classified

as a small business when, in fact, they don’t really meet that test to

what the public consider…. So that is why we’re looking for

that.

The reason I’m asking is it’s about competitiveness. When you take

a layering of cost pressures to a small business, a true small business,

in this case, one with 14 employees, they will now for sure, regardless

of what they pay their employees, because by law they will be triggered

over the $500,000. They’re also on the hook for five sick days. That’s

approximately $500 million a year overall to business. Five sick days in

a year is about a 2 percent cost hit to a business. Five days is about a

2 percent payroll cost.

The property tax and split assessment value of all real estate is

up by 11 percent versus 2022. That’s a direct impact to small business.

Office rents are up. Storefront rents are up. WorkSafe premiums for

restaurants, many of which are small businesses, many of which would

have 14 employees because of the nature of the food service industry, in

terms of front-of-house and back-of-house staff…. WorkSafe premiums are

up 20 percent for restaurants.

So when the employer health tax jumps up by $500 million with no

recognition from this government

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20230503pm-House-Blues
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20230503pm-House-Blues
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e84e3db12f2acca471a0bdc29caa14e5c39833e3

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).

British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, May 3, 2023, p.m., Issue 321 (42nd Parliament, 4th Session)

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

ISSN 1499-2175

CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2023

C. Oakes: Today we have 12 students and their professor in the public gallery to

TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY

BUDDHIST CULTURE DAY

WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY

RESPONSE TO RACIST INCIDENT AT

SURREY MINOR HOCKEY TEAM

INNOVATION IN RURAL COMMUNITIES

COLLEGE OF NEW CALEDONIA SKILLS

TRAINING PROGRAM

EXCELLENCE AWARD

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND

SUPPLY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SENIORS

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR SMALL

BUSINESS

SUPPORT FOR DISPLACED RIDGEVIEW

PLACE TENANTS IN

LANGFORD

HEALTH NEEDS OF SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

RESIDENTS AND

PROVISION OF SERVICES

CMHC.

RELEASE OF B.C. HOUSING AUDIT REPORT

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FINANCE

Part of the problem is not just with the rush fee but also how the

Document details