Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading, Bill 14, Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND
HOUSING STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2020

Hon. S. Robinson: I move third reading.

Mr. Speaker: Division has been called pursuant to sessional order adopted on June 22, 2020. This division will be deferred until 30 minutes prior to the sitting day.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading on Bill 24, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment Act.w

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING
AND VALIDATING (No. 4)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

[2:30 p.m.]

The proposed amendments to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4) seek to validate and enable certain parcel taxes that were established by the Fraser Valley regional district with a procedural error. These amendments were requested by the Fraser Valley regional district.

Since 2017, the regional district has applied parcel taxes on approximately 700 properties to fund local water and sewage services. The regional district will have collected approximately $1.4 million in parcel taxes from these properties by the end of the 2020 tax year. These taxes were used to deliver water and sewer services that are available to these same properties. While the regional district has the statutory authority to impose the taxes, through an oversight, it didn’t establish a parcel tax review panel as required under the Community Charter. This review panel provides an opportunity for property owners to dispute the applicability of the tax to their properties and must authenticate the parcel tax roll.

In addition to this oversight, one of these bylaws did not comply with the Community Charter requirement to identify the parcel tax roll in the bylaw. The proposed validating amendments will address the procedural error by validating the taxes imposed from 2017 to 2020 without having established the parcel tax review panel.

The bill will require the regional district to establish a parcel tax review panel retroactively, so that property owners subject to the parcel taxes have the same opportunity to dispute taxes as if the parcel tax review panel had been established at the outset. Additionally, one of the bylaws is validated to address the error of not identifying the parcel tax roll in the bylaw.

The bill also enables the regional district to establish the parcel tax review panel for future years to allow for the continuation of parcel taxes supporting the water and sewer services to these properties. This validation of the existing bylaws and the requirement of the establishment of a parcel tax review panel in respect of past and future years will afford the property owners paying these taxes their statutory opportunity to dispute the inclusion of their properties on the tax roll in accordance with the Community Charter requirements.

The enabling amendments allow the regional district to establish the parcel tax review panel for future years. The parcel taxes support a local water and sewer service for specific properties to which the service is available. Regional districts fund services locally, and this parcel tax allows for the funding of the specific service now and in future years.

The Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, or MEVA, is intended to validate and enable local government actions and authorities in unique circumstances or where the local government has no own-source tools to address the issue. MEVA has previously been used to validate similar procedural errors. The proposed validating and enabling amendments will ensure that past services are funded and that the regional district can continue to impose the taxes, supporting the essential water and sewage services to the recipient properties.

I hope that everyone here joins me in support of Bill 24, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment Act, 2020. With that, I move second reading.

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure to speak to Bill 24 today, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act. I’ll be the only speaker on our side to this bill. I’m just going to take a few minutes to speak in favour of the legislation so that any of my constituents who may be wondering about it will understand what it’s all about.

In basic terms, this bill corrects an injustice to property owners living in Cultus Lake and Popkum, in my riding, which occurred over a period of several years since 2017. The correction was requested by the Fraser Valley regional district, and I have communicated with both of the relevant regional district area directors about this, namely Bill Dickey and Taryn Dixon, both great people who serve their communities well. They’re in agreement with this legislation. I know that the regional district staff have been communicating with ministry staff about this for some time now, and I’d like to convey their thanks to the ministry and to the minister for the cooperation they’ve enjoyed.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

The regional district passes bylaws called parcel taxes that allow for the taxation of property owners for things like water and wastewater services. In this case, these bills amount to about $200 per year per property. The amounts levied were equal on all the properties, and they fell on properties in the area of Popkum, Cultus Lake and also Lake Errock, which is in the riding of my colleague the member for Abbotsford-Mission. These taxes were imposed from 2017 on.

Over the period 2017 to 2020, there were a total of six bylaws passed related to sewer and water, directing that these funds be collected from about 700 property owners in total. As the minister said, those property owners duly paid out a total of $1.4 million in taxes over the period. But the Community Charter directs that there be a local parcel tax roll review panel established for these types of taxes.

[2:35 p.m.]

In an oversight, the review panel was never established, so the legal validity of the bylaws themselves is put into question. It also means that amounts in taxes that the regional district has already collected from them are also in question. This is a sizeable liability for the district, even though the services were long ago delivered.

Furthermore, if a property owner at the time disagreed with the amount or even whether the tax should have been levied at all, he or she would have had nowhere to turn, because there was no review panel available. I suppose there’s a political appeal, but I never heard about this issue in my office. Nevertheless, this represented a potential injustice to those property owners.

What does Bill 24 do? Well, it does two main things. First, it retroactively confirms that all six of the bylaws passed since 2017 are valid and that the amounts collected from the parcel taxes have been legally collected. That’s fine, but if it was left there, this bill would still be vulnerable to a legal challenge. So to complete the package, there’s just one more significant change, and that is to establish a three-member parcel tax roll review panel for those prior years as soon as practically possible.

Moreover, the bill requires that the regional district publish that the panel has been struck and, further, notify all 700 property owners by mail that the panel has been established. On appeal, the panel has the power to direct that refunds be made by the regional district where the tax was improperly levied. So if property owners today look back in their records, realize that they should not have been charged these taxes or were charged too much, they’ll be able to appeal them retroactively, and that’s where the injustice is corrected.

Further, this bill also establishes a tax review panel for the future so that the matter will be taken care of in the ’21 tax year and into the future.

To me, this bill is not a controversial piece of legislation. We should get it done and move on to more weighty matters about which we could have a lively debate in this Legislature. I and my colleagues will support this bill, and I want to thank the minister for bringing it forward on behalf of the Fraser Valley regional district.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 24.

Deputy Speaker: Any further commentary on this?

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Notwithstanding Standing Order 81, I ask leave of the House to permit Bill 24 to proceed to committee stage forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 24, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment Act, 2020, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 24 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING
AND VALIDATING (No. 4)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 24; S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

On section 1.

[2:40 p.m.]

L. Throness: I do have a couple of general questions to the bill. Would it be all right if I asked them now, and then we could go through the sections?

The Chair: That’s correct. We are on committee stage.

L. Throness: My first question would be to the minister. Must the review panel established for past issues be a different one than future issues, or can just one parcel tax roll review panel with the same three members be established for both past and future years?

Hon. S. Robinson: There is nothing here in the legislation that determines that there needs to be two different for past or for future. It’s really up to the regional district to make that determination.

L. Throness: I just have one more question. What is the mandate of the past review panel in terms of time? Will property owners have a limited period of time in which they’ll be able to appeal the taxes levied under these six bylaws between 2017 and 2020? And what would be that deadline? What would be that time period if there is a deadline?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Under normal circumstances, when a review panel is struck, a notice is given. Typically, it’s a 14-day notice for when a property owner can come before the panel to make their case. So this would be no different. For historical, a panel will be struck, and a notice will be given to the property owners so that they that can come before the panel to make their case.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to take a moment to thank staff for their diligent work on getting this done.

I move that the committee rise and report Bill 24 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:48 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 24 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING
AND VALIDATING (No. 4)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Bill 24, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment Act, 2020, reported complete without amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage debate on Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

[2:50 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2020

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 4; S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

On section 1.

M. de Jong: The sequencing around when the Budget Measures Implementation Act — in this case, Bill 4 — is being considered, relative to the budget, is a little different this year than it has traditionally been. I wonder if the minister can briefly explain the relationship between Bill 4, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, and the budget itself.

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member. I look forward to committee stage. I think, no question, this is a very different time than when the budget was tabled and when these measures come forward basically implementing the budget.

This isn’t new material. This is material that would have been tabled for the budget. There are some changes, no question, and we’ll go through those as we go through committee stage. Life has changed and, therefore, some of the pieces of the budget, the timing of measures coming in. But basically, this is the implementation of what we saw in the budget that was tabled — with, as I said, the context of COVID, as everything has now.

M. de Jong: To be clear, the budget that was tabled on, I think, February 18 of 2020, by the minister…. This would be the legislation that was introduced almost immediately thereafter and would be the operationalization of some of the decisions that the minister laid out both in her budget speech and in the budgetary documents of February 18.

Is it fair to say that the forecasts that are part of the budget…? When I say the budget, I mean that document and collection of documents that the minister tabled on February 18. The budget forecasts are generally influenced or made with the assumption that the legislation in the budget implementation bill is passed by the parliament.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Yes, I used the word “implementation.” It’s the implementation, basically, the detail that was in the budget and the implementation, as the member said, presuming those measures will go forward that were in the budget. Yes, that’s correct. Certainly, yes, a budget is made with the assumption that the measures that are in the so-called implementation bills will go ahead. So yes, changes to that impact the budget and impact what the first quarterly and other reports will be over this coming year.

M. de Jong: Is it fair to say — for the purpose of this question, let’s leave aside the rather dramatic change in landscape that has occurred as it relates to COVID-19 — the accuracy of the forecasts included in the minister’s budget would be compromised if the House opted not to endorse and pass the budget implementation legislation — in this case, Bill 4?

Hon. C. James: Yes, just as with every budget every year, the assumption is built on the measures that are coming forward and built on the assumptions that are put forward in February with the budget.

M. de Jong: The most expeditious way for me to do this is to offer up a statement. If I describe the process incorrectly, then the minister will correct any part of it that she deems necessary to correct.

When the Finance Minister and the government are considering changes to taxation-related measures, my sense — some of it based on a measure of experience, I suppose — is that the Finance Minister will receive advice about the possible fiscal impacts of those changes. Maybe she can explain to the committee how and when that generally occurs.

I’m not speaking about any specific taxation measure now. I’m speaking more about the general budgetary process — the confirmation that she would receive, briefing-note material. When the decision is made to change taxation amounts or rules, the minister does so armed with advice about what the likely impact will be.

Sometimes that’s not an entirely precise exercise, but she would at least have the benefit, from her able staff, of a range, depending on the taxation instrument we’re talking about, of either increased revenues or decreased revenues. She would have the benefit of advice about what the likely impact of taxation changes would be. Is that a fair statement?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: There is no question — the member knows this well, having gone through it many years himself — that, of course, you get advice from your able staff. We are very fortunate. I say this often. The people of British Columbia are very fortunate to have able staff in the Ministry of Finance who provide exactly that, who provide their advice. That happens through the fall, as you go into building your budget.

M. de Jong: Okay. Let’s, then, maybe move to something a little more specific. The first section of the bill we’re dealing with…. In fact, I think the first five sections deal with the carbon tax. I say that, and I’m not sure. It has been a while since we’ve had this kind of a conversation.

The carbon tax, as we’ll discover here, accounts for a sizeable amount of revenue. In general terms, what is the carbon tax? What does it do?

Hon. C. James: I think, in a very brief overview of the carbon tax…. The member will know this well, having been in government during this time period. It sends a price signal. It sends a price signal to discourage emission-intensive fuels — business, individuals, the province.

M. de Jong: Is it a good tax?

Hon. C. James: Yes, it’s an effective tax.

M. de Jong: Why?

Hon. C. James: For exactly the reason that I mentioned, the reason that the tax is there. It sends a price signal. It discourages people from using emission-intensive fuels and provides an opportunity for people to look at changing their behaviour, using carrots and sticks.

M. de Jong: My sense is that, therefore, the minister embraces the concept and the construct. That wasn’t always the case. She knows that, and I know that.

Has something changed about the tax that alters her opinion of it? At one time, she was less enthusiastic. What has changed about the carbon tax that renders it a more acceptable form of taxation?

Hon. C. James: The member knows this isn’t related at all to any of the specifics in the bill, but I’m happy to have this conversation with the member, if he wishes to have this conversation.

I felt very strongly that the carbon tax needed to look at both industry and individuals and that we should start with industry, as other provinces have done. People have looked at different kinds of a carbon tax — whether you look at industry, whether you look at individuals, how you divide that. I felt there wasn’t enough of a balance.

The election made it very clear. People felt that the carbon tax was a positive, and here it is.

[3:05 p.m.]

M. de Jong: In the budget document…. I’ll refer to this a fair bit over the next few moments. It’s the table, 1.3, on page 28. I don’t know if the minister has…. I’m sure someone in her line of communication has access to it. At the time she tabled the budget, am I correct, and am I reading the documents correctly, that she and the government were anticipating revenues of $1.954 billion from the carbon tax. Is that correct?

Hon. C. James: Correct.

M. de Jong: Now, this next question is a technical question, and it may require the minister to spend a little more time consulting with her staff, in fairness.

How is that forecast arrived at? By the way, again, in fairness to the minister, we will speak in a moment about some of the changes that have taken place since the budget was tabled. But that original forecast, which represented a roughly over $250 million increase from the year previous…. How is that forecast arrived at? What is the mechanism by which the minister and her team decided that the revenue from the carbon tax would go from 2019-20, where it was estimated to be $1.69 billion, to 2020-21, $1.954 billion?

Hon. C. James: Again, I’m sure the member knows this. There are economists, as he knows well, in the Ministry of Finance that provide us with the estimates for the numbers that are in the budget. And the estimate, of course, for the carbon tax we based on the volume of fuels that have been sold and the rate of the increase.

M. de Jong: It’s that last part that I think, happily, the minister has verified early in the conversation. It is, essentially, a forecast that takes the amount of the tax and multiplies it against the amount of carbon emissions eligible to be taxed. Is that, essentially, correct?

Hon. C. James: Yes, that’s, essentially, correct.

[3:10 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Bill 4 proposes some changes to the carbon tax. In the span of sections 1 through 5, this might be the best time to pose the general question to the minister. What is the nature of the changes Bill 4 proposed at the time she tabled it in the Legislative Assembly, either on the day of or the day following the presentation of the budget?

Hon. C. James: I think we can get into the aligning with the government rates when we get to that section. It’s coming up. It’s one of the next sections. I’m presuming the member is talking about that change, which is one of the changes that was there on budget day, which is aligning with the federal rates. That’s coming up, I think, in sections 2, 3, 4 or 5.

The other piece, of course, on budget day was our commitment that we’ve already made around the $5-a-tonne increase.

M. de Jong: I think for the purpose of our conversation at the moment, again, the minister has indicated there was an increase and that the details of that are set out in subsequent sections.

In deciding to move forward with the increases that she has alluded to and present themselves legislatively in subsequent sections, and in keeping with the conversation we just had about the general preparation of the budget, would it be correct for us to assume that the minister was provided with an estimate of the impact those changes would have on the revenue government collected from the carbon tax?

Hon. C. James: Yes.

M. de Jong: The amount set out in table 1.3 on page 28, the figure I referred to, $1.954 billion…. Does that include any incremental revenue that would have been collected as a result of the increases to the carbon tax?

Hon. C. James: Just as we’ve already talked about, forecasts are based on the volume of fuel sold and the rate increase. Of course, that includes that.

[3:15 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I think the minister has answered yes, that any incremental revenues attributable to the increase are captured by that figure.

Maybe I’ll ask the same question a slightly different way. Without the increases that are referred to in the subsequent sections of the bill, would the figure in the budget document, table 1.3, be $1.954 billion minus the incremental revenues? I suppose, to save us all time, I’ll just ask: what was the estimate of the incremental revenues derived from the increases?

Hon. C. James: I can get the number for the member. It was, I know, part of the report that was released by the Ministry of Environment, so I’d be happy to get that information for the member.

M. de Jong: Fair to say that the figure would be less, that the tax…? The calculation of the impact of the increases led to the anticipated collection of more revenue, not less?

Hon. C. James: Yes.

M. de Jong: In tracking the impact of changes in taxation post budget, or tracking the data related to the collection of a tax like the carbon tax, what kind of data does the minister and the ministry have at its disposal? How frequently does it receive data?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: As we talked about at the very start of these discussions in committee stage, it feels like estimates. I almost called it estimates, because that’s really the kind of discussion we’re having.

On the issue of data related to carbon tax, in a normal year, as the former minister would know well, you would be looking at last year, you would be looking at this year, you would be taking into account the overall GDP, and you would be looking at the returns coming on carbon tax being paid that would come in each month.

Obviously, some of that has shifted. The assumptions, as the member will know from the update on the economy that I put out, will have to be based on what we know now, the data we know now. Who knows six months from now? Whether you’re talking to economists or others, assumptions are simply that: assumptions.

We are getting some returns in, even though the carbon tax returns and the payments don’t have to come in until September 30. There are a number of people who are still putting those in, so we’re using some of that data. We’re looking at, obviously, fuel sales and where the fuel sales have gone in the last little while. Macro analysis, certainly, no question, is the work we’re doing — what is the overall GDP growth? — to be able to look at the assumptions that we use both in the work that we did in the economic statement and also the work coming in the first quarterly.

[3:25 p.m.]

M. de Jong: So as always, a combination of examining actual data with the forecasts and estimates for how that might impact or be a trend developing for the future. Does the minister today have…? We’re very nearly in August. Is she in possession or is the department in possession of actual data for the months of March, April, May and, possibly, June at this stage?

Hon. C. James: Just to clarify: on the carbon tax, specifically, the member is asking?

As I said, the usual process would be to look at the returns coming in, to look at the carbon tax that’s paid and to be able to use that to have an assumption about what we’re looking at for the rest of the year. We are, as I’ve said, in a very unique time in our province, in our world, when it comes to COVID. We are not seeing those returns come in with the same kind of volume that you would expect if people were required to.

At this point, the assumptions are simply being made on, as I mentioned earlier, macro numbers, volume sales, GDP growth, etc., because there are less than half of the returns that have come in. Again, depending on whether those will be large returns or small returns, it wouldn’t give a good sense of what we’re looking at. So this will be another one of those pieces, as I mentioned, in the July statement as well as coming in Q1. We’ll be taking a look at the macro data and be able to make assumptions based on that.

[3:30 p.m.]

As I’ve said, I think the motto for all of us — certainly, more particularly, for people in the Ministry of Finance — will be “Subject to change.” Whether, as I said, it’s a national economist, a local economist, business folks or others, who are all trying to guess what we’ll be seeing in economic growth in our province…. Everything will be subject to change, depending on what happens with the second wave, or no second wave.

How fast we see the economy returning — we’ve already seen that employment data had a pickup — whether the pickup will continue or if we see a shift in that, all of that data will need to be considered.

M. de Jong: Are the returns in for March 2020 — that being the last month of the last fiscal year? Just so the minister knows, to what degree can she say whether or not the same uncertainty that is plaguing forecasts today and going forward may have had an impact for fiscal year 2019-20, which is referred to in the budget?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The anticipation was $1.69 billion in carbon tax reve­nue. My recollection is that the ministry would be in possession of the data now for the last month of the fiscal year and would know, with a fair measure of certainty, whether that target was hit. Can the minister advise the committee in that regard?

Hon. C. James: As the member knows, that will come out in the public accounts, which will be out shortly.

M. de Jong: I’m going to press a little bit, since we are talking about the budget implementation and budgetary…. I’m not asking for a specific figure. But I think it is fair to ask the minister whether the pressures that are making budgeting and forecasting complicated today and going forward…. The circumstances that have given rise to that actually began in February and March. Are those circumstances impacting in a negative way on revenues for 2019-20?

Hon. C. James: Yes, there were impacts on the budget in ’19-20 and impacts that happened in March. The details of that will be coming out in the public accounts.

M. de Jong: Okay, I’m not going to dwell at length on that. I will ask, I guess, an obvious follow-up question to the last answer, as it relates to the budget as a whole and the impacts of the pandemic and the impact that it has had on revenue. I’ll try to ask a fair question, or to ask the question in a fair way.

[3:35 p.m.]

I’ll preface this: given where we are today and the magnitude of the impact that the minister has begun to quantify in her update and elsewhere, the order of magnitude may pale by comparison. Is the minister concerned — because of the impacts of COVID, the pandemic, the economic slowdown that began towards the end of February and into March — that the budget may have slipped out of balance for ’19-20, in advance of the present fiscal year?

Hon. C. James: I’ve been asked this question many times in the public and in the realm, and those details will come out in the public accounts.

M. de Jong: The numbers in the budget for anticipated carbon tax, for both fiscal year ’19-20 and fiscal year ’20-21, are not correct, and the minister has not tried to avoid that reality. Is she able to tell the committee today what the figure would be for the 2019-20 fiscal year?

For the budget estimate for 2021, for the moment, is it the best thing we can do to take her information from her fiscal update of July 14 and subtract, from the figure in the budget, the number she disclosed with respect to the carbon tax? When she talked about the carbon tax, fuel and carbon taxes, she talked about a reduced figure of $353 million. I take it that it’s for more than just the carbon tax, so we can’t just subtract that figure from the carbon tax. Is that correct?

Hon. C. James: I know we’ll get back to committee stage eventually and on to the direction that’s in front of us. But the ’19-20 numbers will come out in the public accounts. As the member knows very well, those have to be audited, and we have to go through that process. That number will come out in the public accounts shortly.

On the number that was utilized in the assumptions that we put together for July, the economic update, the number that the member refers to is for both fuel and carbon tax.

M. de Jong: I hope the minister understands that this may well…. We’re dealing with the budget implementation bill at a time when the budget has changed dramatically, for reasons we are all familiar with. To the extent that we spend a little bit of time on not just the numbers that have changed dramatically, this is really the opportunity to do that.

[3:40 p.m.]

Bill 4 purports to change the carbon tax, and I think it’s entirely appropriate to canvass what the anticipated revenues from that instrument of taxation would be. If the minister were tabling her budget today, what would the number for carbon tax revenue be? It would not, apparently, be $1.954 billion. What would it be?

Hon. C. James: The member knows well — I’ve had this discussion when we came out with the statement in July — that at this stage, we are making the best assumptions based on the information that we all have now.

To take a look at the year ahead, we will be coming out with the Q1, which will have a little more information. We’ll have a little more data, and we’ll be able to bring forward some of those numbers. Again, everything is going to be subject to change. This is going to be one of those years. I’m not going to guess today. As I said, we’re working on Q1. We’ll be bringing out an additional assumption in Q1, and we’ll have the opportunity for that discussion.

M. de Jong: When she did her fiscal update and just repeated that a moment ago, the minister told the world that anticipated revenues from fuel and carbon taxes will be $353 million less. All I’m asking for is the portion of that figure that relates to carbon taxes. She has indicated that it is an estimate. I think most people understand that; I certainly do. But she has disclosed that there will be $353 million less from fuel and carbon taxes. What portion of that is from the carbon tax?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: We’ll have the information shortly, so I can get back to it, if the member wants to go to on to another question.

M. de Jong: On a similar bent…. I’m just trying to make sure I understand the manner in which I should be reading the information that the minister provided at the fiscal update vis-à-vis the budget document that was presented in February.

For example, still on table 1.3, when she held her press conference on July14, the Finance Minister indicated that personal income tax revenue was anticipated, estimated to decrease by $999 million, almost $1 billion. Does it follow, then, that today the best estimate for personal income tax revenue is $11.771 billion minus $999 million?

Hon. C. James: Again, I can provide some information, but I would ask the member their relevance to the bill that we’re debating currently. I understand the carbon tax–related questions. Now we’re going into other data from the July statement. I expect that there will be lots of those questions through estimates, and we’ll have the opportunity. I’m just asking the member the relevance to this issue.

The Chair: Member, from the Chair, just for clarification, it seems like…. The Chair has been very generous to the member on section 1. But many of the questions seem like they’re not even in the bill. Maybe the member can focus more so on the bill or section 1.

M. de Jong: Thank you, as always, hon. Chair. It’s why I had the brief exchange with the minister at the very outset. The bill is the statutory instrument by which the budget that was tabled in this House is brought to life. The minister, in fairness, has made it clear that the numbers in the budget…. This is very unusual, and this is not a deliberate function of anything the minister has done. The numbers in the budget that Bill 4 relate to are no longer accurate.

The minister is asking the House to endorse and pass Bill 4. In the ordinary course of events, we would know that endorsing and passing Bill 4 should give rise, if the minister is correct, to what is in the budget she has just tabled. But to the minister’s own credit, she has said that is not the case any longer. Circumstances have intervened so that we cannot have confidence that passing Bill 4…. In fact, the one thing we can be confident in is that notwithstanding the passage of Bill 4, these numbers are not correct.

So it is, I would submit, entirely legitimate, in advance of asking members to vote on this legislation, to ask the minister to disclose what she can about the accuracy of those numbers. It is the essence of the budgetary process. This is the budget implementation bill.

[3:50 p.m.]

The change is profound, and I’m going to ask the minister several questions to put on the record here in this House — not in a press theatre somewhere, but here in this House — the impact of what has taken place over the last four months. I think it is very relevant. I think it goes to the heart of the budgeting process.

The question was not meant to trick anyone. When the minister spoke outside of this House, I thought what she was trying to convey was that today, armed with the best information that she and the government and the treasury branch have, they are anticipating, in the various categories, reduced revenues of $6.3 billion. I want to make sure I’m understanding that correctly. I hope the minister doesn’t think that is somehow inappropriate in a debate about legislation that is all about breathing life into the budget. She acknowledged that a few moments ago.

I’ll ask the question again. Is the minister’s best guess today that she will be collecting — as part of the budget, in the area of personal income tax — essentially $1 billion less?

The Chair: Minister, I just want to say this. The comments the member has made — the Chair respects that and appreciates it — it sounded like they were more well-suited for the second reading of the bill. I leave it up to the minister, if the minister wants to continue to answer.

Hon. C. James: Thank you very much, Chair.

The member, more than probably many in this House, knows exactly the process that occurs when we go through the budget process and when we set budgets. He also recognized, at the start — as others have done and as everyone knows in our province — the kinds of challenges we are all facing with COVID-19, the kinds of difficulties, the unknown that’s ahead of us.

The July statement that we made, as I made very clear to the public, is a scenario of what could happen based on the current information that we had then. It’s completely subject to change, recognizing that the world could change again in another six months, when it comes to health, when it comes to the economy, when it comes to a second wave, when it comes to supports for individuals and businesses.

Yes, July was a scenario of what could happen based on the information. Based on that information, the member has those numbers. He knows exactly the kinds of numbers that are there. Does that mean those will be the numbers at the end of the year? It’s simply a scenario of what could happen, based on the best information that the best people in the Ministry of Finance are putting together now.

M. de Jong: I accept all of that. But I also make the proposition to the minister that it is entirely fair, as part of the budget process, which is what we’re in here…. Bill 4 is part of the budget process. We know that. We established it, to our mutual satisfaction, as part of this conversation.

Budgets are always about estimates and about forecasts. So was the document that the minister tabled on February 18.

[3:55 p.m.]

Surely, in asking Members of the Legislative Assembly to vote in favour of Bill 4, it is appropriate for Members of the Legislative Assembly to prod the minister to disclose, as best she can, how the numbers have changed in the intervening four months. Surely that is not unfair. Surely that is our job. Surely we’re expected to do that.

I can ask this basic question. Section 1 and the changes to the carbon tax were designed to assist in achieving what the minister and the government then thought would be a balanced budget. That’s not going to be the case anymore. The minister has not confirmed that on the record in this chamber, yet she continues to ask for members to support what is, in large measure, outdated legislation.

Again, what has happened is not the minister’s fault or the government’s fault with respect to the pandemic. But surely it is appropriate to at least ask the minister to share with this assembly, on the record in here, what she believes the impact could be. I haven’t asked for anything more than that.

There is a list of areas where revenue is expected to decline. We’re dealing, in sections 1 through 5, with the carbon tax. The minister and her staff, by now, will have that number. They’ve provided to the minister a scenario and said: “In this scenario, we believe that the number that was included in the budget tabled in February is no longer accurate. We think it could be reduced by as much as X.” I expect the minister’s staff now has that number.

Maybe I should take my seat, and hopefully, she’ll be able to disclose that number.

Hon. C. James: The member knows full well — in fact, coming forward with an economic statement — that the information is public, that we’ve had much discussion and that there are many opportunities to continue that discussion. We’ll have it, I’m sure, through this process, we’ll have it through our next bill, and we’ll have it through estimates. I think that’s important to note.

[4:00 p.m.]

Then just on the specifics that the member asked for, of the $353 million, $236 million is carbon tax, and $117 million is fuel sales. That would be reduced volume, obviously. That does not take into account the amount of the impact of not moving ahead with the increase in the carbon tax. That’s in another part of that economic statement, and that’s $146 million.

M. de Jong: I just want to make sure that I heard that correctly. Of that $353 million figure, $236 million would relate to the carbon tax. Is that correct?

Hon. C. James: So $236 million for the carbon tax, $117 million for fuel sales, comes to the $353 million; and then $146 million that was also not the full moving ahead on the carbon tax increase on April 1.

M. de Jong: Okay. That’s helpful and likely saves us some time. If I went through a similar exercise for personal income tax, corporate income tax, employer health tax and took those estimates that the minister released on July 14 and subtracted them from the numbers — the fiscal year ’20-21 in table 1.3 of the budget — that would be the best guess today for what anticipated revenues from those sources would be. Would that be a fair statement?

Hon. C. James: I’m going to go back again, because I think it’s important to emphasize that this is simply a scenario. As the member knows from the document that was released, there are other scenarios that are possible depending on what will occur. So the information that was in the document in July is the scenario based on the assumptions of the best information we have at that time.

M. de Jong: Thank you to the minister. In deciding whether or not to vote in favour of the legislation that implements the budget, Bill 4 being the budget implementation bill, is there anything other than that scenario of July 14 that Members of the Legislative Assembly can look to, to derive some notion of what the new numbers are?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Again, coming back to the July statement, the member will know from this statement that was released that it’s very clear that this is, again, the best assumption based on the information that we have at the time. It is the most up-to-date information that we have at the time. We will continue….

We said clearly in the statement that it is simply a scenario, not a full fiscal statement, because there isn’t at this point the kind of data that we need for a full fiscal statement. Q1 will come out, and we’ll continue to make revisions. As the world changes, as the economy continues to grow, as we continue to see those shifts, those will be accounted for in the quarterly reports.

M. de Jong: Again, I’m not quarrelling with anything the minister has said, and I recognize that in the ordinary course of events, Bill 4 would have come and gone months ago. The minister would have tabled her budget. Within a few days, we would have debated Bill 4, and it would have related to a budget that the minister was still commending to the House, that was still accurate. That is not the case this year. The minister knows that. I know that. Most people know that.

The budget that Bill 4 originally referred to showed a modest surplus. On the record in this chamber to the people who are asked to vote for or against the legislation that implements the budget, can the minister disclose what her expectations are about the final outcome of the budget for fiscal year 2020-2021? It apparently will not be balanced. Can she put on the record what her expectation is about the budgetary deficit that members of the assembly should anticipate?

Hon. C. James: Again, I’m going to emphasize, just as I did in the public announcement that I made in July, on the assumptions and the scenario based on the best information we have…. As the member knows full well in that scenario, because it was made public, $12.5 billion was the estimate based on that current scenario. That could shift.

We included, in fact, a number of risks in that document, risks that could be positive or negative, depending on this situation, depending on what happens with health, depending on what happens with second waves, depending on what happens with economic growth. So the July statement, as the member knows, the public statement, included $12.5 billion.

M. de Jong: Has anything changed in the intervening two weeks that would lead the minister to want to advise the members of the assembly of changes to that estimate? With all of the caveats that she has attached to it, has anything occurred or has she become aware of information between then and now that would cause her to adjust that estimate?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Yes. As the member will know again, not only because it’s tabled as supplementary estimates in this House but, in fact, will be debated in estimates and also was announced publicly. The federal government has put in place recovery dollars and an opportunity to be able to receive funding from the federal government if it is matched at the province. So supplementary estimates has included an additional $1 billion to that number.

M. de Jong: To be clear, then, on the record, the potential deficit, with all of the caveats that the minister has laid out, instead of $12.5 billion, would now be $13.5 billion.

Hon. C. James: Again, it’s simply an assumption based on the information we have currently. It’s simply a scenario put forward.

M. de Jong: I guess I’m curious because maybe I’m missing something. I think that in advance of asking members to vote on budget implementation legislation and sections that relate to taxation, it’s fair and appropriate to have that information from the minister in this chamber. I hope the minister agrees with me, but I sense she feels that I am somehow being obstructionist in trying to draw that information out of her in this forum.

Hon. C. James: I’m prepared for another question.

M. de Jong: In the update just prior to…. I’m not going to go through all of the various areas of reduced revenue, because the minister has provided, I think, a satisfactory blanket answer about how we take the numbers from her update and apply them to the budget document. But I do note that when you compare slide 12 with table 1.3 of the budget document, there is an estimate of change for virtually every category — for personal income tax, corporate income tax, employer health tax, provincial sales tax, property transfer tax, carbon tax. The only one that I didn’t see on slide 12 of the update related to the insurance premium tax, which, in the budget, is anticipated to collect revenues of $660 million.

Is there a reason that that particular source of revenue, $660 million, wasn’t included in the fiscal update on slide 12?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: There was no inclusion of the insurance premium tax, presuming at this stage, based, again, as a scenario, on the information that was available. Not good data on whether there would be a shift in people’s behaviour when it came to buying health insurance or property insurance. Again, information will come forward and will be adjusted as we continue bringing forward Q reports and additional scenarios.

M. de Jong: Does that mean today, on July 26, the minister is standing by the estimate for insurance premium tax revenues of $660 million?

Hon. C. James: Again, the July information was a scenario. It was based on the information that was available at the time. The best information available at the time. That’s the number that is built in. What will happen in Q1 — and what will happen as we move along in the year — will be adjusted if it needs to be. Both based on the information from public accounts for ’19-20 as well as ’20-21.

M. de Jong: Well, the minister is intelligent enough to know why I would be interested. We have seen, for the million-plus British Columbians living in strata title condominium homes, a dramatic increase, and there is a suspicion that that is translating into something of a small windfall on the taxation front, where insurance premiums are going up 100 percent, 200 percent, 500 percent.

Has the minister, to this point, received any information, any documentation, any data to indicate that the amount of revenue being received by government from the insurance premium tax is increasing significantly beyond the $660 million she anticipated when she tabled the budget in February?

Hon. C. James: Again, I know the member knows this, but just to remind the member that the insurance premium tax includes a broad range of insurance, which includes auto insurance. No, there is not information — when the July statement came out — right now, good data to be able to build into a scenario.

[4:20 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I’ve got a few more questions, and then I think I have some colleagues that will have some questions for the minister on this section or perhaps some general questions. This does fall into the category of a more general question, again, relating to the overall state of the budget and the impact of section 1 and the subsequent sections in terms of the overall state of the budget.

When she made her announcement on July 14 — and I think everyone was watching very closely — the minister commented, I thought, with a measure of pride. In the slide directly before observing where the losses of revenue were, slide 12, on her slide 11, she, I thought, wanted to make the case about the overall strength of B.C. heading into these challenges. She talked about Budget 2020 including a surplus, at the time, of $227 million.

She also pointed, I thought, with a measure of pride to the absence of operating debt. It struck me that, in the manner in which the minister referred to that, she saw it as a good thing — the absence of operating debt. But now is my chance to ask the minister that.

Is that a good thing? And if it is a good thing, why is it a good thing?

Hon. C. James: We are for certain outside the committee stage completely on any of these questions. But since the member asked about the direction of budgeting, I would be happy to talk a little bit about the direction that we have taken as a government on preparing the budgets — the three budgets that we have tabled since we became government.

We believe, in fact, in a balance. We believe that the economy is there to provide support for the people of British Columbia, to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to take part in the economy. That means critical investments that are not only social investments but, in fact, economic investments. That’s a very different kind of approach than was taken by the previous government.

We, in fact, have been providing support to make life more affordable for families. We have, in fact, been providing support to improve services that people rely on and supports that people rely on that have not been there for many, many years. We have been doing the work that needs to be done to be able to build a sustainable economy that recognizes the importance of our responsibility to address climate action, our responsibility to make sure that we look at adjusting that in the economy and building a sustainable economy.

In doing so, in looking at those three priorities, we have, in fact, made major investments in areas that, as I mentioned, are not simply social investments but, in fact, are economic investments — child care being one of those examples. The pandemic has certainly shown us the critical nature of investing in child care when it comes to supports that are needed for growing an economy. We have done that while continuing to balance the budget, while continuing to bring forward the importance of fiscal responsibility and eliminating the operating debt.

The member will know, again, full well, as I said on budget day…. I know that this was a very important issue to the member when he was Finance Minister, and I acknowledged that in my budget statement, that I recognized that that was an important piece and that he played a role in that. We continued with that role.

We are now in a very different situation, as the member knows full well. where the critical nature right now of investments in people and businesses to be able to grow our economy again is going to be very important.

M. de Jong: When Bill 4 was tabled, it was tabled on a day when the minister was touting a $227 million budgetary surplus. It is being debated now, four months later, in circumstances where we are staring at a $13.5 bil­lion deficit.

[4:25 p.m.]

If this is not the moment for members and oppositions to at least ask questions of the government’s Finance Minister about those circumstances, then I don’t know when is. I’m troubled to hear the minister say that this falls outside of the…. I’ll remind her again. When we get to the end of this debate, which we surely will at some point, you, Mr. Chair, will ask: “Shall the title pass?” We don’t really think about that too much. The title is the budget implementation bill.

The budget has changed in the span of four months to a larger degree than ever in the history of the province. I get the sense that the minister is bothered somehow that people would want to ask questions about her views on how that is changing or what information she might have. She’s the head of a large department of very skilled people and will have data at her disposal that the rest of us don’t have. We’re simply asking her to share as much information as she can about that circumstance.

I’m not going to ask the minister in the context of this discussion about when the operating debt…. Well, maybe I should verify this. Based on the information that the minister has provided the House, at the end of this fiscal year we will again have an operating debt. I think most people understand that. They understand the necessity for it. They accept it. But they also deserve to know that we will have an operating debt of, our best estimate today, $13.5 billion. Is that correct?

Hon. C. James: Yes. As I’ve already stated, $12.5 billion was the information that came forward as part of the scenario that was tabled. An additional $1 billion is to ensure that we receive support from the federal government for recovery that will make a huge difference to people and to businesses in British Columbia. Obviously, that means an operating debt.

M. de Jong: I’m not going to ask the minister when. I’m not sure that’s a fair question. But does the minister believe that that is a debt that needs to be repaid?

I ask this because I have heard from commentators, economists who now advocate that that’s not so. I am genuinely interested to know the minister’s view and the government’s view on this. That estimate of $13.5 billion will undoubtedly grow in subsequent years. The minister has carved out three years’ worth of room for the government to address some of these needs and, undoubtedly, add to that. But as a philosophical question, does she believe that that amount will need to be repaid one day?

Hon. C. James: I think I’ve described the difference in values that we have, compared to the past government. We don’t believe in having a surplus simply for the sake of a surplus, rather than investing in the services and supports that people rely on in our province.

We have shown that over the last number of years in a balanced approach, being fiscally responsible and investing in people and businesses and in climate action that is needed in our province. And we will continue to approach budgets from that perspective, looking at that balanced approach that is needed for the people of British Columbia.

M. de Jong: Well, I didn’t hear an answer. I thought it was a fair question, and that is whether, philosophically, the minister saw eventually, when circumstances allow for it, the reduction in the operating debt as a positive thing. But she chose not to answer that.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Maybe I can ask her this, from the perspective of a Finance Minister. If the day arrived where the government did choose and was able to begin to reduce that now accumulating operating debt, what is the mechanism for doing it? How do you do that when you’re government?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’m not going to speculate on what we may see when we’re in the middle of a pandemic and when the people of our province are focused on the supports that are needed and the businesses of our province are focused on the supports that are needed to be able to look at economic recovery. There will be, no question, a need to spend, as we have done since the day we became government, every dollar wisely. That is critical. These are not the member’s dollars; these are not our dollars. These belong to the people of British Columbia, and they expect their government to spend every cent of those dollars wisely.

Will the budget need to continue to look at how we spend those dollars wisely to ensure that we are supporting the people of British Columbia, to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to be able to take part in our economy, to ensure the supports and services that are needed for equity in our province — that we deal with reconciliation and that we address the issue of climate action? Yes, that is what the government expects of us. That is the work we are going to continue to do, Member.

M. de Jong: Again, I didn’t hear an answer, to the question, from the minister. I’ll give her my version of the answer, and she can take issue with it if she likes, if she chooses. The reason the minister was able to boast of us heading into this incredible challenge of the pandemic without being saddled by an operating debt is because governments that preceded her own took surplus moneys and paid down that debt.

I have tried to reconcile in my mind the minister, on the one hand, touting with pride the position B.C. has found itself in, going into and through this very, very challenging circumstance — and, as recently as two weeks ago, talking openly and referring to some of those indicators — without wanting to acknowledge how we got there. To this day, she doesn’t want to acknowledge how we got there.

The operating debt was finally paid down under the minister’s watch, in this government. It was eliminated — a pretty remarkable thing in this day and age. It was done on the strength of a budgetary surplus. Now, the minister didn’t stand and say: “We’re hoarding it.” No. She said: “Look, we’re actually positioning the province better.” It’s a good thing they did, because here we are confronted by a $13.5 billion, and growing, challenge.

In the questions that will follow, I expect the minister will be asked repeatedly to share — to the extent that she can with British Columbians, whose money this is, whose budget this is — the information that she has at her disposal so that people are aware. That’s what they ask. That’s what they’re entitled to: full disclosure.

We may have, and do have, concerns about the degree to which the program we’re on is sustainable in the absence of a clear strategy to restart and revitalize the economy. There’s no doubt that we have those concerns, but this is a conversation about the actual state of the budget.

I have no doubt that it has complicated measures in the extreme — and that is an understatement — for the Finance Minister to be obliged to debate and present a bill that was tabled in relation to a budget that is no longer valid, the numbers of which are no longer relevant to the conversation.

[4:35 p.m.]

No one is going to try and be unfair to the minister. There are a lot of variables out there, many of which she has mentioned, and a lot of downside risk. But I hope, going forward to some of the other questions on some of the other sections that will follow, that the minister will share, to the extent that she can, the information that she has so that British Columbians and the opposition, in having to vote on Bill 4, will be in the most informed position possible to do so.

The minister may wish to reply or not.

Hon. C. James: I’m not going to take a lot of time, but I can’t let it pass without adding a piece of history that the member conveniently has left out, conveniently has not mentioned as part of the legacy that was left us as a province, part of the legacy that was left to the people of British Columbia by the past government.

The member asked how we got here. Well, I think we have to remember, very clearly, the situation that many, many, many families faced in our province over that time period. MSP premiums doubling. Child poverty — highest rate in the country, right here in British Columbia, and the last province left without a child poverty reduction plan. Bus passes taken away from people with disabilities. Doubling of tuition. Child labour laws that were scorned by the rest of the world. A lack of child care. I could go on about the real legacy that seems to have been left out when the member was talking about the importance of fiscal responsibility.

I am very proud of the fact that we are not only fiscally responsible as a government, but we also made sure that we balanced that with the critical things that are needed for people in this province. So I think it was important to put on the record just a very short synopsis of some of the challenges that, as I said, the member conveniently left out.

S. Bond: We have no further questions on this section. We can actually move through to section 8, please.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

S. Bond: Thank you for the opportunity to build on the argument and the points that have been made so eloquently by my colleague, a former Minister of Finance.

Ironically, I would just digress ever so briefly to remind the Finance Minister that her comments just now…. We certainly agree with something — that British Columbians are focused on a lot of things, and they relate to the pandemic and taking care of their families. Perhaps she’d like to comment, then, on why the Premier is considering an opportunity for an election in the fall. I hardly think that fits in with what the Minister of Finance has talked about.

[4:40 p.m.]

The minister talked a little bit about MSP premiums. I am wondering if she can describe for me what else may be dealt with in this particular bill related to the employer health tax.

We know this. The minister and her government are actually known for double-dipping with the employer health tax. As the member previous to me commented on, there are enormous gaps with the Budget Implementation Act and where we actually find ourselves today. The employer health tax has actually won an award, a red tape award, because it forces employers to guess their payroll for the year and penalizes them if they get it wrong.

Can the minister tell many British Columbians whether or not this act, this bill, does anything to fix that problem?

Hon. C. James: This section, 8 — the member is quite right — deals with the employer health tax. This is about delegating appeal decision-making power. There are a number of different acts throughout this bill that have this same kind of section. That’s the only relationship to the Employer Health Tax Act that the member was asking about.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. As we look at the line of questioning that was started earlier, I’m wondering if the minister could just, for our benefit, indicate to us whether or not, since she made the fiscal update…. We know that the employer health tax, for example, has been deferred. I know that many business owners have found some relief there. But with that deferral, comes the issue of repayment.

Again, because this is the Budget Measures Implementation Act, is there anything that the minister can tell us that she is aware of, after her most recent fiscal update to us, about the rate of return of those deferred payments?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: We have received…. The member is quite right. As the member knows, we have deferred the employers health tax payments. They don’t need to be paid until October 1.

The numbers so far: 73 percent of returns have come in already on those payments, and 75 percent of that 73 percent have included their payments as well. So 73 percent of people have already done their returns on their employers health tax, and 75 percent of that 73 percent have already paid.

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the Finance Minister. I appreciate that answer. I just want to confirm with the minister, then: looking at that rate of ability to pay and those who have already paid, does she anticipate there will be the need for material changes?

I know that she provided a scenario, and we’re going to deal with that, obviously, in estimates. But just at this point in time, does she anticipate that there will be a material gap between the expectations that she laid out in the update? She was very clear that there would be a lot of variability, but can she just confirm whether or not she thinks there will be a material difference from the initial scenario she presented?

Hon. C. James: I think it is an unknown. I know I’m repeating that often, but I think it is the time we’re in with COVID-19. We’ve had a couple of months’ worth of data, as the member will know. The member, when she was minister in the area of jobs, of course, knows that often that information varies so much month to month. It also is a couple of months behind in some cases. Retail sales, for example, were a couple of months behind. We’re a month behind in the employment data.

I don’t want to guess. I think there’s enough uncertainty for people out there than to speculate. I think we built a scenario based on the best data that we had, and a credit to the Finance staff and to our economists and to our departments who worked hard to make sure that they could put together the best scenario. But it is simply that. It is simply a scenario.

Does that mean that we’re continuing to look at things like the deferrals that are in place and look at whether there need to be extensions or there need to be changes? Yes, we’re reviewing all of that and, obviously, talking with business groups and talking with others about what makes the best sense.

S. Bond: I’m ready to move on to the next section.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

S. Bond: Chair, I appreciate you moving through these sections.

The Finance Minister can perhaps just clarify section 10 for us. Again, this is a section that deals with delegation of powers, but it’s related to the homeowner grant this time.

[4:50 p.m.]

We’ve certainly seen the empowerment of the minister to delegate decision-making respecting appeals of decisions. Could the minister outline for us: does this contemplate administrative changes, or is it rectifying an error, and if so, how? Could the minister just give us some clarity?

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question. I think this is an important piece, and it’s actually an important piece for consumers. That’s really who this change is about. It’s about making sure that people have the opportunity to have appeals heard in a timely way and to move them along. So we’re one of the rare jurisdictions that doesn’t have delegated authority, beyond the existing act, which basically says that appeals have to be heard by the deputy minister or the associate deputy minister.

This provides an opportunity, with more straightforward appeals that come forward that would already have case law, that’d already be looked at, for the minister to be able to delegate further than those two positions to be able to ensure that these appeals can be heard in a timely manner.

This, really…. No change in policy. No change in direction from that perspective. Simply an opportunity for the system not to get clogged up, as people were coming forward with appeals because, in fairness to people who’ve gone through that process, they need them to be heard in a timely manner. This provides that opportunity, and as the member mentioned, in a whole number of acts, it gets mirrored so we can ensure that that occurs.

S. Cadieux: We can move on to section 11.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

S. Cadieux: I understand that this section brings into force the new income tax bracket on incomes over $220,000 a year. What was the outcome of the gender-based analysis done of this tax measure?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question. Again, this is a piece that we are now starting to add to the budget as we look at doing more work around the gender analysis. I think it’s important information for all of us and for making decisions in the future, in particular, as we go along.

This tax will hit approximately 1 percent of the population of our province. Seventy percent of those impacted are men, and 75 percent of all of the individuals who are impacted are married or in a common-law relationship.

S. Cadieux: Well, given that the higher-income earners are usually male and that government is looking to increase revenue through this measure, and the minister is responsible for gender equity under her portfolio, why hasn’t the minister brought forward pay equity legislation to bridge that gap and balance out the proportion of earners in that tax bracket?

Hon. C. James: No, we’re not debating pay equity and the pay equity legislation at this point. There are a number of ways to reach pay equity, including investments that we’ve made as government in our budgets, including everything from minimum wage and the support for minimum wage to investments in child care and the critical investments in child care to wages for child care workers, as well, to the support that we provided to our health care workers. There are a number of ways — including pay equity as one of them — and abilities to be able to address pay equity.

S. Cadieux: Yes, and I don’t disagree with the minister. But I do find it interesting, given that this tax bracket is going to affect the top earners of the province, and at least 107 of those people are government employees.

Can the minister confirm that that is indeed the case, and can the minister tell me what percentage of the government employees affected by this tax are men, versus women?

Hon. C. James: I don’t have any numbers around, and we don’t make tax policy based on how many government employees might or might not be impacted by the tax policy. We make tax policy based on fairness, and that’s part of my mandate as Finance Minister — a fair tax system, to create a fair tax system in this province.

[5:00 p.m.]

We certainly felt, as government, that it was reasonable to ask those who are making the most in our province to pay a little bit more from the services and supports that we all benefit from. If we’re talking about investments in affordable housing or child care, for example, those are benefits to growth in the economy, which benefits not only those making more than $220,000 but, in fact, benefits all British Columbians.

One piece of information the member will probably remember from the budget tabling is that we expect that half of the revenue that comes from this increase will come from those making $1 million or more.

S. Cadieux: Can the minister confirm for us, at this time, what they are forecasting this tax will bring in, in this fiscal year?

Hon. C. James: The expected revenue, which was tabled in the budget in February, was $216 million from this tax.

S. Cadieux: Is there an expectation that this income bracket will be affected negatively by COVID-19?

Hon. C. James: We expect, as the member will know from the scenario that was tabled, that, in fact, almost every area, when it comes to personal income tax and corporate income tax, will be impacted, yes.

S. Cadieux: Then the minister is telling us that we expect that this tax measure and the projected revenue of $216 million will not, in fact, be the case and that there will be somewhat less revenue received this year, but the minister is not prepared to tell us how much. Is that correct?

Hon. C. James: I know members will get tired of hearing me say it over and over again. This is simply a scenario. It is simply a scenario and an estimate of where we’re at.

[5:05 p.m.]

For the July scenario, the expectation was that rather than $216 million for the year, we could be looking at $198 million. Again, simply a scenario based on the best information we have and with all the risks that are assessed already.

S. Cadieux: With that, Mr. Chair, we’ll move to section 13.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

S. Cadieux: In this section, we’re talking about charitable giving. Can the minister explain how this section impacts charitable donation tax credits?

Hon. C. James: Two pieces that are important in this section. The first one is that for anybody below the new tax bracket — so anyone who is below the 220 — nothing changes. They receive the same amount of charitable donation that they have now, and nothing changes in that regard. For anyone above that, they’ll receive a higher charitable donation that recognizes the higher tax that they’re paying.

S. Cadieux: So if I understand it, then, by limiting the highest percentage rate to incomes above $220,000, does that in any way limit tax credits for individuals of lower income categories?

Hon. C. James: No change for anyone below the new tax bracket. There will be no change. They will receive exactly what they’ve been receiving. There is no shift there. The only shift is for the new tax bracket and increase in the amount for the new tax bracket to recognize the tax they are paying.

S. Cadieux: So minister, do you think that this change actually encourages charitable giving or discourages it within that income group over $220,000?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think we always want to do what we can to encourage people to give charitable donations, but this really is a neutral process when it comes to tax. This is meant to recognize the higher amount of tax paid, and therefore, the room for the donations. But as I said, I certainly hope it encourages everyone to be able to give charitable donations, particularly during this time of the pandemic, when we know groups and organizations need the support.

S. Cadieux: Well, I would agree with the minister on that. They certainly do, and we’ll talk about that more when we get through the estimates process. But certainly, the charitable sector is in dire straits at the moment. Anything we can do to encourage those who are able to support that sector and ensure that those services continue to be available through this time and into the future is, of course, most important.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I believe we can move to section 21.

The Chair: The recommendation is that we consider 13 to 20 as a single vote. Are there any concerns with that? Hearing none, I guess this is an omnibus vote on 13 to 20.

Sections 13 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

S. Cadieux: Minister, could you please just provide us an explanation of the necessity or purpose for incorporating this section around federal tax reference?

Hon. C. James: Could I just ask the member to clarify? I think section 21 is a consequential amendment, which is related to the political contributions. We may be on the wrong section. Just checking to make sure.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister, for the clarity. That’s all of the clarification that I need.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

On section 23.

S. Bond: Section 23 and, later, section 28 — I have a question around film tax credits.

[5:15 p.m.]

Perhaps we can just…. I’ll try to sort of package them here a little bit. Obviously, a very important part of the economy, looking at film in British Columbia. Can the minister confirm that productions that do not provide certification within an appropriate time frame cannot claim the credits that would have otherwise been obtained prior to certification? Perhaps she could address that question. Also, does this oblige productions to serve notice to the Minister of Tourism?

Hon. C. James: The member is right. Perhaps I’ll give a little background around why the precertification process, why the discussion occurred and how it occurred, because I think it’s relevant to all of these sections and certainly to the questions that the member asked as well. Precertification has been a discussion with the industry itself. I think, as the member will know well, this is a critical industry, as the member has said, to our province, a critical industry when it comes to our economy and good-paying jobs for people in our economy.

One of the real challenges over a number of years — not simply in our time as government but, in fact, over a number of years — with the film tax credits is they’re often claimed and they could be claimed for a number of years after production had occurred. That created some real challenges when it came to estimating in budgets how much the credits were going to cost, what the estimate was each year, because there would be years when productions would bring in their credits late. They were large productions. There were large credits.

So we’ve been sitting down over the past year, previous to COVID, having discussions with the industry about how we could find certainty, how we could define certainty. We wanted to make sure this was a process we did together because, again, this is critical for all of us.

I’m pleased to say that this was supported by the industry as well, because they recognize that providing that certainty ensures that the credits will continue and that the support will continue. That’s why you see this next number of sections related to precertification and work that has gone on there, because this is work, in fact, that’s been done with the industry, so we can provide a little better certainty around what costs are.

The productions can still claim credits, even if they haven’t put a notification in. The member mentioned the notification to the Minister of Tourism. That goes through Creative B.C. Yes, it’s a notification to the minister, but it goes through Creative B.C., the existing organization for the industry. So that’s where the notification flows.

Productions could still claim the credits if their notification is late — for example, if they weren’t aware or they didn’t know that they needed to get the information in. Some expenses may be excluded because of that. Certainly, one of the things that Creative B.C. and others have been doing is making sure that the information gets out so that people know that precertification is there.

I think this is one of those ones that will provide greater certainty to the industry and greater certainty to government, so a win-win from that perspective.

[5:20 p.m.]

S. Bond: Just one quick follow-up, hon. Chair, and then we can move on to section 28.

Will any of the recovery funds, the COVID recovery dollars, be spent to pay for film tax credits?

Hon. C. James: No decisions have been made at this stage. Certainly support for the industry, for the creative industry, is a critical part of discussions. There have been very good proposals come in, in that regard.

S. Bond: With that question, we can move on to section 28.

Sections 23 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

S. Bond: This section is a notice of film tax credit. I simply have one question about this. I’m wondering if the minister could let us know if this measure is intended to add some certainty to the film tax credit. What kind of change is it expected to have on tax credits, going forward? Will this be reflected in the budget document? Again, this is another piece of that…. When the budget was tabled…. There are some significant changes. Now there is this additional change. Can the minister speak to that question, please?

Hon. C. James: This measure in itself is not meant to encourage or discourage. It really is about certainty. The measure itself is about certainty and looking at how we provide certainty to the tax credits. The member did ask, though, do we expect that there will be an impact on tax credits because of COVID, because of the challenges? I think there is no question. Again, it’s too early to gauge. We’re starting to see some productions come back, but when you have international travel curtail the filming of larger productions…. We expect, yes, there could be a shift, but again, it’s a bit early yet to know what those numbers could look like.

S. Bond: My next question would be at section 41.

Sections 28 to 40 inclusive approved.

On section 41.

[5:25 p.m.]

S. Bond: Just a quick question there for the minister. This is the Insurance Premium Tax Act, International Business Activity Act and the Land Owner Transparency Act section.

Could the minister just speak to what types of decisions will be delegated under this act, just so we have a sense of that? We’re looking at 41 through to 43. What is the current caseload of appeals? Perhaps she could just address that at the same time.

Hon. C. James: Perhaps I’ll speak first about the kinds of things that could be delegated — the kinds of appeals that would come forward. As I mentioned in the previous discussion we had about the previous act — because, as the member mentioned, this is a piece we’re putting in a number of different acts — it would usually be the kinds of things that would be routine, that would already have pieces in place, a precedent in place, etc.

It’s not expected for these three acts — for the insurance premium, the international business activities and land titles — that there would be a lot of pieces to appeal. Often, these acts have pieces coming forward that are complex and that involve large amounts of money. These are unlikely to be delegated in these acts.

The member asked about the numbers. We have numbers for the ’19-20 year. The International Business Activity Act had seven appeals. The Insurance Premium Act had nine appeals. The land titles — they’re just putting together their compliance. They didn’t have any appeals at this point, because they’re just finishing formulating their compliance piece.

S. Cadieux: With that answer, I believe we can now move to section 49.

Sections 41 to 48 inclusive approved.

On section 49.

[5:30 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: Can the minister confirm, or not, that this part of the act is to bring property tax deferrals — that process — online and to shift to an online deferral process?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. James: Yes, this is related to moving online — again, kind of customer service, as we talked about in one of the previous pieces — a centralization to move it online. It also allows people to apply any time. Again, it’s meant to reduce backlog, to be able to move ahead and to provide better service.

S. Cadieux: We’ve been hearing a lot of complaints from seniors expressing frustration with the online system and, through the change in process, that they weren’t informed that they had options for phone or paper deferrals. With the deadline having passed, some seniors may not have been able to submit on time.

I guess I’ve got two pieces for the minister to address quickly in her answer, I believe. Then, Chair, after the minister’s answer, we can move to section 62.

What will the minister do to ensure that taxpayer seniors are not left out due to difficulty accessing online means, or offline means, as it may so be? What was the gender-based analysis outcome of this tax measure?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’m glad the member raised it, because often when there are shifts like this, it’s a great process for many, many people and a challenging process for some who may not have access to technology or the ability. In each of those processes, I know that the staff work hard to try and provide that support.

No question, when the phone line opened up, there were some long wait times. So additional staff were added. When people call in, they actually have the ability to be able to help them go online and be able to fill out the form. That’s successful for many, many people when they phone in. When they phone in, they can also request the form by mail. They can download it themselves through Service B.C. and municipalities, and it can also be mailed to them as well.

Just an estimate, so the member knows: we’ve received 60,000 forms online and 4,500 paper copies that have been mailed in. That process is available.

Then the admin process that we have through the online shows people who’ve made an attempt to fill out the form and haven’t been successful. The form hasn’t been finalized or finished. We have the ability to also get back to those people and be able to help them get the process completed or to not penalize them if they tried and weren’t successful and didn’t get it completed. We have an option to be able to address that issue as well.

All of those supports are in place to assist people who aren’t keen on moving online or aren’t able to, for whatever reason.

Sections 49 to 61 inclusive approved.

On section 62.

[5:40 p.m.]

S. Bond: I’m just going to group a couple of questions together. I’m sure that in the middle of a pandemic, people have probably forgotten that this bill adds a number of new taxes. That’s what the majority of components are about. Obviously, there is the fondly known Netflix tax, but these sections — from 62 up to 74, I believe it is — talk about the soda tax. I mean, we’ve received a lot of questions about this. So maybe let me just ask the minister to clarify a couple of things.

First of all, what drinks are going to be captured by the soda tax? Secondly, how are combos impacted — so if you get a drink with your combo meal?

The other issue is: if you are purchasing a drink out of a vending machine and there’s a sugary beverage in there, does that mean that all of the drinks that are contained within that vending machine are covered?

Those are kind of the core questions that we’ve certainly heard a lot from consumers about. So perhaps the minister could just address soda tax in one little bundle there.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for bundling the questions. I know there will be others, but this is a good start, I think, on this section, as the member has described.

What drinks are captured? Carbonated drinks that are sweetened. That’s basically the summary of the drinks that are captured. That does exclude liquor and liquor substitutes. So non-alcoholic beer, for example. Those are excluded. Basically, a carbonated, added sweetened beverage.

The member asked about a vending machine. Yes, if the vending machine sells carbonated sweetened beverages, then everything in that vending machine will be charged the tax. If the vending machine doesn’t sell soda beverages at all, which, as many people know, our schools have moved to…. There was a big move to move schools away from soda beverages and to healthy beverages. If they’ve moved away, then it isn’t taxed. Nothing in that machine is taxed.

Then the issue of combo meals, an important piece as well. The PST will be charged on the soda beverage, on the usual price of what the soda beverage will be. So the entire combo meal doesn’t get charged. The PST gets charged on the usual price that the soda beverage would be sold for.

S. Bond: Those are all of my questions. Thank you.

Sorry, my colleague has her hand up.

The Chair: Member for Surrey South, what section would you be asking a question on?

S. Cadieux: You can move to section 89, Chair.

Sections 62 to 82 inclusive approved.

On section 83.

Hon. C. James: I move an amendment to section 83 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 83, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

83 The following section is added:

Authorization to sell, use or provide heated tobacco products

12.01 (1) In this section:

“sell, use or provide” includes

(a) to offer to sell,

(b) to use for advertising, testing or for any other purpose, and

(c) to make available for use or consumption;

“unauthorized”, in relation to a heated tobacco product, means a heated tobacco product that has not been authorized by the direc­tor to be sold, used or provided in British Columbia.

(2) A dealer must not sell, use or provide, in British Columbia, an unauthorized heated tobacco product.

(3) A dealer who intends to sell, use or provide, in British Columbia, an unauthorized heated tobacco product must give the following to the director:

(a) at least 90 days’ written notice of the dealer’s intention;

(b) all information and records required by the director respecting

(i) the contents and packaging of the unauthorized heated tobacco product, and

(ii) without limiting section 12.1, any other information the director considers necessary for the purpose of administering or enforcing this Act.

(4) Despite subsections (2) and (3), a dealer who sold, used or provided, in British Columbia, a heated tobacco product on or before February 18, 2020 may continue to sell, use or provide the heated tobacco product only if the dealer gives to the director

(a) written notice, on or before April 30, 2020August 31, 2020, of the dealer’s intention, and

(b) the information and records described in subsection (3) (b), as required by the director.

(5) A dealer to whom subsection (4) applies but who does not comply with the conditions of that subsection must not sell, use or provide the heated tobacco product in British Columbia after April 30, 2020August 31, 2020 unless the director authorizes the dealer to sell, use or provide the heated tobacco product in British Columbia.]

On the amendment.

Hon. C. James: This amendment is required to accommodate the new implementation date of August 1, 2020, for the specific tax on the heated tobacco products.

Amendment approved.

Section 83 as amended approved.

Section 84 approved.

On section 85.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I move the amendment to section 85 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 85, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

85 Section 44 is amended

(a) in subsection (2) by adding the following paragraphs:

(e.1) prescribing whether a product is or is not a heated tobacco product for the purposes of this Act;

(e.2) prescribing tax rates for the purposes of section 2 (2.1) (a) and, for this purpose, prescribing different tax rates based on different characteristics of heated tobacco products, including with respect to

(i) the weight of tobacco in each unit,

(ii) the number of units in a package,

(iii) the value of any tangible personal property purchased with a heated tobacco product, or

(iv) any other characteristic;

(e.3) for the purpose of clarifying the application of a tax rate prescribed under paragraph (e.2), identifying heated tobacco products subject to a prescribed tax rate by the name of the manufacturer or brand;

(e.4) prescribing an amount for the purposes of section 46.1 (1) (b) (iii); , and

(b) by adding the following subsection

(4) A regulation made under subsection (2) (e.4) on or before October 31, 2020December 31, 2020 may be made retroactive to April 1, 2020August 1, 2020 or a later date, and if made retroactive is deemed to have come into force on April 1, 2020the specified date.]

On the amendment.

Hon. C. James: This amendment is required to accommodate a new implementation date, again of August 1, for the specific tax on heated tobacco products.

Amendment approved.

Section 85 as amended approved.

Sections 86 and 87 approved.

On section 88.

Hon. C. James: I move the amendment to section 88 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 88, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Provincial Sales Tax Act transition – retroactive regulation-making power

88 A regulation made under section 237, 238, 241 or 242 of the Provincial Sales Tax Act on or before August 31, 2020December 31, 2020 may be made retroactive to February 19, 2020 or a later date, and if made retroactive is deemed to have come into force on the specified date.]

On the amendment.

Hon. C. James: This amendment extends the powers to make retroactive regulations under the Provincial Sales Tax Act from August 31, 2020, to December 31, 2020.

Amendment approved.

Section 88 as amended approved.

On section 89.

S. Cadieux: Just so the minister is aware, this will likely be the last question, depending on the answer.

Most of the rest of the bill talks about non-tax measures. It’s about the changes government is proposing to dates and timings of elections and the budgets that follow. Recognizing that this contemplates changes in government outside of elections, does subsection (2) give appropriate consideration to formal coalition governments, or is the subsection based on the balance of party members forming a government?

Hon. C. James: I appreciate the question from the member. This section speaks specifically to a political party forming government. It doesn’t speak to the coalition issue. It speaks directly to the members who form government and are recognized as government.

S. Cadieux: Thank you to the minister and staff. That’s the end of our questions.

Sections 89 to 102 inclusive approved.

On section 103.

Hon. C. James: I move an amendment to section 103 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 103, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Commencement

103  The provisions of this Act referred to in column 1 of the following table come into force as set out in column 2 of the table:

Item	Column 1 Provisions of Act	Column 2 Commencement
1	Anything not elsewhere covered by this table	The date of Royal Assent
2	Sections 3 to 5	April 1, 2020
3	Section 11	January 1, 2020
4	Sections 13 and 14	January 1, 2020
5	Section 20	February 19, 2020
6	Sections 29 to 32	February 19, 2020
7	Section 34	February 19, 2020
8	Sections 38 and 39	January 1, 2020
9	Sections 44 to 53	May 1, 2020
10	Section 58	January 1, 2020
11	Section 61	February 19, 2020
12	Section 62	July 1, 2020 By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council
13	Section 63	February 19, 2020
14	Sections 64 and 65	July 1, 2020 By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council
15	Section 66	February 19, 2020
16	Sections 67 and 68	July 1, 2020 By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council
17	Sections 71 and 72	February 19, 2020
18	Sections 73 to 77	July 1, 2020 By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council
19	Section 81	February 18, 2020
20	Section 82	April 1, 2020 August 1, 2020
21	Section 83	February 18, 2020
22	Section 85	February 18, 2020
23	Section 86	April 1, 2020 August 1, 2020
24	Section 88	February 19, 2020
25	Section 91	By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council
26	Section 93	By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council

On the amendment.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: This amendment just changes the commencement dates for items 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 and 23 in the commencement tables. This change recognizes the COVID-19 action plan and the commitments to delay and change some of the dates for the PST, for example, on soda beverages and the PST requirements on out-of-province business. It also reflects the new implementation date of August 1, 2020, for the specific tax on heated tobacco products.

Amendment approved.

Section 103 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

The Chair: Division has been called.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Members, the deferred division will take place shortly, pursuant to the sessional order regulating hybrid proceedings of the House.

The House stands recessed until 6:10 p.m.

The committee recessed from 6:01 p.m. to 6:10 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Chair: There will be two division votes tonight. The first one is on Bill 4, and then the second one on Bill 14. We’ll be dealing with Bill 4 first.

[6:15 p.m.]

Members, we will now proceed with the deferred division.

The question is: shall the committee rise on Bill 4 and report it complete with amendments?

[6:20 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 43
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chandra Herbert	Chen
Chow	Conroy	Darcy
Dean	D’Eith	Dix
Donaldson	Eby	Elmore
Farnworth	Fleming	Fraser
Furstenau	Glumac	Heyman
Horgan	James	Kahlon
Kang	Leonard	Ma
Malcolmson	Mark	Mungall
Olsen	Popham	Ralston
Rice	Robinson	Routledge
Routley	Simons	Simpson
Sims	Singh	Trevena
	Weaver
NAYS — 40
Ashton	Barnett	Bernier
Bond	Cadieux	Clovechok
Coleman	Davies	de Jong
Foster	Gibson	Hunt
Isaacs	Johal	Kyllo
Lee	Letnick	Martin
Milobar	Morris	Oakes
Paton	Polak	Redies
Reid	Rustad	Shypitka
Stewart	Stilwell	Stone
Sturdy	Sullivan	Sultan
Tegart	Thomson	Thornthwaite
Throness	Wat	Wilkinson
	Yap

The committee rose at 6:24 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 4 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2020

Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2020, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

[6:25 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, we will now proceed with the division with respect to Bill 14. As you know, the division has been called pursuant to the sessional order adopted on June 22, 2020. This has been deferred until now.

[6:30 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND
HOUSING STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2020

(continued)

Bill 14, Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2020, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 44
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chandra Herbert	Chen
Chouhan	Chow	Conroy
Darcy	Dean	D’Eith
Dix	Donaldson	Eby
Elmore	Farnworth	Fleming
Fraser	Furstenau	Glumac
Heyman	Horgan	James
Kahlon	Kang	Leonard
Ma	Malcolmson	Mark
Mungall	Olsen	Popham
Ralston	Rice	Robinson
Routledge	Routley	Simons
Simpson	Sims	Singh
Trevena		Weaver
NAYS — 40
Ashton	Barnett	Bernier
Bond	Cadieux	Clovechok
Coleman	Davies	de Jong
Foster	Gibson	Hunt
Isaacs	Johal	Kyllo
Lee	Letnick	Martin
Milobar	Morris	Oakes
Paton	Polak	Redies
Reid	Rustad	Shypitka
Stewart	Stilwell	Stone
Sturdy	Sullivan	Sultan
Tegart	Thomson	Thornthwaite
Throness	Wat	Wilkinson
	Yap

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:33 p.m.