Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading of Bill 7.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Hon. D. Eby: I move third reading.

Mr. Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 7, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021.

Division has been called. According to the sessional orders of April 12, this division is deferred until this evening.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Finance.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued es­timates debate for the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation. When that is done, I will recall the Ministry of Health.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and when that’s done, estimates for the Ministry of Transportation.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $307,466,000.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you for the opportunity to just make a few remarks before taking questions from the members opposite. I look forward to the questions and to the discussion that we will have.

I just want to say that it’s certainly quite an honour to be the Minister of Finance and that the Premier and the province of British Columbia have confidence in me to do that work. The Minister of Finance, for sure, in this time, is certainly a challenging role. It’s also been difficult for British Columbians right around the province. I’m not the only one. COVID-19 has impacted us in ways that I don’t think any of us could have imagined.

It’s also not my first time through the estimates process. It’s a process that I quite enjoy, and I recognize that the members opposite have an important job to do: to make sure that British Columbians are well aware of how government is making choices and that they are living up to their commitments.

I want to just say how grateful I am to follow in the shoes of Carole James, our previous Finance Minister. It’s certainly a privilege to now stand in her place. I’m grateful for the work that she’s done and the service that she has given to the people of British Columbia. She’s certainly set a high bar, and I hope that I can live up to that.

I want to acknowledge my team today, if I can take a moment to do that. The people supporting me are passionate and remarkable. They show their dedication to the people of British Columbia every single day.

I have Heather Wood, my Deputy Minister of Finance. I have a number of ADMs — Richard Purnell, Steve Hawkshaw, Jordan Goss, Tiffany Ma, Jim Hopkins, Doug Scott, Bobbi Sadler and Don Zadravec — who are supporting me here today. A whole host of other people are in various rooms around this building and in various offices around Victoria, all feeding in through the technology to help make sure that we can provide answers to the members opposite questions.

I want to begin with a deliberate emphasis on people rather than numbers. I know that in the Ministry of Finance, we talk about numbers an awful lot, and we will get to them soon enough. It’s just, I think, really important to remember that the true focus of our work here in government is really about people. It’s about making sure that people have the opportunities to live their lives fully, to take care of their families and to age with dignity.

I want to just say that the recovery benefit — I know we’re likely to get into that — has two big numbers. Over $1.3 billion in relief has been delivered to over 2.6 million British Columbians. That’s about 2½ million people who’ve benefited from relief in a very, very difficult time. One grateful recipient from Kamloops put it this way: “The bills don’t go away, but our family still needs to have food on the table.” They were grateful for that support.

The business recovery grant is expected to deliver a big number — $300 million — to thousands of businesses, like the tourism operator from Barry Island who said that he was out of options when he applied for the business recovery grant. He told us: “This grant gives us hope: hope by showing that our community and our government care about us, our region and our sector.”

The numbers that we debate here in the House are really about lives — lives that we touch with the decisions that we make. I know that others in this House who have been in this role can also attest to the weight that comes with the responsibility for how numbers on the page impact the people of this province.

[2:35 p.m.]

Our core commitment as government has always been and will continue to be to put people first. It guides all of our decisions. It is the heart of my mandate as minister, and it’s been front and centre as we face the challenges that COVID-19 has presented to all of us and the challenges that we as a government have faced head-on.

The numbers show that our government is providing more COVID support per capita than any other pro­vince, and the numbers show that our approach is working. We currently lead all major provinces in job recovery. Again, it’s the people that tell the story better, of how British Columbians have risen to the challenge with resilience. We have proven that we are stronger together. From day one, our government has had people’s backs. We will continue to do so, through this pandemic, right through to the end.

We began, with the pandemic, with bold and broad measures to provide relief quickly. If you recall, in those early days, we weren’t quite sure which way this pandemic was going to go and what the impacts were going to be. To date, we’ve invested over $10 billion in supports and services to help people, businesses and communities — to help them all get through this pandemic. And $10 billion is a big number that goes by in a breath. But again, there are millions of people who have benefited from that number.

There are smaller numbers with a big impact, like the 50 community sport organizations in the Interior who got a helping hand from the local sport relief fund. The executive director of the Okanagan Gymnastics Centre told us that the grant means that they will be able to “weather the storm and continue to offer safe programming both now and into the future.”

We are realistic about the long road ahead, and we’ve witnessed how quickly the situation can change. That’s why Budget 2021 allocates $3.25 billion in ’21-22 to continue to support pandemic response and economic recovery. It’s also why we’ve budgeted $4.6 billion, over three years, to maintain the pandemic and recovery contingencies to support measures related to the pandemic. We will continue to be responsive to the needs of people, to the needs of businesses and to the needs of communities and to see them through the pandemic and into a strong economic recovery that supports all British Columbians.

As we look ahead, we consider the province’s own re­turn to a balanced budget. Fiscal responsibility remains a priority of this government. The impacts and uncertainty of the pandemic make it too early to accurately forecast when we will have a balanced budget. We are working on a sustainable path forward, and we will have a detailed timeline, approach and plan ready for Budget 2022.

Within my own ministry, we are delivering programs to help businesses adapt and respond in their recovery from COVID-19. In the budget consultation process, we asked the business community what measures would help them get back on their feet and strengthen their recovery. The increased employment incentive and the PST rebate on select machinery and equipment were the result. The increased employment incentive supports employers that hired new people or brought people back who’d lost their jobs during the last three months of 2020. The PST rebate on select machinery and equipment can help B.C. businesses emerge from the pandemic stronger and better than before.

As part of the StrongerBC economic recovery plan, eligible businesses can recover 100 percent of the PST they pay on select machinery and equipment, furniture, computer hardware and software, and other important investments. That includes zero-emission vehicles and charging infrastructure. By providing a rebate on tools and equipment that help businesses grow, we are encouraging investments and helping to reduce the cost of growth for businesses in every sector and helping them prepare for recovery and seize the opportunities of a post-COVID economy.

Also within my ministry is the PST exemption on e-bikes. This may seem like a small item, but again, it has a big impact. I know that the owner of an electric bike centre in the Tri-Cities welcomed the exemption. This business is the oldest bicycle shop in the province. The owner’s father started the business in 1932. He told us that removing the PST had an immediate impact on his sales and noted that e-bikes have expanded the range, flattened the hills and brought equality for riders. I prefer to call it the invisible hand of dad helping you ride up that hill.

I paused slightly a little earlier, when I talked about a post-COVID economy. In some ways, it’s hard to believe it has been 15 months — 15 long, difficult months and a long, difficult road for many people. We can now see that brighter days are ahead, with moving into stage 2 tomorrow.

[2:40 p.m.]

This summer will feel a lot different than last summer. I welcome the warmth of brighter days. The people of this province, for sure, have proven their resilience time and time again throughout this pandemic.

The numbers we will discuss here today are really about one thing. It’s about supporting the people of this province. I know that together, we will recover. Together, we will build back stronger. I look forward to the members’ questions today.

Before I turn the floor over to the member, I just want to take a moment, if I might. This week is B.C. Public Service Week. It’s interesting that we begin the Ministry of Finance budget estimates debates today.

So it’s a good opportunity for me, with your indulgence, to really thank the members of the public service for the dedication and passion they bring to this work. I know this to be true every day in any year, but I do have to pause and take a moment about how hard they have worked this past year.

With government moving quickly to deliver services, to provide supports to people in a crisis, I have to give kudos and acknowledge the hard work of the public service, who worked long days, who worked weekends. I was getting — and I know my colleagues were getting — reports and ideas and submissions Sunday afternoon at two o’clock, knowing full well that they were working right through the weekend.

The members of the public service have put their minds and their hearts and their commitment into delivering extraordinary services and supports that people have needed throughout the pandemic. I just want to offer my heartfelt thanks and gratitude for their hard work over, certainly, these past 15 months.

The Chair: Happy anniversary.

M. Bernier: I’ll echo the Chair’s opening comment during the debate here. I, obviously, want to also wish a happy anniversary to the minister and her husband and the lengthy time that they’ve spent together, which almost mirrors the same as my wife and I.

I will go on the record and say my wife, too, has not gotten in the way, as your husband hasn’t for you — for the minister. You know, in today’s society, I think it’s important to acknowledge those successes as well, which talks about people.

I appreciate the minister’s opening comments. Let me just say that a good majority of what the minister said, obviously, I don’t take issue with. Everything government does or is should be about people. That’s why we’re here. That’s why we exist.

I think I could be as bold as to say I don’t think there is one person that’s elected in this chamber that didn’t run with the idea of wanting to make things better for people. We have a difference of opinion sometimes of what better is. We have different ideas around the province, sometimes because of geography or location or population base, of what is important. But at the end of the day, we all come to this place to try to make things better for people. So there is no debate around that. I don’t think there’s any argument at all.

I also want to congratulate and acknowledge the minister. She did take over for — I can use her name now — Carole James, who, I would say, also did an exemplary job. She was an amazing Finance Minister. As this minister says, big shoes to fill.

I know it’s a huge learning curve, as I can say I jumped in as the critic around the same time. One difference is I don’t have a big office and lots of staff to help me through that process. But I do have Ryan Mitton downstairs, my researcher right now, and the interns, who have done a great job helping me out during this time as I try to fulfil my duties as opposition Finance critic.

I think, as well, the minister in her opening comments acknowledged some of the things government has been doing. We’re going to dive into some of that a little bit later as we go through the process over the next few days, as well as remembering again: yes, it’s around people. Sometimes people want to understand the decisions — as I think the minister acknowledged — that government is making around that.

Let me just maybe get into this, I guess, and say… You know what? I’m going to go through some segments probably fairly quickly, because there is lot to cover in a short period of time. The majority of my commentary…. I think the minister will appreciate my style. She knows me well enough. This is not going to be about “I got you” politics. This is about trying to put things on the record. This is about the factual spending of the ministry’s money, government’s money and sometimes the decision-making processes that go into that.

[2:45 p.m.]

When we look at the Q3 report — let me just go to that. The 2020 budget posted a deficit of $5.5 billion less, lighter than original projections. When the minister originally announced what the deficit would be, she was, I think, quite — I don’t know if “excited” is the word — proud to say the deficit is not as large by $5.5 billion as they anticipated. But that came because of, notably, some tax increases that came in, some increased revenue. We’ll get into some of that maybe a little later. That won’t be the basis of my question right now. When we talk about property transfer tax and other things, I’ll probably get into those later on.

My question is more around contingencies. As we’re going into this budget cycle, there’s still the unspent $300 million, I believe, under Vote 52 from the pandemic contingencies — $300 million, and $330 million in general contingencies.

My question, as we’re going into…. I just want to spend a few moments on this side of things. As the minister said, sometimes we can work together, which we did for $7 billion, $8 billion of approved money last year. But some of that money didn’t get out the door. Maybe there are reasons for it, and we might get into some of that a little bit later.

Can the minister maybe just highlight for me…? We have these contingencies, money that was allotted, money that was not spent. Can she maybe give some explanations of why that money didn’t get spent?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for his opening comments. First of all, I think it’s important to recognize what was spent from the pandemic contingencies vote — $6.7 billion of spending happened as a result of our collective commitment, as a government, to support people. I appreciate the support from members across the way to make sure that we could support people through an unusual crisis and to make sure that people could pay the bills as best they could.

We also spent $810 million, which is the provincial component of the safe restart program. So significant spending did occur. The $630 million that the member is referring to was around some of the programs not getting fully expended in the time allotted. For example, the recovery benefit — we extended it to June 30.

Initially, actually, we knew that in terms of getting to five million British Columbians, making sure that they understood that they could access this support, we would need to extend beyond the fiscal year. Also, I think what’s really important to recognize is that these programs and the development of these programs were happening very, very quickly.

I would say, again, this is where I want to express tremendous gratitude to the public service, because they’d never done that before. They’d never been tasked with de­veloping a program where billions of dollars were going to be delivered to British Columbians, where the checks and balances haven’t been thought through 10,047 different ways, making sure that there was accountability built into the system, making sure that people that really were entitled to it were getting it. The pressure on them to get it right the first time was pretty significant. To turn around a program in a matter of weeks and, in some cases, days was, I think, a yeoman’s undertaking.

Certainly, there were, in some cases, some programs where it really didn’t quite hit the mark. It was hitting some of the folks that we knew needed supports but not all of the folks. As a result, we took it upon ourselves as government to then tweak those programs to make sure that they were hitting the mark and that these resources were getting out to people — which is why we extended the programs, to ensure that people could get the support and that the right people could get the support that they needed, beyond that fiscal year.

M. Bernier: I won’t follow through on any quotes from the minister on 10,047 ways of looking through. I do understand and appreciate the challenges — I think everybody in the House does — as we’re going through the pandemic, having to make policy changes quite quickly, and directing staff to follow through with those. I, too, should acknowledge the minister’s staff and government staff for that work, because I used to be on the minister’s side. I appreciate and know the work that goes on behind the scenes when that happens.

Obviously, there’s some frustration when there is money there, when we announced that, and when not everybody has access to it or are able to get it in a timely way. We’ll follow through with some of that a little later. More just on the numbers is what I’m worried about, on behalf of the people, as we talked about in the opening.

Can the minister explain to the House then, because of things changing and because of, maybe, extensions and applications…. We have a contingency of $630 million. What happens to that money? Does it get clawed back? Does it get carried over? What happens with those funds? The programs, as the minister highlighted, are still ongoing. Does that money now get carried over, by the minister, into the next fiscal? What’s the process for that?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member’s question, if I understand it correctly…. Again, it’s always sort of making sure you understood it correctly, because the answer is based on what I thought I heard the member ask. He wanted to know what happens if money isn’t fully allocated by the end of fiscal.

What happens to that money? It gets addressed against the deficit, but in this case, because the programs weren’t fully expended, we’ve built them into the following fiscal year, to make sure that the program can get fully allocated.

M. Bernier: Thank you. Quickly, so that I understand, then, the minister was on the right track with my question. Within the ’21-22 fiscal year, some of the programs that have been announced, then, are partially funded from contingencies from last year that have basically been carried over into this year? I’m assuming that it’s not new money that we’re asking for, I’m wondering, in this year’s budget, some of it. We have $630 million of contingencies, as we’ve talked about, and $300 million, which was part of the Vote 52.

[3:00 p.m.]

Those programs are still ongoing. The minister highlighted one of them, in the opening, around the COVID recovery benefit. That’s still ongoing, and some of the other ones are still ongoing. Just because a fiscal is a hard end and a hard start…. Money doesn’t always work that way, although from an accounting perspective, it does.

Maybe it’s a little convoluted the way I’m asking it. Again, I’m just trying to understand. In this year’s fiscal, some of that money in these programs is — I will use the term — carried over, for a lack of better words, if I understand correctly, then, from last year since it was part of the same program and not completely allocated last year.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to just thank the staff. They are scattered around the city trying to be helpful and bumping into each other occasionally in my earpiece. So you’ll bear with me as we try to coordinate.

The member touched on accounting principles. Here we live in a world…. I live in a world now surrounded by amazing accountants. Grateful for all of them.

When March 31 comes around, it is a hard end to the previous budget, and a new budget takes over. Whatever was not spent of the previous budget is…. It’s over. The budget is technically over and done. So what you see in this budget, the one that we’re debating now…. You see that built into our pandemic and recovery contingencies, the carryover from those programs, so that we could continue to deliver on the things that we’re all here for and to make sure that those people can get the supports that they need.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the minister’s answer. A bit of a learning exercise, also, as we go through this. We’re trying to understand just some of the processes that take place.

With that answer…. I know that there’s legislation that requires…. Now, this is not a surplus, but I know there’s legislation…. If there is a surplus at the end of the year, it goes to debt recovery.

In this case, I’m trying to understand…. If it’s contingencies, per se, that are on the books as money not spent, I would assume, then…. I’m looking for clarification from the minister. I would assume that means, technically, since we’re in a deficit situation, that’s money that was just never borrowed. It doesn’t…. That would also come off….

When I’m reading the budget documents, that $630 million, which was booked as money that the ministry thought they would spend and that ended up not being spent…. So that’s $630 million less, then, of the projected deficit. Is that fair to say? So the projected, not the reported, due to the fact that that money would not now need to be borrowed.

Then, going into the ’21-22 year, we’re now in that same situation of…. If that $630 million was now subscribed and needed, the ministry can access that, then, through borrowing or whatever means they need, into the next fiscal. I’m wondering if that makes sense, my question to the minister.

Again, I would see that $630 million as money, basically, that was never borrowed. So it’s not really there, to begin with. Is that, maybe, accurate?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is correct that what it means if we don’t…. Because we are in deficit, and we do have to borrow money, it means that we have to borrow less.

M. Bernier: I just want to turn a little bit, when we talk about borrowing and programs, to talk about the StrongerBC program as well. There are quite a few programs that have been rolled out over the last year, 18 months. This one specifically, though, was originally ap­proved in March of 2020, in the budget cycle there, then announced in September of 2020. But from what we see then, only around 40 percent of the supports were actually paid out in that program in the 2020 fiscal year. Sixty percent of businesses are still experiencing, though, struggles.

When you look at these programs that were put together…. Obviously, businesses, in essence, are people as well. We all agreed that it was critical to get those pandemic supports out the door. I’m not going to get into an exercise with the minister, which I think she would appreciate. On most cases here, she and I could go back and forth on reading quotes from people who are happy with the supports or people who are not happy with the supports. I mean, we could spend a lot of time doing that.

I think it’s fair to acknowledge, and I will acknowledge, that the reason why we supported a lot of these programs is because we knew that they would help people. So of course there’s going to be a lot of people, a lot of companies, a lot of groups that were able to access them and are going to be happy, in most cases. But that didn’t happen right across the board, as the minister can appreciate. I probably have a stack, just like she does, of people who are either disappointed, frustrated or maybe have questions, still, around accessing opportunities and grants.

So if only 40 percent of the supports were paid out so far, why is that? We’re over a year into the pandemic. I’m going to maybe ask some specific ones on specific programs in a second. But just in general, I’m looking for the minister’s commentary, I guess, on where the struggles were. Some were able to access things quickly, as I said, and there are other groups that are continually being frustrated and not being able to access programs. I don’t want to get into the debate on eligibility requirements and all that. But just in general, even with those who have qualified, there’s been a lot of angst out there around the time that it has taken to get the supports out the door.

It’s a bit of an opportunity just for the minister, maybe, to acknowledge, as she sees fit, where some of the challenges might have been. I think it’s fair to say there were challenges. I’m not expecting the minister to say every­thing was…. I know she’d like to say everything worked great. But, yeah, these were new programs. There are new initiatives. Things don’t always work, and things have to be changed.

The reason why I’m asking it is…. Where were some of the struggles? Going into this fiscal, because we’re still going through some of the challenges with the pandemic, especially with the business community, what can we learn from that? How do we make things better to get money out the door this year to help people?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: When I reflect back on the last 15 months, and we take a look at what we in this House de­cided to do collectively, in terms of supporting people and supporting businesses, it’s certainly, I think, become evident…. Certainly, we had…. The Third Party took a look at the amount of supports that the province was delivering for people and for businesses.

We know that B.C. ranks No. 1 in the provinces for support for businesses on a per-capita basis, which is a significant amount of work. Again, I want to thank the public service for their tremendous heavy lifting on this. What that means is that, certainly in my ministry — the Ministry of Finance — they were delivering on the recovery benefit right through Christmas, which was a significant amount of work. Even the telephone glitches — I know that the member had asked me some questions about that back in the day, which feels like a million years ago now — did get resolved. Millions of British Columbians have been receiving their support.

As well, I want to acknowledge that the ministry staff were also doing the top-up to the federal CERB, which we decided, collectively, that we would continue, to support British Columbians.

[3:15 p.m.]

Additional supports for business, like the IEI, the in­creased employment incentive program — as well as the PST relief program — got started a little bit later.

So there might be a perception that programs coming out of my ministry are a little bit delayed, which started after we got the recovery benefit rolling and while we were doing the top-up to the federal CERB. But these programs continue to roll right through. In fact, the PST relief goes right through to September to make sure that we can continue to support businesses that are choosing to invest and to grow their businesses.

M. Bernier: Thank you. I’m looking forward, I guess, to reading this document that the minister and other ministers keep referring to, because….

[Interruption.]

It sounded like somebody just won the lotto. That’s exciting.

But I’m looking at the updated report that I have right here in front of me, for direct supports. British Columbia is ranked No. 8 for direct supports for business. This is the updated thing. So I’m not sure — the government likes to keep touting, “No. 1, No. 1” all the time — what report they’re looking at, what evidence they have to back that up. I’m looking at the report right here that has us listed, for direct supports for business, at No. 8 for provinces in Canada.

That aside, though…. We could probably go back and forth and debate that. I look forward to the minister maybe pointing me in the direction of the most recent updated report that verifies what they’re saying for the direct supports to business, because that’s not the one that I’m reading. But a question I have, then, is: when we look at StrongerBC — again, it was approved last March — why did it take the government until September, at election time, when they called the election, to actually start coming up with the programs to put the money out the door?

This is kind of a concern that I’m hearing from a lot of businesses, because businesses were starting to be shut down last March, April. They were asking for help last March, April, as the pandemic was just in its infancy, really. But it took until September, right at the election, before the government actually started announcing that they would put the money out the door.

Personally, I think that a lot of people would agree that that maybe hinges on why only 40 percent of the money got out the door, because they didn’t allow the access to that for a full fiscal — rather, only the last six months of the fiscal. So I’m just kind of curious what decision-making would have gone in from the Ministry of Finance when they had the money and they had the approval to wait all the way until September to start allowing businesses to access it.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I know it feels like a million years ago for me, last March, and I suspect it might feel like that for the member and maybe for all British Columbians, because we’ve been through so much. It just almost feels like a lifetime ago. I’m just so excited that we are in the vaccination phase and all that kind of stuff.

In going back, I think it’s important to remember that in March, when things did shut down, as a government, we took very broad measures. Remember, back then, we didn’t know what was going to happen. We didn’t know how long we were going to be in this state of not knowing. We were washing down our groceries. We didn’t understand how this virus was transmitted.

We took very broad measures, and that includes, certainly, a number of measures to support individuals. That includes the emergency benefit for workers as well as a number of steps like the climate action tax credit enhancement. But I just want to speak to businesses, because this is what the member was asking.

I just want to refresh his memory that we extended the tax filing and payment deadlines, which was really important to businesses. These were, certainly, in the early days. Even doing the paperwork was one of the things that we heard. For businesses to get all that done was overwhelming. So we extended tax filing and payment deadlines to provide some relief.

We also reduced and delayed property taxes. I think this is a really important component of our broad support for businesses that, I suspect, isn’t getting counted in the member’s commentary when he talks about direct supports. This was significant — $700 million that went to businesses as broad-based relief. Business and light and major industry property classes saw their school property tax reduced for the 2020 tax year to achieve an average 25-percent reduction in the total property tax bill for most businesses. That’s significant. That’s in five different classes — classes 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 — and government absorbed those costs. It allowed commercial landlords to pass these savings on to tenants in a triple-net lease, and the tax break automatically appeared on the property owner’s tax bill.

Again, I’d be happy to share with the member the report about our commitment to supporting businesses, as the province that has provided the most for businesses. All relief mattered.

[3:25 p.m.]

I know the member keeps calling it direct relief, and I suspect that the reduced and delayed — mostly reduced — property tax component is not likely in his list. But I know that businesses certainly felt the relief of not having to pay their full share of property taxes, and that’s made a significant difference in their ability to get through what was a very, very difficult year for them.

M. Bernier: Thank you. There are quite a few things on my list that we’ll probably get to. Obviously, when we’re talking about direct, and we’re saying No. 8…. I think the minister needs to also acknowledge that 68 percent of the supports that this government has put forward is actually just in deferrals, not direct supports. They’re deferrals.

I’m not going to argue the fact that those deferrals are not of assistance during this time, and I’ll ask questions later on, I’m sure, today or tomorrow, when we get into what the minister even brought up around the school tax. We’ll ask questions later on some of the decisions that the minister and ministry are making around that, because we’re still in the pandemic that everybody says, yet now we’re seeing maybe an increase this year. I’ll get into those maybe more directly when we get to that point, but I just wanted to highlight that since the minister just brought that up during her commentary.

Maybe I’m going to lump these two together. I do acknowledge that it might take the minister a moment with her staff, and that’s fine. I’m not worried about that.

How much has been paid out, then, to businesses currently? I’m going to put two together here — the small business recovery grant and the circuit breaker grant. How much has actually gone out the door to help these groups?

Hon. S. Robinson: That program runs through the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation. They would be in a much better place to give the member up-to-date specifics around how much has gone out to the program. It’s not a program of the Ministry of Finance.

M. Bernier: I’m sorry. Did the minister just say it’s not supported by the Ministry of Finance? I believe that might have just been a misuse of words there, because of course, everything is supported through the Ministry of Finance.

The minister is saying “operated through.” Well, what about…? Well, can the minister tell me this then? I know we’ve been asking some questions to the other ministers as well. Ironically, in a lot of circumstances, those ministers tell us: “Sorry. You’ll have to ask the Minister of Finance.” So it turns into a little bit of a “nobody wants to answer” scenario in some of these areas.

I know the minister did give us some numbers. Can the minister…? Just maybe for the simplistic one, for now, how much money was allotted from the Ministry of Finance to these ministers for these grants?

I also would be curious, then, on…. And she can answer — for the PST rebate and the increased employment incentive — because some of those actually run through the Ministry of Finance. So maybe we could…. Just maybe if the minister can tell me how much was in the budget for those other two grants that she’s saying are under the other ministries and then how much has gone out the door for the PST rebate and the increased employment incentive.

[3:30 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and welcome. Welcome to the chamber.

The member will recall, and can also find on page 20 of the budget, that the IEI program, the increased employment incentive — $190 million has been set aside for this program. I do have some updated numbers that I got this morning. I get them pretty much twice a week. I get updated numbers. The member will also appreciate, I am sure, that we just started these programs. They just started at the beginning of fiscal.

The number of existing employees at IEI recipient businesses with increased remuneration is 13,796 employees. That’s, again, the people, which we keep coming back to. The number of net new employees on payrolls of IEI recipient businesses is 4,163. So that’s just over 4,000 people in the last couple of months who have benefited from this program. At this point in time, it’s about $5.5 million that has gone out to support this program.

The PST program — $470 million is allocated to this program. We have received just over 700 applications, and $19 million has been approved and is out the door. Again, I want to qualify: it just started. I want to encourage all members of the House and anyone watching to know that there are opportunities here for businesses.

I think as we move into recovery…. These are recovery programs. They’re not necessarily relief programs. This is about getting through to this next phase and supporting businesses. There are some real opportunities here.

I also want to say that this last year, year and a half, in terms of identifying how to support businesses, has mor­phed over time. The initial response of government has been to do broad-based support, because, again, we didn’t know which sectors, how many, how long businesses were going to be impacted by this pandemic, because we didn’t know what was happening. But over time, we have certainly come to learn — and thank goodness for science — about how to best proceed.

[3:35 p.m.]

We’ve certainly seen some businesses do quite well in the context of the pandemic. As a result, making sure that we are tailoring our supports has become really important, and making sure that we’re tailoring our recovery activities and our recovery programs so that we can simulate in the right way has been absolutely critical.

This is something that we’ve heard, certainly, from the Economic Forecast Council. I know the member was listening to them intently back in whenever it was. I want to say January. My mind is muddled. The months all run together, but I think it was January.

They were also really clear that the time going forward for this budget was really to make sure that we were tailoring and targeting supports. The time for broad-based supports made sense back last year, but now is the time to tailor them. It was based on the expert advice of the Economic Forecast Council and others that we shifted gears into a more tailored response.

M. Bernier: A lot of numbers there. Appreciate it. Just so the minister knows, some of the questions, obviously, might seem a little, not necessarily, redundant. I’ve got the budget document in front of me. I know some of the answers, but I think it’s important to even get them on the record when I ask them.

I appreciate the minister highlighting some of those numbers there. If I understood correctly then, especially on the IEI, the increased employment incentive program…. Yes, I will acknowledge what the minister said, that $190 million has been put aside for this program, but only $5.5 million has been spent to date from the numbers that the minister has acknowledged.

Do we have, then, a sense — maybe I’ll ask this as well — of how many businesses have actually applied? How many applications have we received in the government for this? We’re talking about $5.5 million. It sounds like a lot, but in the scheme of what was allotted in the budget, it’s not. Of course, we want to encourage.

The reason why I’m asking is, are we seeing a lot of people applying that maybe don’t qualify? Do we need to look at restructuring? The last thing we want is to have money there to help businesses and it’s not going out the door, which, again, in this situation, as the minister and I, I think, have both been saying it helps businesses, but this is really people. This is about people at work. This is about recovery. This is about jobs. Maybe I’ll start with that one and say: how many people have applied for this, not just the dollars out?

Hon. S. Robinson: What I can tell the member is we’ve had 1,700 businesses apply, and 1,400 were approved. Only 100 have been denied. The rest are in progress.

M. Bernier: If we’re talking about $190 million and I know the minister has said this before. But how many businesses are eligible to apply then? If there’s $190 million allocated, obviously the work was done to determine ap­proximation of how many businesses and then how many people that could translate into.

[3:40 p.m.]

I’m just kind of curious. If there are only 1,700 — 1,400 approved — in the scheme of tens of thousands of businesses in British Columbia, I’m just kind of curious what kind of research, studies were done within the ministry for them to come up with $190 million?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to remind the member — he said, at the very end, what kind of analysis or reporting did the ministry do — we’ve been developing these programs as quickly and as efficiently as we can, which is not what I would say is normal government processes, which some would argue is far too slow under normal circumstances.

I also have really come to appreciate the importance of understanding what’s going on and unintended conse­quences. I know the member understands that, and that’s why, typically, in government, things don’t often move as quickly as we need them to. But in this case, we have been moving very quickly, so it means that there haven’t been reports done and the traditional thorough analysis that one expects under normal conditions.

The estimate that we’ve been working with is about 50,000 employers was the frame for developing this program. Again, I want to remind the member that online applications only opened March 30. So just about ten weeks ago. Not very long. It will close December 31 of this year. So making sure that we have…. Get word out. Let businesses know that hiring folks will certainly make a difference.

The other thing I want to point out is I believe that as we open more, I think the opportunities are there, because this is a about hiring more people on the payroll. I believe — and this is a sense I get from talking with business owners in my community and others — that businesses have been maintaining status quo. Like, if they found an equilibrium of some kind under the current phase that we’re in as part of COVID safety plans, keeping everyone safe…. I do believe there has been a bit of a hesitancy to do a lot of hiring because, again, not knowing how fast things are going to be opening up.

[3:45 p.m.]

I am going to imagine — and I’m sure we can have a discussion in the fall, or perhaps next estimates — that as we move into phase 2, starting tomorrow, and then, hopefully, if all things go well, July 1, when we are into stage 3 of the opening, and then into stage 4, again, fingers crossed, knocking wood — there’s lots of wood to knock on around this place — where we get back to what I think we know as normal. I think we’re going to see a tremendous uptake, just moving forward.

M. Bernier: Hopefully, there’s a lot of uptake. You would assume, especially in the private sector, there’d be a lot of uptake, considering we have around 61,000 people in the private sector who are still, as part of COVID, looking for work or for opportunities to get back to work.

Maybe the minister said this. I apologize if I missed it in her answer. When is the credit applicable for the hiring? It was my understanding, when it was originally announced, it was last year. The minister said this year. So I’m confused now.

Hon. S. Robinson: I apologize. It is my fault. I got ex­cited thinking about…. We’re moving tomorrow into a new phase, and I got really excited. So I want to apologize and correct the record. This is for between the third and fourth quarters of last year.

I apologize. As I sat down, I said: “Wait a minute. That’s not what this program is about.” So I want to apologize to the member if, for a second, he was confused. I was the one confused. I was thinking about recovery and what the next four months are going to look like for all of us, and that’s going to make a significant difference for everyone.

Again, I want to correct the record. I made an error in describing the program. That’s why I do think it’s important that we do get the word out — to make sure that those that did increase…. Make the application. It’s an opportunity to…. Again, this was designed, when we weren’t 100 percent sure about how things were going to be moving forward, to stimulate recovery. I know that there are more businesses out there who should be applying and, perhaps, don’t know about it.

While I’m on my feet, I…. The member had asked…. We were talking about the small and medium-sized bus­iness grant earlier. I walked into my dry cleaner feeling badly. I’m grateful that I get to wear suits. I actually brought him some suit jackets. He said things have been really slow. People are not going to weddings. They’re not dressing for work. They might, but they’re only the top half with slippers on their feet. I asked if he’d heard about the small and medium-sized business grant program, and he hadn’t.

Again, I think that’s been…. A significant challenge is making sure that a lot of the small businesses that are eligible can actually get the supports that they need.

I think this is a bit of work. We are inundated with news all the time. Everyone waits for three o’clock for the latest numbers, the activities around vaccination. How quickly can we get vaccinated? People aren’t always hearing or noticing opportunities to get the help that they need. It is there, and I think it’s incumbent on all of us here in this chamber to remind folks to make their applications.

M. Bernier: First of all, I should…. Maybe I shouldn’t say this. I was going to say…. For the dry cleaners, there are a lot of men’s jackets, thanks to Zoom, that are getting done and not necessarily pants, thanks to being able to sit at home with a camera from the waist up. I didn’t mean to digress there but to go along with the minister’s comments.

I was going to ask, maybe, this. The minister just bro­ught this up. The minister raises a really good point. Be­cause of the situations and because of COVID and the uncertainty, there were not a lot of people hiring. But now we’re in a recovery situation, and government has been very…. They’ve been talking a lot about recovery, just as everybody has. How do we move forward? If businesses ever need help, it’s through recovery.

[3:50 p.m.]

One of the things that I heard was that there were a lot of businesses that maybe didn’t access this the quarter that it was accessible — October to December of 2020 — because of that uncertainty. So I think there’s an opportunity here, maybe, for the minister to consider. I’m curious on her thoughts.

When we talk about $190 million, when we talk about…. The minister didn’t mention this earlier. I’ll throw it out there. I think it’s around 50,000 businesses that could be eligible, and we’ve heard of only 1,700 applying. I use the 50,000, I believe, even from a number that the minister said last year. I stand to be corrected, but I thought that was the number the minister said, when we were talking in this House, of businesses that are eligible.

There’s obviously a lot of angst, uncertainty or concern from businesses around this program, but the government has put the money aside to try to incentivize higher. As I said, when you get 61,000 people in the private sector unemployed, we’d love to see that too, and this program, maybe, could help.

So is the minister, is government looking at maybe continuing on and not having a hard end date for this program? I think my fear, and I believe the minister might agree with me…. The odds of us seeing a massive uptake of tens of thousands of businesses in a couple of weeks is probably not realistic. What can we do to try to incentivize and get the word out by allowing more opportunity?

I know there are lots of different grant opportunities that we have and will talk about. But this one specifically. What can we do to try to get more businesses involved? That would be possibly extending the deadline. Is that a consideration?

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Just for those participating both virtually and in the chamber, a reminder, of course, that we don’t eat in the chamber. That goes back to your homes as well, as they are part of the virtual chamber. If you’re holding meetings or phone calls with other members, or anyone, really, please check yourself out for a minute so that you can come back and focus on the work that we’re doing here. Thank you, Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I think it’s important that we go back in time. When we saw employment numbers significantly drop in the early days of the pandemic, that was certainly most concerning. As we started to sort out how to help people — businesses and people — we wanted to get people employed.

[3:55 p.m.]

That’s the whole purpose of this — to employ folks. This program was designed around that — making sure we were, at the time that we needed to be, stimulating em­ployers to do new hires. This, of course, is based on where we were at, at that point in time.

What has been interesting for us here in British Columbia is that we’ve seen a steady increase of employment month over month, and until April and May and the circuit breaker decision made by public health, we saw a drop. But I’m pleased to say, and I know that the member joins me in being pleased, that we had 99 percent employment right now, in May 2021, that we had in February of 2020.

I’m glad to see that the member from Kamloops has finished his estimates. It’s great.

So with 99 percent employment that we have here in the province, really, for all intents and purposes, we are back to where we were pre-COVID. I think that’s a testament to the businesses. I mean, the fact that…. In fact, I’ve certainly been hearing complaints from businesses that they can’t find people. Restaurants can’t find people. They’re eager to open. Gyms can no longer find people. I think it’s a different kind of problem to have.

We’re certainly investing in getting young people trained up, in this budget. We’ve invested significant dollars in micro-credentialing and in other programs, youth corps sort of programs to get youth working, investing in child care so that women can get back into the workforce — so really providing the supports that people need so that they can contribute to the economy.

Things about this pandemic have really evolved over time. Making sure that we are responding to what’s happening before us, I think, is also really critical. I think that’s what has made us so successful here in British Columbia — really paying attention to the evolution of the pandemic and then responding to it as it unfolds.

In this context, we’re always evaluating programs. The member asked if we’re evaluating and monitoring, and of course that’s what we’re doing. That’s why about twice a week I get updated numbers so that we can see what’s happening. But the reality on the ground is that we’re back to full employment from our pre-COVID levels, and that’s a good thing. I think it’s something that we can all acknowledge and take pride in the fact that we have been so resilient as a province.

M. Bernier: I think, at this point, the minister and I are going to have to agree to disagree, for sure.

There are 61,000 unemployed people that wouldn’t agree with the minister’s last comments that we’re back to pre-COVID levels, unless the government wants to continue looking at the numbers that they have in front of them of creating 40,000 new public sector jobs, which really skews the fact that we’re not there. They’ve created 40,000 new, I would say, government jobs, public sector jobs, and I’m not speaking against those.

What’s been troubling is that, with all due respect to the minister and the other ministers who have spoken on this issue and continue to stay inside a little message box about being at 99 percent, that’s cold comfort and actually almost insulting to the 61,000 people who are not working. If we were actually at a point where everybody was back to work, I would be applauding and saying: “This is great. Everyone is back to work.” But it’s not everyone; it’s some.

I guess the question, though, around that…. I don’t want to digress, and I might ask the minister questions on the employment numbers later, even though it is, technically, a different ministry. But on this specific program, just looking at the numbers quickly that the minister mentioned — $5.5 million of $190 million…. Obviously, we want to see some flexibility or an opportunity for a new intake, maybe, because if it’s being considered on three months of last year, my fear is that anybody who thought they could have applied at that time has already applied.

[4:00 p.m.]

I’ve got no data to back that up other than talking to businesses who are saying: “I didn’t hire a lot of people at that time, but when I need help is right now. Because my business…. I’m trying to decide whether I’m going to stay in business or not, whether I can actually last six more months.” Any kind of program such as this to encourage hiring people back is important.

But where my question is going to go…. The minister said just over 4,000 people, 1,700 applications, which I wrote down. How many of those are part-time, and how many are full-time? Was there criteria built into the application process that it had to be full-time employees? The reason why I ask that is because a lot of businesses might not have been in a position to hire just part-time or were not worried about the part-time until now when they’re trying to get going again.

I look at the tourism sector, hopefully, which will get go­ing, and hospitality sector, which is starting to get going. Some of those are classified maybe as part-time positions, I would say.

I think the minister would know. I have five kids. She has children herself. A lot of them probably work in those sectors to help themselves as they’re starting out, and a lot of those are part-time jobs. Did those qualify as well for this grant? Or was it full-time only? Is there a breakdown of that 4,000 people of what’s full-time and part-time?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to correct the member, first. I want to start…. But I never said that everyone in British Columbia is back to work. We’re at 99 percent of where we were in February. So I think that’s an important distinction to make, because that’s what we’re looking at. Where are we compared to pre-COVID? We have to have some way of measuring where things are at.

[4:05 p.m.]

I do know that now that we are moving into recovery, everyone is sort of breathing this sigh of relief, planning their lives, planning to travel around the province, planning to go out to restaurants, planning to have Father’s Day barbecue at my place, which I’m very excited about. These are things that really are stimulating and moving things forward.

For those that continue to look for work, the opportunities that are before us are really exciting. I would love to — and I can’t imagine any jurisdiction that wouldn’t love to — have 100 percent of all of their eligible folks in their jurisdiction fully employed. That, I think, is something that we can all aspire to. But I want to be really clear that I’m speaking to where our numbers are compared to February before the pandemic struck. That’s what the comparison is. We’re at 99 percent — in May 2021, our employment numbers are — compared to February of 2020. So I want to make sure that that’s well understood.

Now, in terms of…. The member was asking questions about the IEI program. The way it works is that employers take a look at their third-quarter payroll, fourth-quarter payroll, and that’s where the comparison is made. So there’s no distinction between full- and part-time. It really is just about payroll.

Again, it’s one of those things where you want to keep the application simple and easy for the employers, because they’re already working so hard to keep businesses going. You want to be able to have some tools that help you make those distinctions so that you can determine eligibility. So it’s really just what their total payroll numbers were between third and fourth quarter.

M. Bernier: So let me just think of it this way, then. On the application process, did it have to actually be identified as new employees? What if they gave existing employees a raise and all of a sudden their payroll went up? Does that mean that now they qualify themselves?

If I was the boss of a company and I gave myself a 20-percent raise, according to the payroll documents it looks like I’ve increased my payroll. Would I actually get a tax incentive for that now?

Hon. S. Robinson: The employers qualify for the credit when they increase their payroll by adding new employees or providing wage increases. So it is about both. I just want to point out that I provided the member with the number of existing employees with increased remuneration. That’s almost 14,000 employees who got increased. So it’s 13,796 employees who received an increased remuneration. But employee wages above $1,129.33 per week do not count towards the credit.

This is to encourage employment of low- and middle-income workers. This is where we felt that we were seeing that those were the folks that were being laid off. Those were the folks sort of at the bottom of the…. For the employers who needed to make cuts because business had slowed down, those were the folks who were being impacted the most. They were also the people who had the least ability to weather temporary layoff, as well.

[4:10 p.m.]

Again, if you gave your folks who work in your store — your dry cleaner, your grocery store — a $1-, $2-an-hour increase, you were eligible, but if you were a CEO making a six-figure salary, that increase wasn’t eligible.

M. Bernier: Listening to the minister’s answer, I go back, almost, to a question I asked a couple of questions ago around part-time and full-time. When this was an­nounced…. I believe it’s written even on the application process on the website that remuneration needs to be broken down by employee — by employee class — through the application, when you’re applying for it.

The ministry should have some kind of documentation that shows how many people applied for a part-time in­crease, how many for a full-time increase, or how many applied that didn’t have any staff increases at all, and they just gave their existing staff wage increases. We must have some kinds of stats to back this up, do we not?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to remind the member that in putting these programs together, we wanted to keep things as simple as possible, because employers were certainly telling us that having to fill out forms was really not how they wanted to spend their time, or needed to spend their time, in terms of operating their businesses. So we really took that feedback from them and kept this as simple as possible.

I had read into the record and shared with the member that the information that we did collect was the number of existing employees at these businesses with increased remuneration, that we had 13,796, and the number of net new employees on payroll. We had 4,163. That was really important. Now, in terms of those where we see an increased remuneration, it could be that their hours got increased. So they were, perhaps, 15 hours a week, and now they’re 28 hours a week. Or they got a wage increase — kept their same hours, but got a wage increase.

Again, this is about trying to get…. Again, we have to think back to where we were, because that’s, I think, what’s really challenging about some of these programs, because the world has changed again, and it keeps changing on us, darn it. The world keeps changing, which is a good thing, because it’s moving in the right direction, so I think we’re all very excited about that. At least I am.

[4:15 p.m.]

The program was about stimulating enough that people could work. They could either work more, or they could work for more — more of a wage. Again, this was about getting money into people’s pockets and keeping the economy going so that people could pay their bills, because that’s what we were facing at the time. It was with that in mind that this program was designed.

Of course, lo and behold, the world changes on us again, and we have different problems. As my late mother would say, sometimes these are good problems to have, if we’re opening up. Eight months ago this was the problem we wanted — to be back at employment numbers that we had in February and carry on business as usual. This is, I think, what we all want: making sure that we can get those thousands of people who have yet to find work — to make sure that there is opportunity for them.

I know that, certainly, the tourism sector has been incredibly hard hit. Now, with moving into stage 2, I know lots of people are starting to book holidays, knowing that they can travel around the province, starting tomorrow.

The member is pointing to himself. I will confess that I started making phone calls yesterday to see what was available and where I was going to be going with my family. We all so desperately need…. British Columbians, I think, have done a yeoman’s job in keeping each other safe and really taking care of each other. The present for us at the end is that we all get to travel around this fabulous province, supporting those businesses in our communities and our tourism sector businesses and hospitality sector. I’m looking forward to doing my part to do that.

Again, I think it’s really important, when we look at these programs, to remember the context we were in and the program design that was developed for a certain time and place. While the member asks about, “Do we know how many part-time? How many full-time?” it’s not data that we collected, because we wanted to keep it as simple as possible.

M. Bernier: I know businesses appreciate that. I guess, looking at some of the stacks of letters I get, I wish some of the other things that government has rolled out had been that simplistic, as the minister is trying to make this one be, because there’s a lot of frustration in some of the other areas. We’ll probably cover off some of those tomorrow so I can get some sense from the minister on some of the other programs.

Surprised, though, in this case, that we don’t have the data for part-time, full-time, because it’s hard for government to quantify and say what the increase truly could be without that data. I’m sure that’ll come down the road, when we start seeing income tax being reported and companies putting forward their taxes as well.

I’m going to agree with the minister. It’s all about trying to get people back to work. There’s no argument there. We’re trying to, I think, all work towards and accomplish and support the same things. So I go back, then, to a question I had earlier that didn’t get a fairly straight answer. I’ll give the minister an opportunity again.

If there is $184.5 million of this that has not been spent — I’ll use the word “spent” — or has not been attributed yet to businesses through an application process for this, what’s the plan? What I mean by that is that we have this booked in the budget, which I assume — the minister will correct me if I’m wrong — would be part of the booked projected deficit and would take into consideration this $190 million as well as other spending and other grants and other programs.

If the idea is truly about incentivizing, if we have this just under $185 million, what’s the plan with that then? Is that just going to be saying: “Okay, well, it’s off the books now. We’re not having to spend as much because there wasn’t the application there”? Or are we going to look at other programs with that money? What’s the Finance Minister’s thought around that?

[4:20 p.m.]

If it’s about incentivizing again — knock on wood, as we are talking about — we’re getting to the stages where people are excited. As the minister has rightfully acknowledged, people have maybe a bit of that cabin fever for sure and are excited to get back out and explore the province, be with their families, their loved ones. But for many, many people, that also means the opportunity to get back to work. For businesses, it’s about the opportunity to, hopefully, expand back to maybe what they even were pre-COVID.

Is there an opportunity there to maybe look at being a bit more flexible on this one? Again, if we had said $150 million of the $190 million went out, I’d say: “That’s pretty successful. Those that applied got it. We’re going to see some goals here.” So $5½ million is successful for those people. I’m not taking away from that — for the people that did qualify. But I would say that there is a lot of opportunity here that we can expand on.

So is there…? Maybe in the next quarter, or now that the government is rolling out recovery plans — whatever those will look like — where does this fit into the recovery plan? Is there an opportunity to use these funds in a different way?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m happy to provide the member with a response. I’m hoping we might be able to take a five-minute break after the end of my response, if that would be fine.

Again, I appreciate the member’s question. The fact that we have been continually responding as things evo­lve, I think, demonstrates that government is always paying attention to all of our programs and adapting as we go forward.

But businesses do have to the end of December to make applications. While businesses may have actually in­creased their payroll, they may not have gotten around to making the application, which I think is certainly…. We have said they have until the end of December. So I don’t want to suggest that it’s closing any time soon. There’s lots of opportunity for businesses to make application. It really has only been just a couple of weeks that we have been receiving applications. There’s still lots that we don’t know in terms of what’s coming in.

Again, it’s a program that was really about responding to a crisis and developing based on what we wanted to incentivize between third and fourth quarter. So there is a still a lot of — I’ll call it — runway for folks to get their applications in. That will continue to provide us with feedback.

We are going to continue listening to businesses and monitoring the situation and making sure that we can continue to respond to the needs as we learn more about what’s happening. I do think with us moving into the next stage…. We’re going to be doing it quickly. I think there is two weeks in between now and July 1, when we’re going to be in phase 3.

So really, seeing what happens on the ground, I think, is important, and taking stock and engaging with business, which we have been doing — my colleagues have been doing — regularly to see what’s needed as part of recovery. That’s been what we’ve been doing.

We’re always happy to hear from members opposite in terms of what they’re hearing, because that will feed in, as well, to government being responsive to business.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

The committee will be recessed until shortly after 4:30. Thank you, Members.

The committee recessed from 4:24 p.m. to 4:32 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to have an opportunity to ask some questions of the minister at this time. I’m going to start with a question that my colleague, Saanich North and the Islands, asked of the Minister of Energy and Mines in estimates in that ministry, about Site C.

My colleague asked: how certain is the minister that $16 billion is the final price tag for this project, and is there a point at which this government identifies this project as being too expensive?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m pleased to see the member taking her place in this estimates debate. I welcome her to it.

I know the member knows that a lot of things have certainly changed since the Site C budget was approved in 2018. Responding to COVID-19 and a need for some new geotech measures to ensure the dam’s safety are, I would say, two of the big examples that have certainly faced this project.

However, Site C is now over 50 percent complete, which is a good thing. It gives us more certainty, with key river-diversion milestones now behind us. That’s also a good thing. As well, a lot of experience has been gained in keeping the workforce safe through COVID-​19. It took a significant amount of undertaking to make sure that this project could keep going. Independent experts have confirmed that the new geotech measures will, indeed, make the dam safe. So these are all good things that have been progressing.

Now, with all of this information that we have…. B.C. Hydro has updated its cost estimate for completing the Site C project with the project assurance board under the oversight of the project oversight adviser Ernst and Young. They have all independently assessed the estimate to verify its reasonableness.

With all of this and with what we’ve known, we are continuing to progress. Certainly, COVID-19 and delaying in-service by a year were something that none of us could have predicted. That presented some significant challen­ges, but they’ve handled it considerably quite well, given the circumstance. New measures to address identified geotech risks and other identified pressures have been built into that $16 billion estimate for this project.

S. Furstenau: While I think we could probably look at similar responses when the budget was at $10 billion, what I’m, actually, curious to know is…. My colleague and I have asked this a couple of years in a row now. Is there an upper limit on the price tag for this dam?

We’ve gone from $8 billion to $10 billion to $16 billion. I’m just wondering if there’s a point at which the price tag is too high.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question.

Site C is now over 50 percent complete, which is a significant milestone. Certainly, the key river-diversion component of building this massive project is a significant risk that was before the project, and it’s behind us now. I think that provides some comfort.

Again, there has been a lot of insight gained around…. That has brought in a number of independent experts that have been looking at the risks that are still before us and helping the project proponent, B.C. Hydro, and government to make sure that we understand the full ramifications of the risks that are before us and to make sure that we have significant oversight.

I know that the minister…. I’m sure that the member has asked the minister about this, in terms of the changes that he’s made in order to ensure that there is significant and sufficient oversight and to make sure that we can continue to build out this project and get it done.

[4:40 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Not to belabour this. I’m not getting a straightforward answer. I can accept that, at this point, I guess, in terms of that oversight and these independent reports that the minister is speaking of. Of course, many, many unanswered questions remain for a lot of what has unfolded and these reports and how they’ve been informing decisions.

This will be my last question on Site C. Does the minister agree that improving transparency overall around this now $16 billion…? Who knows what it will be next year when we’re having these debates? But this now $16 billion project has had an enormous amount of secrecy and lack of transparency. Does the minister agree that it is in everybody’s best interest that that be shifted — that there be quite a bit more transparency going forward?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m sure the member…. I’m going to suspect that she’s canvassed these questions with the minister directly responsible, so it really is a question that should go to the minister responsible.

What I can say is that B.C. Hydro, under oversight of the project assurance board, the project oversight adviser, the special adviser, Mr. Milburn, and the minister responsible…. You know, they have been sharing information publicly. They’ve been releasing reports. That is part of the commitment for this project that the minister has made and that he’s delivering on. I’m sure that the member has asked the minister responsible about what other ideas or commitments he has around making sure that the public and the ratepayers understand about what’s happening with Site C.

But what I can also say is that the focus on addressing the issues as they arise and bringing in the experts to make determinations, to provide Hydro and government with advice about how to proceed in terms of this project, has been absolutely critical. Those reports have been made available, and that is about being transparent and letting others know how the project is proceeding.

S. Furstenau: I want to bring something up. I canvassed this a little bit with the minister in December, but I’m curious to hear a response to a report that came out in response to the public registry to combat money laundering. This is the 2018 Land Owner Transparency Act.

[4:45 p.m.]

The C.D. Howe Institute released a report soon after that with some pretty strong criticisms of the act and how it wouldn’t be as effective in combatting money laundering as it could be because of some fundamental flaws. I’m just curious about the minister’s take on these criticisms. I’m very interested to see if there have been any changes made through regulation since this report came out from C.D. Howe.

The first criticism identified in the report was that there’s no requirement in the act to verify identities. The C.D. Howe report has identified it as the biggest flaw in the registry. No independent verification of identities means that it makes it very difficult to ascertain if the beneficial owners really are who they say they are. Just starting with that first criticism of the act and whether anything has been done since 2018 to address that issue that was identified.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for the question on the land owner transparency registry, because it’s really groundbreaking. It’s the first of its kind in Can­ada. What this does is it requires a disclosure of interest holders and beneficial owners for all land types to help ensure that corporations and partnerships and trusts can’t be used to hide their interests in land.

The member rightly mentioned that this came from the expert panel on combatting money laundering in B.C. real estate and that Dr. Peter German certainly mentioned it as a key element in preventing tax evasion and another way, as well, of tackling money laundering.

With this public registry, we’re leading the country in cracking down on hidden ownership and money laundering in real estate. We are working closely with the Land Title and Survey Authority to implement this strategy, making sure that people know what their reporting requirements are, particularly for those who owned property before the Land Owner Transparency Act was brought into force.

[4:50 p.m.]

I do want to remind the member that the requirement to file only came in November of 2020, which really wasn’t that long ago. It only became searchable in April of this year. Pre-existing owners have until November 30, 2021, of this year, to file a transparency report identifying its beneficial owners, ensuring that we have a full picture of land-ownership in the province. It’s very new, and it’s still unfolding as we speak.

S. Furstenau: Just to the specific question that I asked around the requirement to verify identities. In the C. D. Howe report, it indicates that there’s a requirement to file “the individual’s social insurance number, if any.” Then to file the “individual’s tax number, if any, assigned to the individual by the Canada Revenue Agency.” But the criticism in the report is that it would be quite easy for criminals to invent a person who was never assigned either of those identification numbers.

I think the minister…. You know, we would agree that the vast majority of people are going to rightfully and honestly file the benefit ownership information and reports, but it’s the people who won’t be honest that should be of the most concern.

In the C.D. Howe report, the concern is around the lack of this verification. Has there been any effort or amendment to ensure that the beneficial owner will indeed be verifiable?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I started my remarks, you know, this is groundbreaking. This is the first legislation of its kind in our nation. It’s a huge change to how we collect information and how we share information on land-ownership here in British Columbia.

It is a new registry. So far, no other province or jurisdiction in Canada has implemented anything similar to disclose hidden ownership. With this public registry, we are leading the way.

As with every new policy and every new program, initial implementation certainly includes consultation and expert feedback as it gets developed. Even while the inquiry into money laundering is underway, we are going to continue to work with experts about how to make sure that our systems are working well, particularly when it’s brand-new like this, so making sure that we continue to gather information on how well the new policy is working or where there are gaps is very much how government works.

I know that the member understands that. It should be an iterative process. You move forward on a piece of legislation. You implement it, and then you continue to bring it back in order to make sure that it does its job.

One of the things that I think is really important to also think about is that we have policies that also work. On the ground, when you operationalize them, how well does it work? What tools do you need in order to make sure that the gaps are closed, should there be any? So this is one of the things that is a continual process around how to move forward.

One of the questions that the member asked was aro­und: is this person who they say they are? Staff did look at what they could use. Trying to find the balance of relevant information on interest holders without…. The question was really around…. Someone had asked about: “Well, why aren’t you using photo ID to help understand?”

[4:55 p.m.]

Taking reasonable steps to identify the interest holders and submit required information on the transparency re­port to the registry is a direction that we’re moving in, but other pieces of information might be difficult to get, difficult to obtain, and then how do you verify the verification of the photo ID?

These are some of the challenges that we have when you put in new policy and operationalize it. But I do take the member’s query very seriously. Government has certainly taken it very seriously, and we’ll be monitoring how this brand-new legislation works as it continues to unfold in the months ahead.

S. Furstenau: I recognize, as the minister points out, this is the first of this type of registry in Canada. The U.K. has a model, and again, in this report it’s laid out quite clearly about some of the changes that they brought in as a result of — as the minister pointed out — iterative unrolling of the legislation and the efforts to combat.

I think this is really important in this conversation. This is really about combatting money laundering, and the money that is being laundered stems from criminal activity that is incredibly harmful to British Columbia and, of course, around the world. This is about the trade in drugs and in illegal activities in human trafficking, so I’m sure that the minister cares very much. Some very serious concerns, and as we await the inquiry on money laundering to unfold, I hope and fully expect that that will, of course, inform these efforts going forward.

The last thing I’ll ask about this topic — and, again, back to the C.D. Howe report — is that in this legislation, the registry has a couple of barriers that have been pointed out. One is a user fee of $5. The other is not allowing key word searches. The user fee — and I know that the minister and I had a bit of an exchange about this in December — as they point out in the report, is akin to somebody coming up to the police department and saying, “I’d like to report a crime,” and the police officer saying: “Yes, that will be $5, please.”

At its best, this registry would operate in a way that the public would not only have easy access and be able to inform it, as has happened in the U.K., but it would be a collective effort to combat these kinds of activities. The U.K. registry originally did have a user fee. They removed it, and registry searches per year went from 6 million to more than 2 billion. The experience in the U.K. — opening that up, removing the barriers — has really resulted in finding a higher number of people who are beneficial owners and who are engaged in criminal activity.

Would the minister, given the experience of the U.K. and what they’ve seen, consider removing that user fee? The key word search is also identified as being very important. I think that it’s something that, if we are as serious as I think we all agree we need to be about combatting money laundering…. It would seem that the best thing would be to have this registry be as effective and accessible and usable as possible.

Those two things, the user fee and the key word search: can the minister give any insight into whether those are going to be looked at and changed?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’ll speak to the $5 fee first, to the member’s question. This program is administered by the LTSA, and this is their business model, in terms of how they get funded. So a $5 fee to provide a service is not particularly onerous.

It also acts to deter spurious searches to find out where certain people might live, for example. It’s a way to make sure that those who might have a public persona aren’t being sought out through this. It’s just as a slight deterrent.

Also, just around the key-word search, I appreciate the member’s query, again, on this. It is a balance be­tween transparency and privacy. It’s sort of this…. How transparent do we need to be? And how do we protect people’s privacy simultaneously? That’s a tricky one. It is a tricky one.

Having said that, we know that money laundering is inherently secretive. It’s done to hide proceeds of crime and hide the true nature of financial transactions. Because money laundering aims to conceal itself, we must prevent money launderers from hiding their illegal actions. So I appreciate that that’s what we’re trying to do here. This is novel for us. We have significant privacy laws here in this province. So trying to find that balance.

I will say that staff, I believe, twisted themselves a little bit to find that right balance, as did government, to try to find that right balance. As with all programs, particularly new programs, it’s important that as government, we monitor closely, making sure that it’s hitting the right mark, that it’s finding that balance.

Because it’s rolling out, I think there are still pieces of it that we’re still seeing how it plays out. We’re going to continue to monitor that, because at the end of the day, this really is about cracking down on money laundering. It’s why we brought this in, and we’ll continue to monitor it to make sure that it hits the right spot.

S. Furstenau: I look forward to canvassing this next year after it’s rolled out and there’s some insight into how it’s working and what areas there are for improvement, recognizing, of course, that the costs of money laundering and the criminal activity that goes into that is incredibly costly to the province.

I’m going to jump to another topic, and then when I’m finished that, I’ll hand it over to my colleague. I have a couple questions on this.

[5:05 p.m.]

The funding for the old growth strategic review panel report’s recommendations. The understanding was that that was meant to be funded out of the Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development budget, but there doesn’t appear to be funding earmarked in the budget to implement these recommendations. Indeed, there would need to be quite a significant injection of funding if these recommendations were to be implemented at the pace recommended by the panel.

In responding to his constituents, Minister Fleming said on this question that money for implementation of the report is funded under the capital budget.

The Chair: Excuse me, Member. Just remember, please, no names in the House.

S. Furstenau: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Minister of Transportation indicated that it was funded under the capital budget.

Can the minister confirm whether funding for the im­plementation of these recommendations is coming out of the Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development budget and what the Minister of Transportation may have been referring to when he said that these funds are coming out of a capital budget?

Finally, where, according to the Minister of Finance, is the money for implementation of these recommendations coming from?

Hon. S. Robinson: So the Minister of Forests has re­sources within her budget for the coming year, for this program. I can’t speak to the Minister of Transportation — what he was responding to. The member would have to speak to that minister to get a better sense of what he may have said. I don’t have any basis from which to respond to what he may have been referring to.

S. Furstenau: It’s not clear where in the Minister of For­ests’ budget the implementation funding is. Can the Minister of Finance identify where we should look to find the financing for the implementation?

Hon. S. Robinson: So it’s really the Minister of Forests that would be best able to answer that very specific question about her budget.

S. Furstenau: I think that as the Minister of Finance, I’m hopeful that she would be able to shed some light on this, given that there wasn’t any indication in the budget of where that funding was coming from. The minister is ultimately responsible for the whole budget — stood up, wrote out the budget, presented it. This does seem to merit at least some clarity on an issue that is of grave importance to a lot of people in this province right now about the funding for the implementation of these recommendations.

As Minister of Finance, ultimately, I think that there is some accountability for the entire budget. I’m going to ask one more time about what funding, specifically, has been assigned to the implementation of these recommendations that were promised.

[5:10 p.m.]

Has there been analysis done about the cost of these implementations, and if it is in the budget of the Forests Minister, is the Finance Minister aware of what’s been budgeted and how people can come to understand where that funding is going to be coming from?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I’m going to refer the member to the Minister of Forests. She has ultimate responsibility for her budget and for how those resources get spent. She has the flexibility, subject to Treasury Board approval, so the opportunities for the Minister of Forests to make those sorts of decisions are left with individual ministers. This is a question that is more appropriately directed to the Minister of Forests.

S. Furstenau: All right. Well, we shall try to pursue that. It seems very hard to track down where or if this funding actually exists anywhere, but we will continue to pursue this.

I’m going to hand it over to my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands who, I believe, is in the chamber right now.

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to engage in budget estimates with the minister.

I’m going to switch gears a little bit here — or a lot, actually. I’m going to talk about the housing market. Over the pandemic, housing prices have skyrocketed in British Columbia. But Budget 2021 talks about the cost of housing like it’s a good thing. It’s a communications pitch as a positive thing — the fact that “the average home sale price in B.C. has increased by 11.6 percent in 2020 compared to 2019.” And it adds: “Housing market activity has been resilient despite the pandemic, and monthly home sales reached record levels in late 2020 and have continued to grow in 2021.”

Does the minister agree that housing, both the housing market and rentals, is unaffordable for many British Columbians and that this is a serious problem, despite the language in the most recent budget?

[Interruption.]

The Chair: The House will recess for two minutes while we figure out what this noise is.

The committee recessed from 5:15 p.m. to 5:17 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Housing affordability was an issue for British Columbians when we formed government in 2017. We brought forward a 30-point plan. I know the member knows it well. I was the minister at the time. He was the critic and understood full well about the whole-of-government approach that we were taking, making sure we were dealing with money laundering, making sure we were getting illegal activity out of the real estate market.

The Minister of Finance at the time was responsible for doing a number of legislative pieces to do just that. The Leader of the Third Party, in fact, was just asking me about the land owner registry that came out of our 30-point plan. As well, billions of dollars to build the kind of housing that British Columbians have desperately been needing for well over a decade and a half.

We were making some progress. Certainly, the speculation and vacancy tax was playing a role. Bringing in the rental-only zoning was playing a role. There were significant steps that we’ve taken in our first few years as government, and we certainly saw some levelling off. It wasn’t a lot, but it was some levelling off before COVID hit.

COVID really, again, changed the landscape in terms of what was going on. We certainly saw, in the early days of COVID, rental vacancies. We didn’t know what was going to happen to the rental market, but there were some vacancies that we saw coming up.

Then there was pressure put on the real estate market. People who had been living in 500 to 600 square foot condos, which were initially built for an investment market and which were being rented out to folks…. That wasn’t meeting people’s needs because they were now working from home. We certainly saw that that was putting significant pressure, in terms of people looking for larger spaces, where they were living and working in.

My son and his fiancé certainly felt that pressure. It’s not healthy for relationships and not a great way to live your life, especially over this last year and a half.

We also saw that with low interest rates…. That, too, was putting…. Again, it’s an incentive to get into the market. Money is cheap. That was putting significant pressures on real estate.

[5:20 p.m.]

I don’t want the member to suggest somehow that this budget was thrilled about how that was playing out. He used the word “resilient.” The market was resilient. Again, I want to go back to where we were. People thought every­thing was going to stop, that everything was going to shut down and that no activity was going to happen. It was resilient in the face of COVID, not resilient in that: “Isn’t it a great thing that housing is unaffordable?” I don’t imagine anybody in this House thinks that that’s a good thing.

Having said that — and this budget responds to some of that — again, there is $2 billion to the HousingHub so that they could help developers do construction financing for that middle-income group that is finding itself challenged. They have jobs and they have capacity to pay a mortgage. They just can’t get in on the down payment. That’s not part of the 30-point plan per se. It’s an element that was in it.

As a government, we’re continually looking for things we need to do in order to get the right supply in the right communities so that people can live and work and age with dignity here in British Columbia. All of these things taken together are about addressing housing affordability.

I know the member is well aware. I’ve said this before, and I keep coming back to it, because it’s a nerdy piece of legislation…. The housing needs assessment. When we formed government, there was absolutely, really, no data on what the housing stock looks like. Wholesale, right across this province. So how do we know what kind of housing we need? We don’t.

This housing needs assessment is going to be incredibly helpful for government and for local government — we’re not the only ones making decisions that look to making housing affordable and available — as well as the federal government, because they have been, historically, missing players for the last couple of decades. They are sort of back in. I think there is more that I would like them to do, again, to address housing affordability.

It’s very much top of mind for our government. There is absolutely more for us to do around addressing housing affordability. If the member somehow thinks that government is happy about housing becoming unaffordable, it’s absolutely not the case. It’s very concerning.

But also, there is so much this pandemic has changed — has sort of thrown everything up in the air and changed so much. I will say that we know where we were — what was going on in February of 2020. We saw the trajectory, and certainly the HousingHub was a piece that we saw has potential to deliver the right kind of housing. That work continued with the current Minister of Housing.

There are still so many unknowns around how things are going to play out over the next year — two years, three years. I know that the member knows that it takes some time to build housing, so it’s not an immediate response to what’s happening on the ground. It will take some time.

I know that the Minister for Municipal Affairs is also working on the DAPR report. I know that the current Minister of Housing is continuing to look at how B.C. Housing can adapt and deliver for people needing housing, people who have no home whatsoever, right through to middle-income British Columbians, because everyone is affected by a challenged housing market. Certainly, as the Minister of Finance, I continually monitor what’s happening in the market and work with my colleagues to make sure that we have the kind of housing that people can afford and that meets their needs.

A. Olsen: Thank you for that answer. I think we benefit in this province having a Finance Minister who also had carried the housing portfolio previously, not that the current minister doesn’t necessarily have the understanding of it. It also, I think, is really important that there is that breadth of understanding across multiple ministers.

I think…. I’m very thankful, actually, that the HousingHub program was…. More capital was put into it, as the minister knows. I’ve reached out on numerous occasions, because there are projects that have benefitted from it in my riding. I think all 87 MLAs, probably, can point to a project or two that have benefitted from that program.

[5:25 p.m.]

It was a good program — so good, in fact, that there were projects that were waiting to see if there was going to be something from Treasury Board to increase it. That program, I think, is a very valuable program.

I think what I’m getting to here, just in terms of the context of housing to the budget and the B.C. economy, is in and around the impact that the housing market and sales have on our books. The question to the minister: is the government too dependent on revenues from an overheated housing market to take any meaningful action on the policy mechanisms on the other side, rather than building supply?

This is on the policy mechanisms that could be used by a government to cool a housing market in order to ensure that there is some affordability. The question being the minister’s response to whether or not we are too dependent on the revenue that’s being generated right now and recognizing that this has been happening over a number of years that we’ve become dependent on that revenue.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I appreciate the member’s question, and I want to acknowledge — if I could just take a moment to talk about the HousingHub. It was certainly oversubscribed because it brought together…. The intent was to bring together opportunities in community with the private sector as well as local governments and housing providers, whether they were Indigenous or not-for-profit, to use their various component parts and their expertise, really, to create something that neither one partner can deliver alone. So by coming together, they could actually deliver housing for people who need it.

Earlier the Leader of the Third Party had asked a question about a new program and what measures we were taking, and this is a perfect example of government starting something new, trying something new, learning from it, taking in information and then adapting it and reshaping it in a way so that it can continue to deliver. This is a perfect example. We certainly saw many, many, many good projects, and this kind of financing opportunity means that as soon as the project is built, the money comes back into government to then be loaned out for development financing to the next project. So it’s really exciting, and it helps to deliver housing for people. And I appreciate the member’s exuberance about this project.

Pertaining to the member’s question, we forecasted revenue declining from this. The question was: are we too dependent? Well, because we forecast, we see it declining, so that we have other revenue sources to help us deliver our programs and our services, because that’s what governments do. The fact that the market is so desirable is one of those blessings and curses at the same time. This is a challenge that we’ve been facing for a long time, but we are careful to not become too reliant on it because it could also change as well if the interest rates….

There are other levers that other orders of government have. Then that will change the dynamic and the revenue. So we’re very, very cautious in our forecasting so that we aren’t too reliant on it, because that is also risky. We try to be really conservative with our forecasting revenues from the property transfer tax.

Having said that, this is certainly a challenge, and it really does require all orders of government to work to­gether in order to address housing affordability, because it does affect the economy when you can’t find people who are able to work in our businesses.

[5:30 p.m.]

I’ll use the North Shore as an example, because there is a significant challenge there, because businesses that need employees on the North Shore, even for construction — their employees come from Surrey or Mission, and they are taking jobs that don’t require crossing a bridge.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

So it’s really hard to find employees who will come to the North Shore to work, and they can’t afford the North Shore, because housing affordability is so challenged there. So it’s a perfect example of how we need to work together in order to deliver the kind of housing that people can afford in all of our communities and not just relegate certain income levels to certain communities, because that just doesn’t work. They’re not complete communities, and it has economic impact.

I appreciate the member’s question, and I know that he joins with me and with our government to find ways to help deliver housing affordability for British Columbians.

A. Olsen: Yeah, I’ve got five of those communities in my riding, and the southern Gulf Islands are very similar — maybe not to the population level of the North Shore, but a similar situation in that the real estate that is available is not necessarily the real estate that the people who need it, the workforce…. We’re working with the Minister Res­ponsible for Housing on a variety of fronts for supported housing all the way through to middle-income housing solutions. There’s a variety of different programs that are available for that.

To the Finance Minister’s point around how the forecast was lower than what it was, does that mean, then, there is some space for the provincial government to perhaps take some action, put some policies in place that would then cool the housing market? There is also an economic impact of having housing be unaffordable. There are so many layers to this.

I think, maybe a fairer question…. Maybe it’s not an unfair question, but maybe I could reframe the question to say: where is the tipping point where the minister might consider taking actions that approve housing affordability to cool the market?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I just want to remind the member. We put together a ten-year plan, right? That’s still continuing to evolve. There’s still work to be done, and that work continues. In fact, I would say, and this is where…. I’m honored to be the Finance Minister, but I will say that there’s a part of me that really misses the Housing file because we’d done so much work putting that plan together — the billions of dollars that were dedicated to building housing for all income types.

Now there are ribbon cuttings that are going to be coming. It’s like…. I remember that project, I remember that project, and I remember that project, but I won’t get to go and actually see people’s faces as they move into their new homes. I’m glad that the new Housing Minister will get to do that, and perhaps MLAs from around the province will get to do that and see the relief on people’s faces as they move into homes, because it’s been a few years since we’ve been announcing them. We’re going to start to see thousands and thousands and thousands of homes, people moving into them, which is a good thing. I think it’s what we’ve all wanted.

That’s continuing to unfold. We also are in the pandemic still. It feels like we’re coming through, but there is still lots of volatility around it, because things really change dramatically in terms of not being able to predict how the pandemic would impact the fact that people want bigger spaces and adding more pressure into the single-family market, for example. The pressure had been in condos for the longest time — or rental. So the pressure changed, things changed, that we couldn’t have predicted. We’re still in it and certainly watching closely, funnelling resources where we know we need to build more opportunity, like in the HousingHub.

Just around real estate purchasing and where the market’s going, the volatility in it, there’s still some lack of predictability, because COVID continually changes. Just for example, when the federal government was changing the stress test requirements, we expected to see a rise in housing sales just before the June 1 deadline, and it didn’t materialize. There’s a real level of challenges of predictability in the market because it’s so volatile. It’s really, I think, premature to take any action.

For sure, watching it closely, engaging with the federal government about where they’re going, what their plans are, because we all feed together, and continuing to work with local governments to build the right kind of housing in the right communities — I think that’s work that we still need to continue to do.

The last thing I want to say before I take my seat is that we need to remember just how desirable it is to be here in British Columbia. We have a diversified economy. We have really good…. It’s a great place to live, and the opportunities here abound. We have the best winter weather of all of Canada, frankly, particularly here in the south Island. So it makes us highly desirable, and people are investing here, which is also good. That, of course, continues to put pressure on our housing market, and it has for many decades.

Having said that, I do think we need to continue to push the envelope to get more housing built, the right kind of housing built, so that those who want to live here and raise their families here, participate in the economy here, can have a place that they can afford. That’s work that we’re committed to continue to do, and I expect that all 87 of us, I believe, are committed to addressing that problem.

[5:40 p.m.]

A. Olsen: The 30-point plan was brought in, in 2018, and it’s a ten-year plan, so out to 2028. However, there wasn’t any particular action taken.

I take the minister’s point that it might be premature, in a pandemic, to take cooling measures on policy. However, we’ve also put $2 billion into it, and building materials have gone up. So actually…. Right. Exactly.

Like we were saying, there are so many layers to this. The actual value of that $2 billion is diminished because we’re able to build less now. Labour is a challenge too. A lot of the builders that I’m talking to are having a hard time getting access to the workforce that they need.

There are multiple layers of challenges that the government faces. I recognize that there has to be a coordinated approach, as the minister said: local, First Nations, provincial, federal.

Is there any multi-jurisdictional, multi-authority working group that is looking at how those interchanges happen here in British Columbia with the federal government or done at a federal level with all of the other partners, whether it be UBCM or FCM and such? Is that work being done to recognize the role each plays and to deal with the housing? Housing affordability is a problem right across the country. Is that working collaboratively happening?

The Chair: Members participating virtually are re­minded to please focus on the work here. If you’re needing to have a conversation or a meeting somewhere else, do that somewhere else. Thank you, Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate where the member is going. It is a complex file, which is why we’re investing in the skilled trades, for example. We know there’s a labour shortage. In fact, when I was the Housing Minister, the two biggest issues were land costs and…. It wasn’t building material costs at that time. It was access to labour.

That’s why we’re investing and making sure that we have the skilled trades that we need. As a government, we are coordinating all the various pieces and bringing every­thing we have to bear to make sure that we can continue to deliver and that we have the skilled trades needed to build for us here in British Columbia for the long term.

I don’t think we’re going to see immigration slow down any time soon here to British Columbia. Again, it’s a blessing and a curse. We need to be ready to make sure that we can meet the challenges for the months and the years ahead.

More specific to the member’s question, we are contin­ually working across jurisdictions to coordinate. It’s not easy. One would think it would be the easiest thing to do. It’s not when you have orders of government responsible for different jurisdictions, each having their own angle on it and each having their own levers but knowing that if they pull that lever, then it’s going to affect our lever over here in the provincial realm. At the local or Indigenous level, it’s a different lever.

Coordinating is challenging, but we are bringing people together across jurisdictions and working to identify various challenges. CMHC and B.C. Housing, for example, work very closely to identify how to…. At least, when I was the Housing Minister, they were. I suspect they still are.

I speak regularly with the Housing Minister around what tools I have. We speak regularly with the Minister of Advanced Education to make sure that she’s doing the skills training piece that we’re hearing from the private sector, those that actually build our homes. Certainly, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is working with the local governments and looking at development approval processes, which can take a long time in some communities, and how to speed that process up.

[5:45 p.m.]

All of these things have to mesh together, so that work is continually being undertaken. Having said that, I think there’s always more we can do. For right now, there’s just…. How things settle out, we don’t know. Are people going to continue to work from home for the long run? We don’t know.

I certainly like the fact that I could work in my slippers. But I suspect that I will go back to working mostly in my community office here in Victoria, because that’s where people are and we need to meet with people. Maybe if there’s one day a week that I get to wear my slippers, I’d be very happy, but I don’t know that that’s going to be the case.

So we don’t know what people’s housing needs are going to be. Is the demand for single family going to continue? And are people going to continue to work using technology so that they can be at home and earn a living? Maybe, maybe not. So there’s still so much uncertainty in terms of where we’re going as a society, about the role that technology is going to play in our work life, that I think the best we can do right now is watch very closely, see how people’s behaviours change, see how business conducts itself going forward.

Keep our conversations going with the federal government around what’s happening with interest rates and what’s happening with stress tests. Make sure that local governments continue to do the important work of land-use planning that works for people so that they’re doing the density, because that’s also good for climate change as well. So there are a whole bunch of reasons why they need to do that work. Making sure they are speeding up their development approval processes.

Making sure that we continue to be a nimble government in monitoring what is happening and making sure that we’re directing our resources and our policies so that we can address housing affordability for the long run.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for that response.

I think part of this is getting to the point. The minister used the word “nimble,” which is a very responsive term. It’s that we are responding to the conditions. There is an aspect of this where the people that are represented in here and in the House of Commons in Ottawa and around the council tables are also responsible for shaping policy that shapes society and shapes the options that people have to be able to buy into as well.

Part of, I think, what we’re getting at here in this part of the discussion — around the tools that could be used to cool the housing market, the revenue that government generates and comes to rely on in terms of being able to then provide $2 billion for a housing hub program — is whether or not the government has taken a proactive role of shaping policy that then gets outcomes.

The Premier responded to a question in question period earlier today about this federation that we’re a part of. I have heard it a lot. I deal with it when I’m dealing with issues around the Salish Sea, for example, where everybody has got jurisdiction over something, and then nothing happens — or, I should say, very little happens. I shouldn’t say nothing happens. Little happens.

I think what I’m trying to get at is: what role does the minister see we play in being proactive? We’re being very proactive on the housing hub side, on the supply side, whereas on the demand side, it’s more of a reactive role.

Does the minister agree with that statement I’ve just made that we’re more proactive on the supply side and more reactive on the demand side?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Government has taken, certainly, significant steps to address demand-side measures. Taxing speculators who were driving up housing costs. That legislation was passed in November 2018. We acted quickly. So that’s complete.

We’ve increased the foreign buyer tax rate to 20 percent. That was done in Budget 2018. We expanded the foreign buyer tax to areas outside of Metro Vancouver as well. That was completed in Budget 2018.

We increased the property transfer tax value of homes over $3 million. That was done in 2018.

The other one is allowing online accommodation providers to apply the provincial sales tax and the municipal and regional district tax on short-term rentals. That was completed in October 2018.

These are a number of steps that we’ve taken from the demand side and that we’ve acted on. They became effective in 2018. We’re three years out. We are seeing some of the impact that we were seeing before COVID, where we were seeing the impact that it had. So 18,000 homes being available rentals as a result of the spec tax, which I think is a good thing. Seeing that was good. I mean, seeing the impact of those measures as well as the supply measures, I think….

We were starting to make some headway. COVID really did throw us all for a loop on this, and understanding how things settle out, I think, is going to be really important. We’ll continue to keep track of how things are playing out, how the market is moving, in which direction and which parts of the market.

When people talk about the housing market, they talk about it as a unified market, and it’s not always the case. Sometimes it’s on single-family. Sometimes it’s on condos. Trying to understand where the pressure points are and what it would take to relieve is also really important.

The member has noted how complex this is, with all of the various component parts. I think that it is really important that we understand how the interactive parts are working or not working and that we tweak them as need be. As a government, that has been how we have been taking action on this file. COVID is really another one of those things where we’re monitoring very closely to see what kinds of steps we may need to take, but at this point, it is premature.

A. Olsen: Basically, just to summarize, the minister sees a role for there being both supply-side and demand-side action taken, and we’ll be watching through as we prepare for Budget 2022, as an example. The government may need to consider further demand-side action if the housing market remains high. Is that something that we can see this government remaining committed to doing now that we’re in the situation that we’re in now?

I should just clarify that. When I say, “Now that we’re in the situation we’re in now,” politically, it’s a very different makeup of this Legislature than when a lot of that work, the demand-side and the 30-point housing plan and all of that, was being done. There was a minority government. What I was referencing when I said, “In the situation we’re in now,” is not COVID. It’s now that there’s a majority government in place. That’s what I wanted to just be clear on.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I understand where the member is going with his question, and I want to assure him the 30-point plan was about good public policy. It was not about who was in charge necessarily. It was about good public policy. It’s still what we’re about as a government.

I want my kids to at least want to live in my province, at least be able to afford to live in my province. I don’t want them to say: “Mom, we can’t live here because we can’t afford it.” To me, that’s a terrible outcome, not just for me as a parent but for all of us, if our children can’t afford to live here. It’s bad for communities. It’s bad for the economy.

This is about just good public policy. I would certainly welcome the member’s ideas or suggestions around what would help. I have a whole bunch of people in my ear who also are continually looking and trying to identify what would help.

I look forward…. I’m not going to anticipate what the future brings. I don’t want to debate Budget 2022 until we finish Budget 2021.

I know that this is very much top of mind for government. It’s top of mind for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It’s top of mind for the Minister of Housing. It’s top of mind for the Minister of Finance. It’s top of mind for the Premier. It’s top of mind for our government. We see what the risks are in front of us. We know that we were making headway before COVID. We’re waiting to see how things play out. Continuing to be responsive to housing affordability is very much top of mind for our government.

A. Olsen: Excellent. Thank you. I think I’m just going to be able to squeeze one more question in here. I really do appreciate this exchange with the minister. Thank you for this.

A brief bit of commentary and then a question. The commentary being, of course…. It’s wonderful to have multiple ministries involved in this. On the other hand, it’s also a challenge when there are multiple ministries that are involved in this because, then, not only does it require multi-jurisdictional alignment between federal and provincial; it also requires alignment within a single government. Actually, we’ve seen examples of success, and we’ve also seen examples of where that multi-ministerial responsibility actually fragments the situation and creates some unintended consequences.

I’m not questioning the approach that the government has taken, although…. I just think that there are probably benefits and drawbacks to both. I think that’s probably the best way to frame this conversation that we’ve been having, which is both the drawbacks and the benefits.

My final question comes from an article that I read earlier this week. There are developers in southern Ontario that are buying up single-family homes and, I think, creating collections of single-family homes and turning them into rentals or just renting them out. The secondary housing market has generally been….

Me and my family bought a house. This is part of a mortgage helper, and we engage in a relationship with the tenant. The landlord and tenant would be basically two families, essentially. Now we’re starting to see, in other parts of the country, where they’re consolidating huge amounts of real estate and renting them out and creating real estate firms.

Has our provincial government taken a look at this? I think there’s a huge amount of profit to be made in this business, and where there’s a huge amount of profit to be made in this business, it could have a further impact on the affordability of the rental market. We’ve talked about the real estate market in general, but now the rental market could also have challenges for people who are looking at single-family homes. This is still a rather new thing in Canada. Has our provincial government turned its mind to that potential challenge?

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

I’ll know next time that a short question isn’t really a short question. The minister can answer, but we will need to get to the vote.

Minister, if you wanted to note the hour, that’s okay.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you. Well, I can do a very short answer. I want to let the member know that we are very much aware — I read the same article — and are doing an analysis in order to understand what the potential impacts could be.

The Chair: Thank you. With that, Minister, noting the hour.

Hon. S. Robinson: Noting the hour, I would like to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: Members, pursuant to a sessional order, a deferred division will take place this evening on the mo­tion for third reading of Bill 7, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021.

Pursuant to the sessional order, the House stands re­cessed for ten minutes.

The House recessed from 6:01 p.m. to 6:11 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: The division will proceed in five minutes. Again, a reminder to all of the members who are participating remotely: make sure your cameras are on.

[6:15 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Members, we will now proceed with the division. The question is third reading of Bill 7, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021.

[6:20 p.m.]

Bill 7, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021, read a third time and passed on the following division:

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported resolutions and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.