Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Committee of Supply of the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation.

In Committee A, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Labour.

Just also to inform the House….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is important.

When the Minister of Labour’s estimates are finished, in here we will be doing bills. The estimates for Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation will move into the Doug­las Fir Room.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, ECONOMIC RECOVERY
AND INNOVATION

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

The Chair: Members, I think we should go into recess while we wait for the appropriate staff to arrive. So the committee will be in recess. Thank you, Members.

The committee recessed from 2:45 p.m. to 2:50 p.m.

[S. Chandra in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. We are here for the ministry estimates for Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation.

On Vote 36: ministry operations, $110,426,000.

L. Doerkson: I had a moment to have a brief chat with the minister, and I think most of my focus today will be certainly with respect to subvote “Regional development.” I do want to say I serve a couple of masters and some of those are in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and others, of course, are in rural B.C. So I do want to start there.

Honestly, that’s my first question. We have obviously referred to this as regional development. That sort of phrase is somewhat gone from FLNRORD, of course, and it’s moved over to you, and it is now called regional development. I wondered if we could start right there and maybe get an answer as to why the name has changed?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to thank the member for the question. I think, first off, I’ll say that I appreciate the sentiment behind the question. I want to highlight to the member that the rural piece is very important. The name actually is Rural and Regional Development. You could see that reflected in the budget, in the blue document. The parliamentary secretary that is coming over to our ministry is also going to be the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural and Regional Development.

L. Doerkson: I guess that’s a bit of my concern. Rural development has always been focused, and that sort of pot of money and funds has been committed to rural British Columbia for a number of years. My concern, of course, is with respect to that now including the word “regional.” Will this pot of money…? Will these funds be supporting other areas of British Columbia outside rural B.C. and perhaps in urban centres?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think I’ll start with saying how excited I am to have this division come and join our ministry. We’re only a few days in, but I’m really excited about the opportunities.

The member will have, perhaps, seen the economic plan. There are several new actions that I think benefit rural communities and communities throughout British Columbia — the small business diversification initiative, the industrial manufacturing initiative that we’ve got and, of course, connectivity, which I know is a big, big thing that comes up often. I’m sure the member hears about it as well.

The work that we’ll be doing…. Because it’s new, we’re going to be, obviously, engaging with communities to ensure that we can support rural communities. But we’ve also heard from rural communities that floods and fires and all these impacts that we see, don’t see boundaries. So there’s a desire to focus on rural communities but make sure that the regions are working together in the planning as well.

That’s why the regional piece came in — because we heard from communities saying: “Hey, we got to work together.” Of course, we have the pieces we want to see, but we want to work collectively to move issues forward. So that’s where the regional came from.

L. Doerkson: Perhaps I can ask that in a different way.

I can appreciate there needs to be work done together. I appreciate that. But in the past, these funds have largely been dedicated to rural B.C. I guess my question or, certainly, my fear or concern is that that pot just got a little smaller for rural B.C.

I guess my question is, maybe to be a little more specific: how much of these funds will actually be designated to rural B.C. specifically?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The team just wanted me to read this into the record, which is: the budget sub-vote is in the estimates as regional development, not rural and regional development. But as I mentioned, the rural communities remain very important. So I just wanted to clarify that piece for you. The parliamentary secretary, obviously, will be the parliamentary secretary for rural and regional economic…. Yeah. So that’s what I’m referring to.

To the member’s other question, I would say that there will not be any less focus on the rural with the supports than we had in the previous year. In fact, my hope is that we are able to continue to do more to support rural and regional communities both. But rural communities are your particular focus. The 21 staff that we had on the ground in rural communities will be remaining in those communities, so the resources there are not going to change at all.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that answer. I am so glad to hear that those staff are going to remain in place. So services to rural B.C. are not going to be less. Are you suggesting, then, that there won’t be funds from this spent in urban B.C? I mean, this is basically the same amount of funding that was, last year, dedicated to rural B.C.

I think what I’ve heard from the minister is that we we’re going to keep all the staff, and we’re going to have the same amount of support for rural British Columbia. I guess I just want to confirm, then, that there’s going to be nothing spent in urban B.C.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Perhaps I’m not quite clear on how the member defines urban. I think he said urban British Columbia. Maybe he can just give me more of an understanding of what he’s thinking.

L. Doerkson: Perhaps I’ll define urban as anywhere in the city. So in other words, rural B.C., of course, struggles with different challenges. I guess my point is that this funding was in place before for rural British Columbia, and I’m wondering if that funding is going to become smaller.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: In just chatting with the team, I think the premise of the member’s question is: are the dollars that are there going to be sent to big metropolitan areas? The answer is no. Our intention is to continue to do the work to support rural communities.

We do know, as I highlighted, that fires, floods, some of these impacts that we’ve seen, cross all jurisdictions. So for us, it’s important to make sure we plan and have the regional lens. But our intention isn’t to spend more dollars from this pot of money for major metropolitan areas.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. I’m pleased to hear that. As I’ve noted, and I don’t think it would be surprising to many of the people in this room, there are some pretty significant challenges out there.

The minister has mentioned now, I guess, for the second or third time, wildfires and floods. I’d be curious to know what your ministry would have to do with any of that. I’ve seen, obviously, large funding in other ministries and other parts of the budget, but I certainly didn’t recognize anything here. I’m just wondering if there is.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, the member will know, because he’s lived through some challenging fires in his community, that when an incident like that happens, it’s all hands on deck. What the team has done under EMBC’s leadership — EMBC is the lead — is that if we have got boots on the ground, our people have gone in to work with Community Futures, to work with the local chambers to help to coordinate some supports. We have 21 people on the ground in communities. That is where we come in, but it’s all under EMBC’s leadership.

L. Doerkson: I think I’m going to leave that for now and come back to that a little bit later.

I want to talk a little bit about the structure of this subvote specifically. I just want to read from the mandate letter. It suggests — this is, of course, the Premier speaking — “I expect you to reach out to elected members from all parties as you deliver on your mandate. Further, you will build thoughtful and sustained relationships through public and stakeholder engagement.” I’m just wondering if you could tell me which parties you reached out to while building this plan.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Is the member referring to the StrongerBC economic plan?

L. Doerkson: Yeah, with respect to…. Reaching across the floor, I think, is what I read the mandate letter to indicate. I’m just wondering, with respect to the budgeting, the jobs plan, all of the plan that you have put together over the last months — I’m sure that it’s been a daunting exercise; it’s a massive amount of money — have you consulted or reached out across party lines to discuss that with anybody in this House?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks for the question. You know, I pride myself on being able to work with everyone. Whether it was with grants, whether it was businesses needing supports, finding out where to go and who to ask for financial supports for specific instances, I have been working with everyone. In fact, many of your colleagues have reached out on specific files, and I’ve been able to chase them down.

I guess now there are two critics. The critic, the member from Kamloops, has talked to me about issues he thinks are important through our estimates exchanges. We’ve had conversations offline about important initiatives, for his community in particular, and many members have.

My door is open. Certainly, I put the offer to you now, because I know that you come with good intentions, that if you think there’s something important for rural development, I’m more than happy to meet with you any time to talk about that.

L. Doerkson: I certainly thank you for that, and I thank you for the opportunity. I would like that opportunity in the future to sort of share some ideas across this floor. We’ve talked about that today a little bit.

With respect to full-time employees — we’ve talked a little bit about this — I just wanted to get a bit of the structure, under specifically this subvote, as to regional and rural development. How many full-time employees are there? Are there part-time employees? Where, roughly, are they situated?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’ve got 21 regional staff. I can get the member some information in writing, if he likes, but I can just give it to him as well now. We have staff in Prince Rupert, Terrace, Vanderhoof, Fort St. John, Quesnel, Williams Lake, Kamloops, Invermere, Kelowna, Vernon, Penticton, Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo and Campbell River. That’s where we’ve got staff on the ground. We’ve got 21 of them that are situated throughout the province, and then we’ve got 18 staff that are here in Victoria.

L. Doerkson: Thank you very much for that. It sounds like they’re certainly spread throughout the province, which is fantastic.

I wonder if the minister could give me a bit of a breakdown, specifically, about this subvote — where the funds might be used or how they might be used.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to thank the member for asking questions like this. He may find that funny — I find it funny — but the team here hasn’t been asked questions about the line items on the budget. They do a lot of work to prepare for this, so I really appreciate you asking.

I can give you the numbers, which are: $2.1 million of that is salary and benefits; $25 million is grants and program admin; and then there is about 0.8, which is, like, rum and rations — some odds and ends. The balance is about $27.9 million in operating costs, contracts and IT, etc.

L. Doerkson: Thank you very much for that. Yeah, I saw the back pats over there, so that’s great.

I just want to dig a little bit deeper on this then. When you talk about grants and other items, of course, there’s that rural dividend fund in there again. What I want to understand, I guess, a little bit more clearly is how much of the funding left over after paying staff would be dedicated to forestry workers that may be displaced by the situation that is happening there?

Hon. R. Kahlon: None of this money that I have spoken about is for forest workers or impacted forest workers. That would be separate money.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. I noted in a number of places that your ministry was going to be helping with that initiative to create either work or transition programs. I just want to confirm that. So none of this money is for that. Are you able to identify where that funding may be coming from, and, if so, how much is planned for that?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: In Budget 2022, we provide $185 million over three years to support forest workers and communities affected by old-growth logging deferrals. These forest workers supports and community supports programs are joint initiatives between JERI, the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training, the Ministry of Labour and FLNRORD.

We don’t have the exact definitions yet, but I can commit to the member that once we have that, I can share with him how that will be split amongst the ministries.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister, for that.

I guess, in keeping with that same theme again, from…. I think this is the mandate letter. “Work with the Minister of Labour to establish a worker training and job opportunity office to maximize the impact of our economic recovery plan for workers and communities during COVID-19 and beyond, with a focus on retaining workers, supporting resource communities facing job loss, developing higher-value goods,” etc.

I guess I’m shocked that none of this money is for that. I’m actually quite shocked. Can you define how this paragraph or this bullet might look to British Columbians as we go forward, as far as what your part of completing these tasks will look like?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I wasn’t quite clear on why the member was shocked. I thought I said, and I’ll just say it again, that the $185 million that has been allocated in the budget…. We have every expectation that we’re going to be getting some of those dollars to do the important work that has been highlighted.

It’s important work, whether it’s supporting manufacturing, supporting the value-added sector or supporting communities in economic transition, whether that’s climate related or technologically related. We canvassed that at great length yesterday.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. That $185 million over three years — we do expect to get some of that. When we’ve got that information, I’m happy to share that with the member.

[3:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Member.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Nice to see you.

I appreciate that, and I certainly look forward to looking that over and understanding where that money is coming from. But there’s $25 million here that I’m not certain…. The minister mentioned that it’s for grant funding and that kind of thing. I guess what I’m trying to get at is: what is this $25 million for?

I can appreciate that there might be money coming from another ministry, but $25 million is going to be spent in this province in the next year, and I can appreciate that, I think, $2.155 million of that will be spent on staff. I’m just not sure what the rest of this is.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Chair, I see what the member was asking. Sorry, there was a bit of confusion. Just to clarify, on the $185 million, when we get the numbers on how much we’re going to be getting, I’ll be sharing that with the member. For the $25 million that the member is talking about, I can give him examples of what that money has been used for in this previous year.

The money was used for things like economic development strategies for local communities. What’s really important is that for 21 people that we have, the boots on the ground, they work with local communities to figure out what the needs are in rural communities. From that, then they can find ways to support economic development strategies. They have supported local chambers in attracting and retaining local businesses.

[3:35 p.m.]

They’ve worked with Indigenous communities on economic development initiatives. It’s very broad, but it’s really important that we hear from communities on where the needs are. That’s the work that has been done with this fund in the previous year.

L. Doerkson: If I am hearing right, there isn’t a specific plan for this money, then. Is there no specific plan for this money for the coming year?

Hon. R. Kahlon: What I can commit to the member is we’re going to continue to invest these dollars to address rural needs. We’re going to continue to identify where the opportunities and the needs are, and continue to invest the dollars where those needs are.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that answer. I’m not trying to get you into a corner here. I’m just trying to understand if there is a plan for the money or isn’t. Again, I’m not trying to back you into a corner.

Is this funding, then, more of a responsive funding? I mean, is it a fund that will be called upon if there are problems? The minister referred to wildfires, floods, etc., earlier. If there is no plan, I’m guessing that this is response money.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The money that we are talking about will be there to respond to the needs of the community. I’ve had some meetings with leaders from rural communities, who have said, “Thank God that you were able to provide us those dollars,” because it was really helpful to do X, Y, Z. I think that’s what the member was asking about. Yes, that’s what our plan is.

L. Doerkson: That’s exactly what I was wondering. So we know that there’s not…. I mean, there is obviously a plan to spend the money if needed, if required. It’s obviously money that will be used in response to something.

I guess, then, my next question with respect to that fund is: what would trigger a response to that? Would it be small business funding? What would create a reason to access these funds?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the past, there have been application processes for people to apply for those dollars. But the member highlighted my mandate letter. The Premier’s asked me to engage with communities to ensure that the dollars we’re spending are meeting their needs. I’ve already started doing some engagement, but certainly I’m going to be, in the next coming weeks, engaging with lots of local officials. Happy to hear from the member as well. Then we’ll figure out the process for those dollars.

L. Doerkson: That’s great to hear. So that engagement process is happening now. We’ve already decided, or the ministry has already decided, on the amount of money, so I guess, maybe…. I wonder how we arrived at that number. How did $25 million…? How was that picked? If we don’t know the obstacles that are before us and if we don’t know what the communities require for help, how did we arrive at that number?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I just want to highlight that I’ll be doing the engagement, but the parliamentary secretary will also be doing a lot of that engagement. This allocation of money has been consistent for more than five years for the ministry.

L. Doerkson: Thank you very much for that. I know that the funding has been consistent, and I’m going to hold you to your promise about the rural development piece.

Going back to that paragraph, I wonder. I know that perhaps it sounds like the engagement hasn’t started quite yet, but maybe you could confirm that, of course. And secondly, it specifically says “supporting resource communities facing job loss.” I’m just wondering. We know that that’s a serious part of our future. We’re starting to see it now in a few communities.

I’m wondering if your ministry has any idea what that might look like and what those supports might look like for communities. And further, if that engagement has started at all with any of the communities.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: On the engagement front, part of creating the StrongerBC economic plan, we had 300 distinct engagements, so we had very extensive engagement on that. We have a fairly good sense of some of the needs, but certainly, in the coming weeks, there will be a lot of meetings that the parliamentary secretary and I will be taking on.

The second question is broadly around the impacts of potential forest deferrals. You know, I spent, previous to this role, some time as a parliamentary secretary for FLNRO, so I spent lots of time in the Interior in the communities that were impacted from pine beetle. I do have a connection to the work that’s needed when communities are impacted. It’s not easy. It’s very difficult. Certainly, I spent some time in the member’s community, so we know that any incident that happens or any closure that happens, the supporting workers are the first and most important thing. So that work is going to happen.

There are obviously the social impacts that come with that, and then, of course, there are the economic pieces that come with that as well. So our team right now…. We have two communities that we’re working with already on that. One is Powell River, and the other one is Vanderhoof. So when that need comes, of course we all work together to make sure that we can support communities. Those two communities are ones we’re working with right now.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister.

Getting back to the $185 million fund that will be coming, I guess, into your ministry, or certainly from another ministry, to the people of British Columbia, I’m wondering first off: will you be managing that, and will that be where the transitional funds come for forestry workers? Will that also be business programs, etc.? I guess, more than anything, I’m wondering if it will be this ministry that manages that money.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I highlighted earlier in the answer for the member that there are four ministries that will be working together with that $185 million: FLNRO, AEST, Labour and JERI. Again, I committed to the member that once we know the dollars that are being allocated between them, I will share that with the member.

We will be coordinating the efforts. We know that all the work is going to require a good deal of coordination. We’ve seen that level of coordination when we had to deal with some mills that were closed because of the pine beetle. So that work will continue here.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister.

I guess, while we’re here, we’re going to…. I’ll come back to some of this in a little bit. The moment lends itself well to just ask about a program that I’m sure you’re all familiar with. It was a one-time program, and that’s CERIP, the community economic recovery infrastructure…. I think that you did manage that fund.

I can tell you that the beloved Potato House in my community of Williams Lake did receive some of that funding. I think that the funding, in general terms, was pretty welcomed into the community. I think it was $90 million or $100 million. There’s a lot of hurt out there still. I can see that. Certainly, we have reached out to a number of ministries.

My question is…. I’m well aware that this was a one-time fund, but I wondered if it’s been considered at all for this year.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member is correct. There was $100 million, part of StrongerBC — a stimulus fund through the pandemic. Of that, $20 million came to the team that was doing this work. It was part of the COVID response, the stimulus fund at that time. That was just that one-time funding.

L. Doerkson: I knew all of that. I was asking if the ministry had considered any other funding like that for the coming year, knowing that there is still some COVID hurt out there. There are, certainly, groups that have been unable to raise money.

Again, it’s not something that I want to spend a lot of time on. I just wonder if the ministry had considered that at all, because it was very successful for rural British Columbia. I’m certain that there were all kinds of projects done in the cities as well. Certainly, it was a big benefit for us in rural B.C.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s great to hear that the member’s got good feedback on that program, and that was it was popular and successful. I think the dollars we have right now are the ones that I’ve highlighted. So it’s the money that we’ve already talked about, and then the $185 million for impacted workers and communities.

Again, when those numbers are available, I’ll certainly share that with the member.

L. Doerkson: Great. Thank you very much — appreciate it. I am happy to highlight, you know, things that have worked well, especially when it’s money coming to our home ridings, of course.

I will leave that for now, and I wanted to move along to the northern development fund special account. I guess, really, all I wanted to know is what that is. It’s $500,000. If the minister could just explain what that represents.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The B.C.-Alcan Northern Development Fund was established in ’97. I think the member wants to know the history. Okay. It was surrounding the cancellation of the Kemano completion project. At that time, B.C. and Alcan committed $7½ million each to a development fund.

Every year they take an allocation of that fund to use for things like…. For example, last year they gave Kitimat Marine Rescue Society $50,000 for a new marine vehicle. So they use the funds for what they deem is needed in the community.

L. Doerkson: Is that just for the northwest corner of the province? And that funding will obviously continue through. Who decides what the funding will be spent on? Is that your ministry or…?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The Nechako-Kitamaat Development Fund Society make decisions themselves on where they want to spend the money. They’ve got one representative from government. There are 11 members, total, and one representative from government who’s part of the 11.

L. Doerkson: I don’t want to spend a whole bunch of time here, so maybe I’ll try to combine a couple of questions.

It sounds great. So I guess my curiosity is…. Has this been considered elsewhere? Is there an application process? I mean, it sounds like a fund that could go very well in Cariboo-Chilcotin, for instance — not to mention any ridings, but I think it would certainly be welcomed.

I appreciate it has been a long time in northwest B.C. But is there an application process, and has it been considered for other ridings?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The B.C.-Alcan Northern Development Fund was created because of Kemano going down. It was an agreement from Kemano and others. I’ll share with the member that we do have other trusts. We have the Island Coastal Economic Trust; the Northern Development Initiative Trust, which actually covers the member’s community as well; and then the economic trust southern initiatives, which are similar. They all have application processes to support community initiatives.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. I am definitely aware of those trusts, and we will move on from there. I was going to ask a couple of questions about that, because you brought it up, but we’ll leave that alone for now.

What is the rural resident attraction pilot listed in your service plan? I’ll just leave it at that, if I could get an explanation for what it is.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It was part of the StrongerBC program. It focused on five regional projects, so I’ll give the member the communities: Canal Flats, Fort St. James, north Island, Prince Rupert and Kaslo. The program was to attract and retain residents in the communities, in the regions. The work is ongoing right now.

L. Doerkson: Maybe just by a nod, did you say the work is ongoing now?

Okay. It’s to attract residents. I mean is this…? I thought that it was something new. Has it been successful? Is it working, and what are the metrics that you would use to judge that program?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, the team actually just had meetings last week with the teams. The work hasn’t been completed yet, but I’ll share with the member a little bit around what each community is doing.

For example, the village of Canal Flats has a community goal of reaching a permanent population of 1,000 by 2026. As part of the plan, they set out their community goal, and then they identify what their key industries are.

[4:20 p.m.]

Then they make a list of current projects that they want to take on in order to reach their goal. Current projects: resident attraction, marketing, placemaking, new resident investor information materials, first point of contact for lead development.

Some of the success they’ve had is…. They just finished their place-making project, the Shore to Shore pathway. They have a revitalization tax incentive bylaw that they came up with and they’ve passed.

Each community has their own. Would the member like me to go through each of them for him? Quickly, okay. I’ll go through quickly.

Fort St. James has a current population of 1,386. Their community goal is diversifying their economy following the sale of their local sawmill. They have identified for current projects to develop marketing materials, to update local brochures and print media, to work on revisioning Cottonwood park, the waterfront area — again, signage and way finding, a master plan and an RFP process. They’ve completed their recreation and leisure amenities guidebook, and they’ve just completed a survey around Cottonwood park, the waterfront area in the community. They just did that.

On Vancouver Island north, they have identified for themselves…. I don’t see the goal here, but I can share with you that they’ve got a home-based knowledge worker strategy, a partnership with Mount Waddington Health Network and Island Health for sector attraction, workshops for economic developers on First Nations initiatives, developing a second labour market survey.

Is that good? Okay. Yeah. Each community has got their own targets and goals, and this is about helping them meet those goals.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for the abbreviated explanation of what’s happening.

I guess what threw me was the word “pilot.” That suggested to me that this was a new program, but it sounds like there is much work happening right now. It sounds like small communities in our province are reaching out to the ministry for help, at least to grow their communities. I’m not certain if there are other aspects to that with respect to doctors, nurses — you know, filling some of those very important spots throughout rural B.C.

I guess, noting that this program is well underway…. How much was dedicated to it last year, and how much will be dedicated to it in the coming year?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We had allocated $1 million to this. So far, as I’ve shared, the work is ongoing. We’re going to continue to assess the goals that communities have set to see how they’re progressing and then make decisions from there.

L. Doerkson: Just one quick question. It sounds like $1 million in the coming year. No. Sorry. It was $1 million last year.

Is there anything specifically allocated to this? How can other communities in British Columbia reach out to be a part of this program?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The communities that have gone through were identified by the staff that are working in communities. They looked at a whole host of things. Readiness. They looked at whether a community had an attraction strategy, regional distribution — and, in the case of Canal Flats, a community that was in transition. That’s how they were identified.

We’re going to go through the work that we’re doing now and just assess whether the program is successful. Then we’re going to have to assess whether and how we would broaden that, if there are needs. We’re first going to focus on the ones that we’ve identified to see how that progresses.

If I can request — if the member is okay, if the Chair is okay — a short recess for a couple of minutes so that we could….

The Chair: We’ll be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:27 p.m. to 4:32 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: We are here with the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation.

L. Doerkson: Mr. Chair, just before you arrived, we were talking a little bit about what the rural resident attraction pilot is. I understand that there are a few. I just want to spend a couple more minutes on this, because I think this could be really vital to a number of communities.

I’m just wondering about the parameters of the program. You mentioned that you identified, or staff identified, those communities that might be in need. I guess what I’m curious most about is how those communities got noticed. Maybe to save a little bit of time, I wondered how communities in the future could be noticed.

I think that there are many applications for something like this. I mean, I think that the minister referred to a number of communities that are trying to grow their population, or perhaps even recover after a mill closure or something like that. But as I touched on, a little bit, before the break, there are certainly — I don’t think I’m bringing anything shocking to the chamber — shortages for doctors.

Would this fund be in a position to help a community like mine to go forth in securing doctors or nurses? Would you help with those kinds of recruiting items under this particular pilot?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The communities that were chosen were — because it was a pandemic response — the communities that were ready to go, which were identified by the teams on the ground. Now, that being said, as we go and engage with community, we’re going to do, starting very soon…. Some of that has already started.

We may identify more communities that have that as their need — as something they identify that’s important for their economic development. The member may also have communities that he can think of that are well suited for this. I’m happy to hear his thoughts. As well, I’m sure we’ll be hearing from communities as we go about our engagement.

L. Doerkson: Yeah, we can do that after these meetings are over.

I want to turn now, a little bit, to job creation, if that’s all right by the minister and the Chair. I want to talk about specific initiatives that may be going on in the Cariboo-Chilcotin right now. But also, in light of time, I would like to hear, in general terms, what may be going on in rural B.C.

There’s obviously a lot happening throughout the province right now. The minister, I think — I’m not certain he could be quoted on it — touched on if the situation develops in our forests. I think you suggested that you had been a parliamentary secretary there. I can assure you that certainly in Cariboo-Chilcotin, it is having an effect now, and I’ll get into that a little bit more.

I do know that the AAC was cut in the Okanagan by around 20 percent. I don’t think I’m wrong on that. I guess what I’m wondering is: what specific initiatives is your ministry undertaking to create new jobs, specifically in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, but also in general terms, in rural British Columbia?

The Chair: If I just might…. I didn’t want to intervene; you’re having such a cooperative conversation. But of course, just as a general reminder, we don’t say “you,” because that would refer to me. Instead, we would say “to the member” or “to the minister.” But thank you for keeping it collaborative.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The teams we have — what they do is work with local communities on their economic development plans. So they support initiatives in communities.

The member asked about the Cariboo-Chilcotin in particular. I know he’s pleased to see, because it’s the Cariboo and Prince George area…. There are a few areas that are shining lights for the rest of the province. The Cariboo area is just shy of 108 percent to pre-pandemic employment levels — so 8 percent higher employment now than prior to the pandemic, which is quite remarkable. Obviously, there are a whole host of investments, whether it’s connectivity, whether it’s infrastructure investments for rural communities. Also critically important is training.

We can go into more details, and obviously, some of those pieces are within different ministries. But the team that we have, the folks that are working on the ground, work with communities on their economic development plans. They support the communities in their plans as we go forward.

I’m happy to go into more detail if the member chooses.

L. Doerkson: I am very happy to hear that number for Cariboo-Chilcotin. I guess in areas where we have seen job loss…. You mentioned some of them with respect to the last program that we were talking about. I’m going to get into this a little bit more with respect to the self-employed people of the province, but are there any specific initiatives, in those communities that have seen job loss, that your ministry is leading the charge on with respect to job creation? If so, what kinds of jobs are those, and what effort is being made on behalf of your ministry?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: So I’ll answer the member’s question, but yesterday I committed to the hon. member from Kamloops that I would get him some information and read it into the record, so I’m just going to do that now for him. It was around the funding for the Michael Smith and Genome B.C.

A $195 million investment to further develop B.C.’s growing life science sector, which was referenced in Budget 2022, is grant funding for Michael Smith research B.C. and Genome B.C. It is being funded through the 2021-2022 appropriation and was announced on budget day, February 22, 2022. This is a new allocation and was not announced in Budget 2021. For more information, he can raise that with the Ministry of Finance. It was new money. We were just going back and forth, and I committed that I would read that into the record for him.

I’ll answer this question for you as well, Member. I think that first, it’s important for me to share that the team we have on the ground focuses on working with communities on their economic plans, whether that’s helping them create an economic plan or whether that’s supporting them if they have a specific initiative that they want to advance. In some communities they don’t have economic development officers, so they go in and kind of play that role to support communities — not to become the economic development officer for the community but to go in and help facilitate some of those conversations.

[4:50 p.m.]

We also have within our ministry an investment branch that engaged with international investors to try to find homes for investments to happen here in British Columbia. So we work with them to identify what kind of investment they want to make, and then we help them identify potential communities that might be a good fit and that meet the parameters of what they would like to see.

Because of the pandemic, there was a little bit less activity than normal, but we saw significant investments — at a historic level. We’re starting to see that pick up, where companies are saying: “Okay, we’re looking at a potential site for investment. Where can we do that?” So we have a team that does that work.

The bigger challenge that we’re hearing from employers right now is finding people. So the jobs are there, but it’s finding the people to fill the jobs. Whether that’s more investments in child care to bring the costs down so more people can enter the workforce to take those job, whether that’s the training and re-skilling so that people can quickly get the micro-credentials they need to take those employment opportunities….

Then it’s also through net migration, interprovincial migration from other provinces…. We saw, in the first three-quarters of last year, that 30,000 people moved to British Columbia. It’s also immigration from outside of Canada.

Those are some of the pillars we’re using to help to address the labour challenges.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that. I guess I have more questions because of that answer. This is something that I’m very worried about. I’m going to try to draw a little bit of a picture for all of you.

In my riding, for instance, I have advocated on behalf of log home builders. Those log home builders — we have been able to get a meeting with the minister, or not with the minister, but certainly with staff, to express their concern. The concern is that because of…. The minister referred earlier to “if it happens” or “when it happens.” I can’t stress this enough: the log home builders of my riding are unable to secure logs to build homes that they have already sold.

That’s not just in my riding. I have spoken with many others. Certainly, the Woodlot Federation shares similar concerns. They’re very worried about what the old growth strategy is going to be and the effect that that is going to have on their businesses.

While we’re not hearing, necessarily, the talk about that, in many places throughout the plan, the ministry refers to creating jobs. Specifically, in the service plan, it says: “Create short-term employment.” This is what I meant by moving along to some of our contractors.

“Create short-term employment opportunities for contractors and their employees to mitigate the job losses.” Now, it might be great to say that the Cariboo-Chilcotin is at 108 percent, but this is happening. I know it to be happening. I’ve spoken about it in budget speeches and throne speeches, and it’s been acknowledged by the ministry. So we are going to lose these jobs.

I guess there are two sides to that coin, of course. You’ve got a very skilled labour force. I’m not sure, but I certainly couldn’t go build a log house. So you’ve got a very skilled labour force, one that we all seem pretty committed to bolstering. We have talked about value-added in many places throughout the jobs plan and throughout FLNRORD estimates. We’ve talked about it repeatedly, yet this is a sector that stands to be hurt quite badly by what’s happening in the forest. In fact, as I said, it’s going on right now.

Specifically, what will happen for these people? The ministry says it will create short-term employment opportunities. Well, what are those opportunities? And for both, right? The difference between me going to work at a log home facility is that I’m carrying a $12 lunch pail to work, maybe a chainsaw. But for the company owner, obviously there’s significant risk that they’ve taken, significant investment, not only in land and other things, but they’ve got a payroll to keep. They’ve got insurance to keep up, etc.

[4:55 p.m.]

I guess that what I’m looking for is some sort of specific example of what those employment opportunities look like for both sides — the people that are going to lose their jobs building those homes, and the owner of the company, who may have to transition to something else.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve met with log home companies in the member’s riding. That was the last round. I know how challenging access to fibre can be. I’m sure the member’s going to canvass this question at length with the Minister of FLNRO.

[5:00 p.m.]

What I’ll say is that we have $185 million, as I’ve already shared with the member, allocated. Once we have information on what dollars go to what ministry, I’ll share that with the member.

I’ll give him some examples of, in the past, what we’ve done with dollars for supporting communities in transition — especially, as the member mentioned, short-term employment. We’ve put out contracts, whether it’s forest service roads or whether it’s working on parks, trails and other projects that need to happen.

Now, some companies may be able to take that up, but for some companies, that might not be a fit. We’ll have to see what those challenges are and address them. That’s something that our team will do. That’s what our team has done in the past. The folks that are on the ground will work with those that are impacted and work to find solutions.

L. Doerkson: Yeah, I will canvass it with the Forests Ministry, of course. I think that this is coming sooner rather than later. Surely, it could be appreciated that it’s frustrating to hear that that is not kind of underway already. I can appreciate that there are potential opportunities all over the province to build roads — to do this, to do that. Certainly, I hope that the ministry is ready to respond very quickly.

Now, I know that there’s $185 million. We’ve determined today that the $25 million really is a responsive fund, because it doesn’t have a specific plan around that funding. I just really hope that the ministry is in a position to respond very quickly, because I really feel as though this is happening as we speak. I know that some of the numbers look quite good for employment in different sectors. I certainly would concede that point and can appreciate it. But I get a genuine sense that that has the ability to change like that, so I’m very, very worried about that.

I want to talk a little bit about LNG. I only have a few more moments left. There were a number of comments made this past week with respect to LNG, and I’d like to read a couple of them into the record right now.

These, of course, came from the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural and Regional Development. He said: “If we want forward-looking and effective economic independence for First Nations, if we want good jobs for our children’s children in a world that is safe and secure, then all indicators are that future LNG expansion isn’t the answer.”

The second quote was made by the member, suggesting: “We should be talking about what the people of Kitimat or Lytton or Princeton or Okanagan Falls want to see their economy and their culture and their community look like in ten years or 20 years and be working towards that together. The long-term forecasts from industry that I see for future LNG development don’t look particularly rosy.”

The first question I have on this is: does the Minister of Jobs endorse the statement of his parliamentary secretary that LNG expansion isn’t the answer?

Hon. R. Kahlon: To start with, I think it’s important to note that, just like everybody in my community doesn’t have the same opinion, just like people in the member’s community don’t have the same opinion, we also have First Nations in British Columbia that have different opinions, whether that’s for LNG, for mines or for whatever the economic development opportunity is. So I think it’s important to note that there’s not one voice — that every community has the right to decide what they would like to see for themselves in their community.

That would be my response — that there are a lot of different opinions, and we’ll leave it to nations to decide and speak for themselves. Certainly, I won’t be speaking for nations.

[5:05 p.m.]

I will say that there’s a significant investment underway. Work is underway right now. The future of LNG is a discussion that’s happening all over the world. I know the member for Skeena raised the issue of Germany. Germany is looking at LNG as a potential transition fuel for them, but they’re also investing heavily in innovation to move beyond natural gas.

I think that’s going to be important for the world as we transition. Natural gas plays a role in that transition, but it’s going to be vitally important that we invest heavily in the innovation that will get us past fossil fuels. I think every jurisdiction in the world understands the importance of that.

L. Doerkson: With respect, of course, I can appreciate the comments. Certainly, there are many opinions out there, but most people of British Columbia are not parliamentary secretaries or ministers.

In this case, this was a parliamentary secretary, and the question was: do you endorse the statement? That’s a simple question.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate that the member is reading a short clip of the entire statement. I haven’t had a chance to read the entirety of the comments, but I will say that my parliamentary secretary is an excellent ambassador of his community. He engages people regularly. There are a lot of different views on natural resource development in every community, and people have the right to speak about what they hear in their communities, just like the member does.

When it comes to forestry, the member from Prince George talks about decimating the forests and what impacts that has. I think it’s fair to say that his views may not be the same as of every member of the opposition. We still respect the view, because his job is to represent his community. My parliamentary secretary brings perspectives that he hears from his community.

As a minister, I’ve given you an answer, which is that natural gas plays an important role in the transition of the energy in the world. But we know — we all know — that we need to invest heavily in that transition, and we need to get to a state where we’re not reliant on fossil fuels.

The member knows, because his community has been dealing with fires. The members from across this place know we’ve been dealing with floods and heat domes. We must address climate change. Part of addressing that is getting to a net-zero future. That’s what we’re focused on.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister, for the response.

Latvia’s ambassador has asked Canada to export more LNG. What role are we going to play in that, and how will your ministry help with that delivery?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, the member will know that his party talked about it a lot; we actually did something. The question is: how much of a role will it play in the world energy market? That we’ll know in the near future.

Certainly, what we’re seeing in Russia, with Russia invading Ukraine, is having some impacts on the markets. But I think this is an opportunity for Europe to be more ambitious and be more bold to address their future energy needs, to invest more heavily in innovation, to get themselves off fossil fuels in the long run. They may need more natural gas in the short term, but we’ll see.

These are a lot of decisions that have to be made by the private sector. I am sure the member appreciates that these investments are not going to be made by government. They’re going to be made by private sector investments, and we look forward to hearing from any company that thinks that that might be their opportunity.

L. Doerkson: Again, I can appreciate everything that the minister said, and I can appreciate there are two roles there for LNG. There’s one on a world scale, and there’s one, of course, in our province — a provincial scale.

With respect to the role that it plays within our province, it could be a massive opportunity for us, in a time when, as the minister noted, the forest economy is struggling and there are things happening there. I’m surprised that there isn’t more about it in the actual plan going forward.

[5:10 p.m.]

I guess I’d like to hear, one more time, if the ministry will offer up more support to that industry — which I think we could take full advantage of in our province, to create income, revenue, taxes and all kinds of things.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think British Columbia has an incredible opportunity to help the world, but we have an opportunity to help them in different ways. We have the opportunity to help them with green hydrogen. We have the ability to help the world in numerous ways, and, in fact, in the economic plan, we made a significant investment in a centre of excellence that will help us move that agenda forward.

I’m sure the member will be canvassing this at great lengths with the Minister for Energy, Mines and Low-Carbon Solutions. But I think I’ve give given the member the answer already.

L. Doerkson: Before I turn the questions over to the member from Saanich North and the Islands, I’d like to just thank you all for your help today and for the few hours that we’ve been able to spend together. Thank you very much.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I also want to thank the member for his excellent questions. I know my team really appreciated the fact that he actually asked a lot of questions about each line of the budget.

Our team does a lot of work to prepare for estimates. It’s been my experience that it’s not often…. A lot of the topics are not covered, and the member did a great job. I commit to the member that I’ll follow up with him on the specific piece that I committed to him on.

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to canvass the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation. I’m not going to be going into too much detail on each line item, but I do want to, I think, have a bit of a conversation. This is also an opportunity to talk about the philosophical perspective that the minister takes to this important role in terms of jobs and economic recovery.

As we have faced disruption in our economy, I think to great detail, it’s important for us to understand. My first question to the minister is a question that I have asked other ministers. I think it’s a good place to start. In question period a couple weeks back, I asked a question of the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation about the actions in the draft action plan that was tabled last summer. Of course, there’s going to be an action plan that’s not got “draft” written on it. It will be the finalized one coming soon.

I asked where the actions were going to be funded from, and he suggested that it was out of each ministry’s core budget. I believe that this is actually a positive step forward — that reconciliation needs to be a core focus of each ministry. Perhaps I’ll just give the minister an opportunity to highlight what steps he’s taking to ensure that reconciliation does remain a priority within his ministry.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s nice to see the member. I appreciate his question. We’re wearing similar ties, I just noticed, as well. Different colours, but we have a similar taste, I guess.

I want to thank him for his question. It is really important to me, this question. When I first got elected, the first task that the Premier assigned to me was to work to re-establish a human rights commission here in British Columbia. That process opened my eyes in a way…. I saw things that perhaps I never saw before.

What I’ve learned in this role is that we’re always learning, and when it comes to First Nations and Indigenous communities, I just love the opportunity to continue to learn and grow.

The member’s question was: how does that play a role? We’ve already started to do some work, because we know — the member and I would agree — that the pandemic hasn’t created inequities in our society; it’s merely exposed them. We know that the saying that “We’re all in the same storm, but we’re all in different boats” is a fair reflection of the pandemic. We saw a disproportionate impact on employment with women, with Indigenous communities, with Black communities.

It was already a priority for us in the economic recovery, whether that was grants or investments, but some of the work that we’ve been doing…. My Parliamentary Secretary for Technology was engaging closely with the First Nations Tech Council on how we ensure that in the tech sector that’s growing so fast here in British Columbia, we ensure that Indigenous communities, First Nations people, get an opportunity to get good employment opportunities in the tech sector, to start their own companies.

We did a very extensive engagement. We launched what we called an innovator skills initiative program, which supports companies to hire people who are underrepresented in the tech sector, gives them their first employment opportunity in tech.

With that employment opportunity, what we did was we worked with the First Nations Tech Council…. What happens too often is that when these programs are created, we require the participants to have accreditation from post-secondary education or our systems of education. What we did is we changed the program to ensure that the First Nations Tech Council’s accreditation program was an accepted use so that everybody that came through their program now had the opportunity to get their first job in tech. So we streamlined that and removed barriers. That’s just one example.

One of the other examples that I’m very proud of with this economic plan is that when we look at metrics and we assess how the economy is working for British Columbians, we bring our own lens and our own perspective to the metrics. But that isn’t the metrics that Indigenous communities, that First Nations communities, want to use when they assess how their economy is doing.

What we’re working on right now is creating a brand-new metric, co-developing it with First Nations, using more of a wellness model. We’ve heard clearly from First Nations leaders that they want to help design how they assess whether the economy is working for their communities or not. They want it to be more holistic and not just using the traditional GDP metrics that we use. That’s an exciting initiative that we’re taking on right now with First Nations.

There will be some initiatives that will come in the action plan that will be directly connected to our ministry. But what the economic plan talks about, which is a different frame than what’s traditionally been used…. We’re going in a different path, which is that in order for the economy to be successful, we need to ensure that we have no separation from what was traditionally seen as economic and traditionally seen as social. The two are interlinked.

When you have investments in child care, when you have investments in housing, when you have investments in skills training and health care, that helps move the economy forward in a good way. Indigenous communities have been telling us that for a long time.

Another initiative we talk about is a circular economy. Indigenous communities have been doing that for a long time. We’re actually using this opportunity to learn, when we create circular economy strategies.

[5:20 p.m.]

These are just some examples, but we can go into more detail as the member likes.

A. Olsen: True to form, the minister answered all five of my questions with one answer. So I’ll just take…. No, I’m just kidding. I can rustle up a few more here for you, Minister. I do appreciate it.

The minister did acknowledge 4.31 of the draft action plan, which is the metrics piece. I think that maybe the only thing that I would still have remaining, left over from the minister’s first answer, is kind of a timeline on what that looks like. I recognize that working with other partners, it’s not just the minister’s timeline. It’s going to be incumbent upon the collective work. That would be the last remaining piece on 4.31.

But 4.32 is to “prioritize and increase the number of placements for Indigenous peoples and other groups currently underrepresented in B.C.’s technology sector.” One of the areas that Indigenous people are very underrepresented is in here, not just in these seats but within government. Has there been any attention paid to increasing the number of Indigenous people working within ministries, working within the different areas within the provincial government? What does that look like?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Obviously, diversity and inclusion are very important to government to ensure that we have — as the member rightfully highlighted — greater representation amongst decision-makers so that we can ensure that that lens is brought to the work we do. It’s important. The Ministry of Finance is leading that, so I suggest that the member take that question to the Ministry of Finance, and they’ll be able to go more through the diversity and inclusion strategy.

[5:25 p.m.]

I’ll share that when I became minister, one of the first things I asked was…. Every time a labour market report comes out, every month, we now have, in the release, a statement about how the labour market is impacting BIPOC communities. I purposefully asked for that. The media also puts particular attention on how it’s not just numbers but how certain communities are impacted differently in those job numbers, because sometimes it doesn’t tell one story. So we’ve done that.

When we start collecting race-based data — I know that the federal government is starting to collect more data, as well — we’ll be able to refine that a lot more. So that’s something we’re looking forward to.

As for the second part of the question, which was around a timeline, we’ve created a joint office with MIRR to start doing this important work. I certainly would hope that it would be sooner than later, but we’re actively working on this now. I don’t want to give a specific timeline, given that I want to respect that we’re working with a lot of partners because of how important this is and how important of a tool this will be.

Certainly, it would be my desire that if this tool lands well, it would be something that we adopt for the province as well — and that we take our time to make sure that we get it right. So I’m not trying to dodge the question. I just want to make sure, out of respect, that this will go at the pace that it needs to go at.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the response. I’ll certainly follow up with the Minister of Finance.

Crawford Kilian published an article in the Tyee — today, I think it was — and had some criticisms of the StrongerBC economic plan and pointed to some language within it. I’m just going to repeat the language, because I would just like to get the minister’s perspective on the language that’s been used within the plan and, maybe, the perspectives that Indigenous people might have with respect to that.

This is on page 18 of the 2022 economic plan: “We are working with Indigenous peoples to address barriers to their full participation and leadership in all aspects of B.C.’s economy; supporting First Nations control over their own land and resources; acknowledging, respecting and upholding Indigenous rights and First Nations title; and building enduring and productive forms for Indigenous peoples to lead and contribute to economic development initiatives.”

This is very paternalistic language. It’s very much the Crown remaining in control of this language. I think that Crawford Kilian referred to it and said in the quote: “We’ll eventually talk to you about why we’re the barrier to your involvement in the economy.”

I can tell you that when I read the article, it certainly landed pretty squarely with me that we are working with Indigenous people to address barriers. The barriers for most Indigenous people and nations have been these Crown governments, whether it be the province or the federal government. They have been the actual barriers to Indigenous people being able to engage what has always been their right and their responsibility and their territories.

I would just like the minister to maybe reflect on the language being very much from the perspective of the Crown yet saying, I think, the words that we’re hopeful that we can achieve reconciliation yet very much still with the perspective and the power remaining directly within the Crown in allowing or enabling this situation.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Is the member referring to page 23 or 18?

A. Olsen: It is page 18 of the 2022 economic plan under mission 3, “Advancing true, lasting and meaningful reconciliation with Indigenous peoples,” second paragraph.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I thank the member for bringing my attention to the article. I find I have to disagree with some of his assessments. I believe he’s picked and chosen words to make the point he wanted to make. So be it. He has the right to do so.

What I would say is the intention of this is highlighted under key actions: “Moving to long-term agreements, treaties and other constructive agreements that recognize rights and advance self-determination and economic independence and prosperity…. Working towards an economy that respects, acknowledges and upholds Indigenous rights and First Nations title, is co-led with Indigenous peoples and ensures that all Indigenous peoples have access to economic opportunities and benefit from the lands and resources in their territories.”

I think if you pick and choose a couple of words, you can have, I guess, a discussion on it. But what I will say is that we consulted heavily with First Nations, Indigenous communities. We have a lot more work to do. This document isn’t the end of it; this is the start of it. Our actions, to date, also reflect the lens we’re trying to bring to this work.

I appreciate that one person has their opinion. There are many other opinions out there. But I’m proud of this work. I’m proud of the direction that this is heading. I think that, as I’ve said, this is the beginning of the journey, not the end.

A. Olsen: I think it’s important just to state that what Mr. Kilian wrote in the article was something that I have long felt, so it’s not just one person.

[5:35 p.m.]

I think it’s important to just state that the barrier has been the Crown governments. They have maintained rigid control over all of the lands and resources for 15 or 20 decades, depending on whether you’re in B.C. or in Canada, and longer than that.

Does the minister agree that in the second paragraph, where we talk about “working with Indigenous peoples to address barriers,” that the barrier for most Indigenous nations — if not all Indigenous nations — in this province has been the provincial and federal governments?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s obviously fair to say that government has been a barrier towards Indigenous communities. I think everyone would acknowledge that historically, if you look throughout colonization, there have been huge barriers put in place to ensure that Indigenous communities don’t succeed. I think I’m confident acknowledging that that’s the history that we have to deal with. The work we have to do is going to require a lot of work.

I’ll make another comment to say that I fully appreciate the language we use is very important. I’m very keenly aware of how important that is. That being said, the intention of this is to acknowledge that we have to work with Indigenous governments, First Nations leadership, to co-develop both the metrics and how we move forward. Obviously, the ability for nations to decide what happens on their lands is critically important.

We can canvass this, but I understand that we have to move. So I move that this committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:38 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. N. Cullen: We call second reading Bill 6, Budget Measures Implementation Act. The Minister of Finance has joined us.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 6, the Budget Measures Implementation Act….

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just hold it.

Government House Leader.

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m learning the procedures of this House.

We’ve moved the estimates for JERI across to the Douglas Fir Room, just for members’ awareness and the public’s awareness.

In here, we’ll have second reading of Bill 6.

Mr. Speaker: Now, Minister of Finance.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2022

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker.

I move that Bill 6, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2022, be now read a second time.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

This bill consists of two parts. In part 1, the bill amends the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act to include the 2024-2025 fiscal year in the period of fiscal years for which budget deficits are allowed to be forecast in the main estimates consistent with similar amendments made a year ago.

Budget 2022 includes a three-year fiscal plan extending to ’24-25, which includes deficit forecasts for the three years of the fiscal plan. This proposed amendment ensures that the fiscal plan, as presented, is in line with legislation and with government’s commitment to annually review the balanced-budget legislation and make amendments only if and when required.

Amendments to the act are proposed to eliminate the 10 percent salary holdback for members of the executive council related to collectively achieving balanced budgets or surpluses. The existing holdback provisions resulted in penalizing ministers in the fiscal years 2019-20 and ’20-21 for the fact that deficits occurred in those years due to external factors. The government responded with decisions to help British Columbians and businesses during the pandemic and to support our economic recovery. The existing provision penalizes government ministers when they do the right thing under very difficult circumstances in the real world.

At the same time, the holdback provision for individual accountability remains in place. This will continue to ensure good financial management by continuing to require each minister to control spending within the minister’s own ministry and power in order to receive the relevant holdback. This is a more suitable holdback to remain in place to ensure the financial accountability of ministers.

The bill has a housekeeping amendment, which amends the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, to re­move an exemption for education and health sector organizations to report capital projects over $50 million. This exemption has never been used, as the government has chosen to report all projects over $50 million, including those in the education and health sectors. Therefore, the provision is not needed, but it has sometimes resulted in questions. The amendment removes potential misunderstanding around government’s practice of reporting all the major capital projects in the interests of enhanced transparency.

A housekeeping amendment is also proposed to temporarily delay the reporting of capital projects over $50 million where a commitment has been made within the 30-day information cut-off period before the main estimates are presented. This amendment recognizes the practicality of preparing the budget documents, with timelines that do not allow for new information to be incorporated beyond a certain point. Nonetheless, if a major project commitment is made after the information cut-off period, the project would still be disclosed and published at the next opportunity.

While the BTAA mandates these projects be presented with the budget, the information is also included with each quarterly report as part of government’s practice of transparency. There is also a separate requirement for the minister responsible to make public each project within one month of a commitment being made, which means that this amendment maintains transparency around major capital projects. The delay in reporting also does not affect the government’s reporting of bottom-line operating results.

Amendments are proposed to the Financial Administration Act to authorize Treasury Board to delegate pow­ers, duties and functions to the chair or vice-chair of Treasury Board so that they can act on urgent matters. The proposed amendment creates an enabling provision, allowing Treasury Board to determine their duties and powers to be delegated to the chair or vice-chair and the framework under which the chair or vice-chair would be exercising those delegated duties, powers and functions.

This amendment will help streamline some of the work of Treasury Board, especially for minor but urgent matters when the full Treasury Board cannot practically be brought together to respond to such matters.

Part 2 of the bill amends 14 statutes in order to implement many of the tax measures in Budget 2022.

Bill 6 amends the Income Tax Act to create the clean buildings tax credit to aid in the fight against climate change. The new temporary refundable credit is available to individuals and businesses for the retrofit of multi-unit residential buildings and certain commercial buildings. The credit is 5 percent of qualifying expenditures made before April 1, 2025, and attributable to a retrofit completed before March 31, 2026.

[5:45 p.m.]

Completed retrofits must be certified to improve the energy efficiency of an eligible building to a target level of efficiencies. Applications for certification will be accepted until March 31, 2027.

The clean buildings tax credit will help to offset the capital costs associated with improving a building’s energy efficiency. Improved energy efficiency helps secure a low-carbon future for the province.

The Income Tax Act is also amended to extend several tax credits. The scientific research and experimental development tax credit is extended for five years to August 31, 2027. This credit will continue to help B.C. companies innovate and develop new technologies.

The training tax credits are also extended for two years until the end of 2024. This extension reaffirms our government’s commitment to supporting the skilled trades through on-the-job training.

The shipbuilding and ship repair industry tax credit is also extended for two years until the end of 2024. The tax credit supports B.C. shipbuilders who provide apprenticeships with on-the-job training.

Bill 6 amends the Motor Fuel Tax Act to authorize retroactive regulations providing a fuel tax exemption for hydrogen used in internal combustion engine vehicles. This recognizes that hydrogen produces no carbon when combusted and will help support the decarbonization of the transport sector. This is in addition to our existing fuel tax exemption for hydrogen used in fuel cell vehicles. These two exemptions support the B.C. hydrogen strategy and made-in-B.C. innovation like the hydrogen-diesel co-combustion technology developed by Hydra Energy.

This bill amends the Provincial Sales Tax Act to increase the passenger vehicle surtax threshold for zero-emission vehicles for the next five years. This will ensure that higher PST rates will not apply on electric vehicles under $75,000.

On average, electric vehicles cost about $20,000 more than internal combustion vehicles. The increased PST thresholds will make it easier for British Columbians to transition to electric vehicles. In addition, the bill authorizes retroactive regulations to exempt all used zero-emission vehicles from PST for the next five years. This exemption supports our CleanBC plan and makes it easier for all British Columbians to decarbonize their transportation modes.

Bill 6 also authorizes retroactive regulations to exempt heat pumps from PST while increasing the PST on heating and cooling systems powered by fossil fuels. These revenues would offset the cost of new incentives to make heat pumps more affordable for homeowners in rural and northern British Columbia. As well, these changes will encourage British Columbians to switch from a fossil fuel heating system to a heat pump, which can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Provincial Sales Tax Act is also amended to adjust how tax is calculated on privately purchased vehicles. In order to address under-reporting of vehicle purchase prices, starting on October 1, 2022, PST on privately purchased vehicles will be applied on the higher of the declared purchase price and the average wholesale value, determined according to an industry-standard price guide.

This is not adding a new tax, nor will this affect those who are reporting the true purchase price of their privately purchased vehicle. This change, which reflects the practice in other provinces, will only shine a light on the outliers: declared purchase prices that are less than wholesale values. That’s wholesale, not retail. For those who legitimately paid less than wholesale because their vehicle is heavily damaged or needs a lot of work, we will accept third-party appraisals to ensure the rules are fair.

The bill also introduces new provincial sales tax collection remittance and reporting obligations for marketplace facilitators and taxes services provided to third-party sellers. Marketplace facilitators are online sales platforms that can be based anywhere in the world. They work with third-party sellers and make it possible to buy goods 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with the click of a mouse or a tap on the screen.

These changes are about creating clear tax collection obligations for marketplace facilitators. This will increase PST tax compliance while decreasing the compliance burden on small businesses who sell through marketplace facilitators. Importantly, it will also help even the playing field between brick-and-mortar businesses here in B.C. — and those that are online here in B.C. — and their much bigger competitors in the online marketplace.

The PST has always applied to goods you buy online, but we haven’t always seen it collected. With this change, we’re making sure the PST is collected online, just like it is in the stores and in the local websites that exist in our communities.

The School Act is amended to remove the industrial property tax credit on major industry class, effective for the 2023 tax year. The industrial property tax credit was introduced for the 2009 tax year and has the same effect as setting a lower school property tax rate for major industry property class. The credit mechanism is a trade irritant. The 2023 major industry school tax rate will be reduced to offset the removal of the credit.

[5:50 p.m.]

Bill 6 amends the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act to temporarily expand the exemption for hazardous or damaged residential property to apply to properties in Abbotsford, Chilliwack and Mission that were damaged by the floods or landslides in late 2021. The change allows owners to claim the exemption even if their damaged property was uninhabitable for less than 60 days in the year. The exemption is available if the floods or landslides prevented owners from claiming a principal residence or tenancy exemption for the 2021 tax year.

The Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act is also amended to make the exemption for strata accommodation properties permanent. Strata accommodation properties are condominium-like complexes that are operated as hotels, largely in resort municipalities. The exemption was set to expire at the end of the 2021 tax year. The amendment ensures that owners of strata accommodation properties who are not able to live in their unit as a principal residence or to offer the unit as a long-term rental continue to be exempt from the speculation and vacancy tax.

This bill also amends the Tobacco Tax Act to remove the PST exemption for tobacco. Removing this exemption will align B.C.’s tax policy with the majority of other provinces, which, in addition to imposing a specific tobacco tax, apply sales tax to tobacco. Applying provincial sales tax to tobacco will help government capture additional revenue when tobacco companies raise their prices. This additional revenue will help B.C. offset the costs to the health care system that result from tobacco consumption.

I am pleased to tell you that shortly after our budget announcement, the Canadian Cancer Society and the Heart and Stroke Foundation both celebrated our decision to remove the PST exemption for tobacco, with the Canadian Cancer Society tweeting that “tobacco taxes are the single most effective strategy to reduce consumption.”

Finally, a number of tax-related statutes are amended for clarity and certainty. Numerous statutes are amended to clarify and harmonize procedures for providing an appeal to the minister. These appeals provisions are effective for appeals of assessments and determinations dated after September 30, 2022.

The Carbon Tax Act and Motor Fuel Tax Act are amended to enable annual tax return filing. The Income Tax Act is amended to extend the pre-certificate filing deadline for the production service tax credit applicants from 60 days to 120 days, for productions that incurred their first eligible, credited labour expenditures on or after February 22, 2022. This will provide film production companies with additional time to file their pre-certificate notice.

The Income Tax Act is also amended to clarify the authority to disclose taxpayer information for the purpose of administering the Employee Investment Act and Small Business Venture Capital Act.

The Land Tax Deferment Act is amended to create a statutory appropriation for concessionary grant expenses. This amendment responds to an accounting change for the program. The Land Tax Deferment Act is also amended to allow the minister to delegate authority to a class of persons. This will improve the administration of property tax deferment.

The Motor Fuel Tax Act is amended to authorize routine changes to a form used in administering the act.

The Property Transfer Tax Act is amended to establish a clear statutory appropriation authorizing the administrator to pay tax refunds from the consolidated revenue fund. This applies for tax payable under the regulations beginning in the ’22-23 fiscal year. This change makes refunds for tax payable under the regulations consistent with the treatment of refunds under the act.

The Provincial Sales Tax Act is amended to bring consistency to the application of PST to gift cards and to clarify evidentiary requirements for the real property contractors.

Finally, the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act is amended to extend the tax credit application deadline in certain circumstances. The change ensures that eligible owners have at least 90 days to apply for credit even if they receive a notice of assessment, reassessment or appeal result near the end of or after the normal application period.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 6, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. Typically, this bill, it seems, is a lot of those procedural pieces around adjusting tax rates and adjusting tax rules. But this year, with the addition of some troubling areas, I think it’s important that we make sure the public fully understands what exactly is being proposed within Bill 6.

At a time of record unaffordability in British Columbia and at a time where we have not seen any relief on housing prices, where we have not seen relief on gas prices, where we’ve not seen relief on grocery bills, on rents, it’s disappointing what’s not in Bill 6.

[5:55 p.m.]

Bill 6 would have been the opportunity, had the government had any intention of addressing their two election commitments from 2017 and 2020 for a renters rebate, which is actually in the minister’s mandate letter. This is now two years into that mandate letter; still no sign of the renters rebate. That’s where this would have been a great opportunity for the government to actually enact and follow through on a promise made by the Premier — not once, but twice — and then inserted into the minister’s mandate letter.

We didn’t see those types of relief in this bill, for average people. But what we did see was a series of measures that will actually be punitive to a great many people in the province, all the while with the government and the minister and cabinet and the Premier making sure that they get what they feel is due to them in their pay. That’s by way of a section that deals with the holdback for ministers’ salaries.

Now, the minister will say that it’s not a $20,000 raise per cabinet or a $40,000 raise for the Premier in this budget. But the facts are that it is. If you change legislation — which is happening in this bill — to change how your pay is calculated to ensure that your pay packet has more money in it, that’s a raise. That’s exactly what’s happened in this bill. Accountability has been removed.

It was very interesting listening to the minister describe it as not being an accountability measure. Yet, at the same time, the other holdback that’s still in the budget is an accountability measure. The minister doesn’t get to have it both ways. The minister can’t say: “On the one hand, one holdback would not provide for any accountability whatsoever. But the other holdback does.”

In fact, the holdback they’re leaving in the legislation does not provide for accountability. They simply would just need to bring in supplemental estimates, make sure a minister’s budget was updated to not be out of whack, and the minister would get their raise. They would get their holdback.

In this bill, at the same time that there’s direct punitive damage and harm being done to homeowners, especially in low- and middle-income families, the Premier and the cabinet felt it was an appropriate time to give themselves $40,000 and $20,000 raises, respectively.

Interjections.

P. Milobar: They are raises. They’re raises.

We are dealing with changing legislation. We are changing legislation to ensure that the ministers get more pay. That is a raise, plain and simple. It is not time-limited; it removes it indefinitely. Yet other sections do have time limits on them, so one has to question the commitment this government actually has to addressing affordability, because the only people that seem to be getting addressed for affordability right now is the cabinet.

On page 91 of the budget book, where we deal with the new used-car tax, it very clearly states — the minister’s own budget document says: “This measure will hurt low- and mid-income families.” Right there, in black and white, in the minister’s own budget document.

Did the minister heed that warning? No. It’s full steam ahead with a tax that treats everybody as if they’re a tax criminal. In fact, the member for Vancouver–False Creek made that very clear in her comments during the budget debate — that in her opinion, people are tax evaders when it comes to private car sales.

It’s shameful that that’s how people are being treated and viewed by this government, at a time when affordability is at an all-time low, at a time when people are desperately trying to figure out how to make their household budget last through a month and a week, at a time when 57 percent of the population doesn’t know how they would deal with an unexpected expense of $1,000 or less in their household, when over 50 percent of the population is within $200 of not meeting their bills and their commitments every month.

[6:00 p.m.]

That was pre-inflation. We have a government that has purposefully decided to enact changes and tax rates that by their own document will hurt low- and middle-income families directly. At the same time….

They sure have a fascination around that $20,000 number. We’ve heard the minister say: “We’re making sure that electric cars….” It’s about a $20,000 premium to buy an electric car. Perhaps that’s why cabinet needs their $20,000. They want to make sure they can buy themselves an electric vehicle.

That will cover about four different trim lines of an electric vehicle. That’s what the change in this budget does. I’m not saying it’s a bad move. I’m saying we have to put a little bit of context and realization into what it will actually do or not do. Like most things in this budget, it’s not as advertised.

Then we have the very punitive change to home heating systems and hot water tanks. I’m going to take a moment on this to read a letter that was sent on March 4 to the Finance Minister. It’s from the Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Institute of Canada, from their president and CEO.

It says right up front: “On behalf of the Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Institute of Canada and our members in British Columbia, we are writing you to express our serious concerns about the recently an­nounced changes to the provincial sales tax on some of the core products of our industry, fuel burning appliances and heat pumps.”

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

It goes on to explain in quite a lot of detail what is exactly wrong. I’ll get into some of that in committee stage with the minister, in terms of the inability for this group to be able to try to meet the new rules in a four- or five-week period. It also points out that they weren’t consulted. The government didn’t talk to the experts in the field about this tax measure, and that’s no surprise.

When I’ve talked to all the people and installers in and around my area of the province, they’ve all said the same thing. It’s not workable. What the government has brought out will hurt people and will be extremely expensive. It’s not as easy to do a retrofit with a heat pump as the minister seems to think. If they had actually talked to the industry before they brought this budget in, they would have found that out. Heat pumps, when you live where it’s minus 20, minus 25 need to be cold rated. That makes it now a $20,000 heat pump.

Oh, by the way, heat pumps require a lot of electricity. Most homes that are fuelled by fossil fuels right now don’t have the capacity in their electrical service to just add a heat pump to it, because their house has been built around a gas appliance to provide heat. So a lot of people will be facing a $10,000 to $15,000 bill to upgrade their electrical service.

Now, that may seem just fine to the minister and the Premier, hot on the heels of their nice big raise, but it sure starts to make the economics not work for those homeowners trying to just basically replace a furnace when it breaks. People don’t just go out and replace a furnace on a whim. It’s when it needs to be replaced that they replace it.

Same with the hot water tank. Hot water tanks are being treated this way as well. You know what else draws a lot of power out of your electrical service in your house? An electric hot water tank. Again, if you are currently using a gas hot water tank — I just replaced one in my house about six months ago — you will likely need to upgrade your electrical service.

Did the minister bother consulting with the industry to find out how the measures in this budget bill will actually impact peoples’ lives? No.

[6:05 p.m.]

It’s not to say that you can’t have programs to incentivize the purchase of heat pumps and to have them installed, but to be punitive to the people that essentially need to use gas appliances to heat their home or their water makes absolutely no sense, especially when you consider where the population lives. It lives in an area of the province that can’t use a regular heat pump. If you want to incentivize that part of the province….

I mean, there are all sorts of things that this government turns their back on for rural B.C., to begin with. I don’t think it would shock anyone.

If there was a heat pump program that recognized the differences of our weather….

One other thing with that cold-rated heat pump. You need to have a gas backup source. By this bill, even if you try to do the right thing and install an electric heat pump in Prince George or in Kamloops or in Fort St. John, and you’re willing to pay the $20,000 and you’re willing to pay the $10,000 or $15,000 to upgrade the electrical service of your house, you still need to actually buy a gas backup system, which will actually have extra PST added to it.

The most insidious piece to this is the purchaser won’t actually see the PST. It’s going to be a hidden tax. The person you’re hiring to come and do all the work at your home is the one that will be paying it. You won’t see it on your bill. How does that actually change peoples’ behaviour, when they don’t even realize they’re being taxed for something that you don’t want them to use?

If you had talked to the industry, you would know that’s what happens. You don’t pay PST on a furnace. The supplier does. The supplier doesn’t invoice it that way. That’s not how the PST system works. You’ll pay it, but it will be a hidden tax.

Then there is the new tax on online marketplaces. Again, where is the mass outcry from the public that this needs to be cracked down on? It sets a dangerous precedent, moving forward, for the government to keep dipping their fingers into areas where people are just trying to sell some used goods, buy some used goods, because they want their cut.

It’s like the used-car tax that I referenced earlier. That is going to hurt low- and middle-income families directly.

You choose to not believe what someone wrote down. You can already have a review of the paperwork if you think the price is too low. You didn’t need to change the tax law. It’s not a loophole. It’s tax law. That’s why it’s in front of us in the form of a bill. The minister might want to characterize it as a loophole. In actual fact, the minister decided to target, by her own budget document, low- and middle-income families by amending her tax law to be punitive to them. She feels they’re tax cheats.

It’s shameful. People deserve to be treated better than that by their government. What it says is they don’t believe you. If you tell them you paid $10,000 for the car and they feel you should have paid $12,500 for the car, they want you to pay the tax on $12,500.

Now they’ll say: “Oh, there are all sorts of workarounds on that. You can just get it assessed.” So mechanics are now going to do this work for free? There is still a cost. I hate to break it to the minister, but that’s still hitting people in the pocketbook. Hourly rates at mechanic shops are not inexpensive.

That’s their solution to not treating you like a criminal, which they think you are apparently. If you happen to get that good deal and you want to go through all those hoops, then you can avoid paying the tax. It’s just going to take you a whole lot of extra time and effort, and you hope they actually accept the appraisal. They haven’t really defined what that appraisal looks like and what the process looks like in this document.

[6:10 p.m.]

Here’s the problem. Talk about a slippery slope, especially when you have a government that seems to find all sorts of creative ways to dip their hands into your pockets to pull a little bit of tax dollars out here, a little bit of tax dollars out there. They sure don’t know how to reach into their own pockets, though, unless it’s to put their raises in.

Here we have the slippery slope. Where does this end? I go to a Boxing Day sale, and I’m going to have to start paying tax on the actual retail price of the sofa that I bought at a Boxing Day sale as opposed to the sale price? I know it seems far-fetched, but with what I’ve seen in the five and a half years this government has been in power, nothing is off the table when it comes to creative ways of taking money off of taxpayers.

Now, we’ve heard about the tobacco tax increases, and generally speaking, yes, they drive down consumption. They drive down legal consumption. I have said this to the Cancer Society, to their face as well, and they know where I stand on this. In jurisdictions where you start to increase the tax too much on tobacco, black market, bootleg tobacco sales skyrocket. Organized crime skyrockets around it.

I don’t know if we hit that tipping point with this or not, but I know when we asked previously, no thought had been given to that. In fact, it gets brushed off as not really a concern. Well, a very quick Google search — members may want to do a quick Google search — of black market cigarette seizures will show you that in all the other provinces — this is not just to exclusive to Quebec — seizures have been increasing, over the years, of illegal black market cigarettes.

I know it seems strange. Why would there be a black market? There just is. It’s something we have to be mindful of. Again, I get the concept. I’m not opposed to sin taxes, as they’re called. I’m not opposed to, obviously, trying to prevent cancer-causing agents and not opposed to trying to find ways to fund our health care. But it’s a valid concern that’s out there, and if you talk to law enforcement, they’ll say the same thing, because they deal with it. They’re unlabelled, untaxed black market tobacco products.

Those are some of the areas that we’ll have a lot of questions on, as we get to committee stage. I think it’s really disappointing to think that the main focus of Bill 6 seemed to be the taxes that I’ve talked about and the removal of clauses to ensure that cabinet gets a $20,000 pay raise and the Premier gets a $40,000 pay raise, regardless of their performance.

That’s simply not delivering affordability for people. It’s not addressing the gaps. It’s not addressing the needs in this budget bill around renters rebates. It’s not addressing measures to try to actually lighten the tax burden on peo­ple. It adds to the burden.

At a time when we have record inflation happening for our times…. I vaguely remember the ’80s. I was young — younger than I am now — and interest rates went to the 20-something percent. Our family had just started a business. It was a very stressful time to be 12, 13, 14 years old, because you knew the stress that your family was under. You were watching friends literally walk away from their homes because the house was now worth less than what they owed the bank. No one could afford to purchase even if they could, because of the way the interest rates were.

I’m not suggesting we’re going to that, but for our time, the way interest rates are starting to move around, the pressures are starting to get there when you couple that with inflation.

[6:15 p.m.]

It would have been a great time for Bill 6 to have some of the measures that have been talked about to actually make life more affordable for British Columbians, to actually show that the government is not completely tone deaf to the struggles that people are going through. But that’s not what we have in this.

The exemptions around stratas, and the exemptions around damaged areas in Abbotsford and that, with the speculation and vacancy tax — one would have hoped that would have just been an automatic, so it’s good that those are in here. Have a lot of questions around some of the tax credits, in terms of what metrics were used to evaluate their effectiveness. Is it good value for the taxpayers? Are there deliverables that are being accomplished, or is it just the path of least resistance to roll some of the tax credits over?

I’m hoping that it’s because they’re being proven out to be good value, but I think it’s worth asking those questions when we get to committee stage. I think the public would like to know whether or not there is that level of detail and thought into some tax credits that are hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases, and whether or not we’re just throwing good money after bad, or we’re actually creating some economic and social good out of those tax credits.

That, at its core, is the problem that we have right now with Bill 6. It’s a bill of missed opportunities to actually address affordability, in a meaningful way, through the budget. It’s a bill that is actually a gut punch to a lot of low- and middle-income families that aren’t very happy when they hear that not only is cabinet getting a raise, but they’re being ignored. The advice of the government staff that put together the budget is being ignored, about the punitive measures in this budget towards those low- and middle-income families. Instead of taking meaningful action, this government’s chosen to ignore it.

It will be an interesting year this year as we move to committee stage on this bill. I guess I know that in many other years, it moves through fairly quickly when it gets to committee stage. But we certainly have a lot of questions in and around some of these areas that I’ve touched on today, because, frankly, we’re getting those questions in our offices. As I say, I didn’t even actually reach out to the heating and cooling industry. They were seeking me out immediately.

Again, for a government who has been recognized as the most secretive in Canada, but for a government that likes to try to say they’re all about transparency, all about consultation, we have measures in Bill 6 that are going to be very, very punitive to large geographical areas of B.C. The industry was not even consulted. They’ve asked for a six-month extension before it kicks in, so they can try to actually be ready, because here’s the other interesting piece the minister might not be aware of: there are delays in getting a lot of this equipment. Some suppliers are reporting they could have up to a 200-day wait to get some heat pumps.

Then you’re faced with a decision. “Do I just go with the gas appliance again, and get kicked in the shins by the provincial tax, or do I try to figure out how to do all the adjustments to my house that I need to do to try to make a heat pump even work?” We can’t underestimate the importance of that electrical service upgrade to a house, because they are expensive to do.

There are a lot of people who would like an electric vehicle, too. So you start looking at the size of the service upgrade you’re going to need to keep adding the electrification that this budget is telling you to go do immediately or face tax consequences, and we haven’t seen the connection yet.

[6:20 p.m.]

We haven’t seen where the government has been able to stand up and say: “Yep, our grids can handle it. Not only can your house now handle it, but the grid in your cul-de-sac can handle it, and even the broader community can handle it.” Everything we’re hearing would indicate it’s otherwise than that.

I’ll just close with saying significant concerns, significant disappointment about what’s not in this bill and significant disappointment that the cabinet decided that they don’t need to prioritize their pay. There is one other piece in this that’s troubling when you think of that, with the cabinet making sure that they protect their pay.

They’re also making sure they remove accountability within Treasury Board by changing the rules that decisions can be made through Treasury Board. According to this document, in times of emergency it’s too difficult to have cabinet try to meet on Treasury Board. The Treasury Board members meet to make a quick decision.

How sad is that — demanding the rules change for less accountability so that you can get a raise? At the same time, it’s saying: “By the way, we want to take away some more of our responsibilities, because it’s a little too inconvenient for us, in the time of an emergency, to get together and make a quick decision.”

Instead of having proper fiscal oversight on things happening in Treasury Board…. Again, we’re going to have to have a lot of questions around that. When you actually read what the comptroller general says about Treasury Board and the responsibilities of the Finance Minister at Treasury Board and you read what the responsibilities and control Treasury Board actually has on provincial finances…. To just have these vague references to “well, we’re only thinking it would be used for this and maybe for that” but nothing actually laid out, we’re not being allowed to see what the actual regulation would look like that would govern this change.

We’ve been down that road. I guess we could FOI and see if any decision notes have been made, already, on it. Thankfully, it’s not the Minister of Citizens’ Services we’d be FOI’ing, so maybe we’d actually get some proper information. That’s the problem. It’s what’s not in here. There’s no actual detail, other than the fact that they want a little less work, they want a heck of a lot more pay, and they want no more accountability. A nice gig if you can get it, I guess. It doesn’t serve the taxpayer very well.

I look forward to hearing other comments on Bill 6, and I look forward, more importantly, to committee stage so that we can have the minister try to explain and, frankly, try to have to justify to the public why some of these things are in here — to be as punitive to low- and middle-income families, while making sure that their pay is well protected.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Courtenay-Comox.

R. Leonard: Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to see you sitting in the chair. It’s my first opportunity to welcome you to that position. I appreciate your oversight over this House.

It’s my privilege to rise today as the representative for Courtenay-Comox to speak to Bill 6, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

I acknowledge that I am addressing this House from the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, the home of the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. But my heart is back home in the Comox Valley, so I’d also like to recognize the part of me that’s beating in the traditional homeland and waters of the K’ómoks First Nation.

On behalf of all of the people from home who’ve taken the time to write or cross the street just to express concern and wish our Premier strength in his journey to good health, and on behalf of those same people who have also complimented our B.C. Premier on his leadership, I want to acknowledge just how well he is valued by the people of British Columbia. He has not faltered in his resolve to make life better for everybody today and to build a bright future with a stronger B.C.

[6:25 p.m.]

Where most of us would have put everything aside to deal with a serious personal health challenge, he did not. Our Premier navigated his way to continue to be the leader that the people of B.C. needed at our most collectively challenging time. His leadership is touched by humour and wit, intelligence and vision. He has demonstrated agility to meet the shifting sands of our time. To meet the growing complexities of our world, perhaps his best leadership skill has shone through. That’s his sense of teamsmanship.

No man is an island, and our Premier picked a team of ministers who share the same vision and who have served us so well, each with their own strengths, experiences and abilities to lead. It shows in all that we have set into motion since we formed government in 2017. As we travel through 2022, the work continues unabated to move us forward to build a stronger B.C.

We continue to put the health and safety of people first and foremost as we continue with COVID-19 in our midst. I want to thank everyone in British Columbia who has been working, pulling together to allow B.C. to navigate the pandemic so well. Last year we provided funding to respond to the pandemic based on where we heard the need lay. It was a scary time, scarier by the day. We’d have a reprieve, and then it would come back again.

The economic recovery was anticipated to be a seven- to nine-year time frame to return to balance, but there has been more activity here than expected, and our real GDP is expected to move forward to pre-COVID-19 projections by 2024. That is an incredible tribute to the strength and resilience of the people in British Columbia and, as I said in the beginning, to the strength of the leadership that has helped bring us to this day.

Labour market reports tell us that employment has bounced back to higher than pre-COVID-19 conditions, but we know that the COVID-19 pandemic has shone a light on the inequities that exist. That simply heightens our collective interest in bringing more equity and justice to British Columbia.

Here we are, ready to implement Budget 2022 to take care of people; create a just, clean economy; and move forward on reconciliation. As I say, there are four cornerstones to the budget — reconciliation being one of those key pieces. The second one is putting people first as we work to build a stronger society. The third one is building a stronger environment for our future. The last one is, of course, building a stronger economy for everyone.

Amongst the points around building a stronger society for people first, we’re working on child care. We’re working on improving health services and mental health services, on preventing and responding to homelessness and on improving services for families who have kids with support needs and for sexual assault survivors.

Under building a stronger environment for our future, we’re talking about building back better. We’ve had a lot of climate-related disasters in this province. Whether you live in Abbotsford or in the Cariboo; whether you have experienced wildfires or heat domes that destroy your whole community, like Lytton; whether you’re living through mudslides or the roads have disappeared underneath you — these are all climate-related disasters. When we build back, we need to build back better to be more resilient and to be able to endure into the future.

Within that framework, we have our CleanBC, which we started in 2018, and we’re building on that with the Roadmap to 2030. We’re working on adaptation and response. You can’t just look to the future without taking care of today and creating a pathway to do more than one thing at a time.

[6:30 p.m.]

Of course, we’re also talking about building a stronger economy for everyone. Within that one, we’re talking about connecting communities. Just yesterday we had an $800 million announcement around connecting all of British Columbia, working with the federal government. Bringing in that federal partnership is one of the keys to making us move forward successfully.

Also, in terms of building the economy, I’m very excited about our whole shift in paradigm. I see a lot of the work that we do as just changing the landscape so that we can move forward into the future, which is going to be very different.

When I was growing up, one of the biggest talks of the time was a book called Future Shock. It was about how people were resistant to change. As I live my life through the decades, it’s become very clear to me that each succeeding generation becomes not only more used to change and the fast pace of change, but they also embrace it. That’s how we’re going to move into our future, and that’s what I’m excited about with this budget.

I’ve just given a brief overview of all of that. I’d like to now move in and address a little bit more on some of the specifics and how it relates to Courtenay-Comox.

One of the first programs, paradigm shift, that I was excited about our government taking the first steps in was creating a whole system of child care that is going to work for all British Columbians, not only for the parents who have kids that need to have care while they go to work and help build our economy but also for those of us who don’t have kids — to know that there are people that are going to be in the places where we need them to be, whether it’s a health care worker, a dental hygienist, the teachers, the grocery store clerks. Everywhere we look, the need for child care touches us.

Again, with a federal partnership, we are able to advance more quickly our ten-year program for child care to get to $10 a day. I was excited when we introduced our first systems to reduce fees — to see families getting to enjoy life with their children, to be able to afford to go to work and provide for their kids.

My favourite story is a young woman who had twins. Oh, gosh. You know, they were looking at the cost of child care for not just one but two kids. We introduced the fee reduction, and it became affordable for them to buy a trailer and take their kids out camping. Those kids have grown, and they’re in kindergarten now, and they ski. They have embraced life in ways that they wouldn’t have been able to. They wouldn’t have been able to afford those opportunities that they now have — to the point now where the mom is able to go to university again and improve her situation and advance her career even more.

That’s the sort of story that reinforces for me that we are going down the right path, making sure that we have not only affordable but quality child care that parents can rely on.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I remind you that we are debating Bill 6, which is specifically around the Budget Measures Implementation Act, exclusively around taxation. We’ve completed budget debate, and I’d like to remind you that Bill 6 is very specific. Thank you.

R. Leonard: Thank you for your guidance, Madam Speaker. I will go, then, straight to CleanBC, because that is one of the most exciting pieces of our budget. That has definitely got some tax implications.

[6:35 p.m.]

When we create programs, the opportunity for us to drive change and drive innovation to new ways that will support the future…. This is where the rubber hits the road. We actually have the opportunity, with the PST reductions on zero-emission vehicles, to drive people towards finding new ways to reduce their carbon footprint in their lives, whether it’s a brand-new vehicle….

It’s only been recently in my life that I was ever able to afford a brand-new vehicle. But to have a reduction in PST for used electric vehicles tells us that we’re starting to move forward in that world, where more and more people are buying and have them long enough that they actually are now available — for consumers to buy used electric vehicles. Having an exemption helps us support that move forward.

One of the other exemptions that we were talking about — this is the one that I’m kind of excited about — is supporting the hydrogen strategy. When you say: “No carbon emissions….” Many, many years ago I had a long conversation with a fellow from an environmental non-profit, and we were talking about how we get to a place where we don’t have emissions. This was probably in the ’80s — which I remember a whole lot better than the previous speaker — and he saw hydrogen as our future.

So I’m really excited we have industry in this province is working on this as an innovative direction for us to go and for us to be able to support that innovation through tax credits for technology. It’s going to put us on the map.

The other one is the tax credits on the skilled trades, on job training. This is particularly around shipbuilders. But I wanted to share a story about the importance of the trades and what it brings to British Columbians. I had an uncle who lived to the age of 99. My mother’s family were farmers and labourers. During the Second World War, two of the brothers were able to join the military. They got their uniforms and their shiny brass buttons, and my Uncle Charlie was not able to join. He had flat feet and bad eyesight, so he had to remain on the farm.

There’s a photograph of him and his two brothers in front of a barn. He was dirty from having worked in the field, and he had such a frown on his face. Of course, the other brothers were standing there very proudly. When the opportunity came, my uncle went to Chicago, and he got his certificates for refrigeration and…. I can’t even remember what the other one was. But it gave him a career, and it gave him a sense of pride.

As British Columbians, we all need different kinds of workers. If we can support, through our tax system, for trades to flourish and for people to say: “Yeah, that’s an honourable profession for me to get into. It’s an honourable career for me to take on. That’s exactly what I’m going to do….” A tax credit — while it sounds very dry, accounting kind of stuff — actually makes a difference in people’s lives. So when you think about supporting people in the skilled-trades sector, I hope you’ll think of my Uncle Charlie and know what it means to have a sense of pride in your work.

[6:40 p.m.]

I wanted to reflect quickly on the exemption for the vacancy and speculation tax, while people are still reeling from the floods. That’s an area where the tax applied. I just heard the Minister of Finance speaking to pulling that back while people are still trying to…. That’s part of what do to help respond during a disaster.

Sometimes they feel like little things, but when you’re dealing with your everyday life and then something else hits you and something else hits you…. This is a something else that is not going to hit you. You might not think about it at the time, but later, as you reflect on it, it’s like: “Okay. That was one bill that didn’t come in.” It’s the kind of forethought that we need in a budget implementation to make sure that people are taken care of.

I want to take just a moment to talk about the under-reporting of vehicle prices when people buy secondhand vehicles. It’s an easy place for people to think: “Oh, I’ll just shave a little bit off of how much that vehicle costs so I don’t have to pay as much tax on it.” Other people are following the law. When other people don’t follow the rules, everybody suffers.

We need to…. We’re always trying to find a way to a level playing field. This is one of those taxes…. We’re trying to find that way to create that level playing field, because it simply is not fair for one person to be reporting and paying their taxes and someone else not. I find it kind of odd that you would not want to see a level playing field for everyone. That’s what a fair B.C. is about.

Finally, I want to talk about the holdbacks for ministers. When I heard — no, I didn’t hear it; I read it — that there were these holdbacks for ministers…. We’re in the middle of a pandemic, and people are suffering. Our ministers are rising to the challenge of protecting British Columbians and supporting them as best they can. In doing that, they’re getting penalized. That didn’t sound right to me then. While we’re in these circumstances, I think that it’s time for us to find some redress for that.

I was trying to think of an example of when I was raising my kids. What do you do when you’re trying to motivate them? You’re trying to find ways to give them an incentive to do the right thing and not hide and not tell you the truth or not do what they’re supposed to do.

When you create a system where the bottom line is a balanced budget…. Nobody complained, in their hour of need, that government shouldn’t be there for them. We have been there for the people of British Columbia and for the businesses to make sure that we put the health and safety of British Columbians first and to make sure that we can have as few restrictions as possible so that we can keep moving forward and keep that sense of pride not only in ourselves but in our place.

If a minister is to be responsible for making sure that people are safe, making sure that they are taken care of…. I think that is something that should not be penalized.

[6:45 p.m.]

For that reason, I support the Budget Measures Implementation Act. I look forward to hearing from others who may have differing opinions and hope to hear from more voices of people who are a lot more supportive of these measures. I think that it is taking us to a stronger B.C. for 2022 and for years to come.

B. Banman: It is indeed an honour to stand in this House and speak towards Bill 6, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. I’m happy to have the opportunity to speak on this today, but this particular bill has some rather serious ramifications for all of the citizens of British Columbia. I’ll get into some of those. Bill 6, just to recap, talks about key measures that are outlined in the budget of 2022. Most notably, what it does is bring forward some new taxes that are going to be implemented.

Now, I’d like to start off by talking about something positive. There are a few positive things in this bill. First of all, I would like to thank all of the members on both sides of this House that have expressed their concern for those that are in my riding who suffered from the floods, those that were in Lytton and those that were in Princeton, in Merritt. I believe that there is some sincere angst that we have all shared with those that have lost everything.

I do want to applaud the government for basically doing two things. Number one is creating a few tax exemptions for those properties that were damaged by the 2021 floods and the slides. I think it will help some of those people recover. Even a little bit is a lot when you have lost everything.

I also think that putting aside some of the spec tax for those that are affected in Abbotsford and Chilliwack and Mission is also a positive. We can question why the spec tax is there in the first place, however, and why there needs to be a spec tax at all and its effectiveness. But nonetheless, I think that that’s a positive step to give those that are suffering a chance to be able to recover from that.

Unfortunately, there is not a lot left that I have that’s great to say about this particular bill in front of us. You know, bills like this send a message. Bills like this send a message to every single resident of British Columbia. What this bill says is that now, during a time of inflation and of crisis, the ministers and the Premier are going to look after themselves first and the citizens last.

At a time where we should all be tightening our belts, I find it outrageous that the ministers think that they are entitled to a wage. I’ve heard an awful lot about loopholes, and quite frankly, what this budget says is that the Finance Minister has found a loophole to give the Premier and all of the ministers a raise — the exact opposite of what they’re talking about.

Interjection.

B. Banman: You can call it whatever you want. You can try and change the words and flower them up. But I’m telling you that the public knows it’s a raise. If it walks like a duck and it looks like a duck and it sounds like a duck, it’s a duck. It’s a raise, because at the end of the day, they’re making more money, while the low-income and middle-income are paying a lot more and feeling a lot more pain. I find it shameful.

Remind me of the time again, Madam Speaker. We have until when?

[6:50 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: You can keep going.

B. Banman: All right. Sorry, I saw Mr. Speaker come into the House.

As I was saying, I find it’s a loophole. They go around talking about all these loopholes that they want to close, yet they just ripped one open for themselves. The public are going to see through it. It is what it is.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The PST on electric vehicles. Must be nice if you can afford one. Must be nice. If it makes it cheaper, as I just heard, then I think reducing gas taxes would also make that cheaper, and help these citizens in our province that are $200 away from insolvency. They could sure do with a break. They wish they could go buy an electric car.

What does this bill do? It helps those that have and punishes the have-nots. It’s right in the minister’s notes that most of the targets are going to target low and middle income. Rather than help those people, it was full steam ahead. It was full steam ahead to punish low income.

I find it interesting that those on the other side characterize one of the previous governments as being heartless, as being uncaring. What’s heartless and uncaring is knowing when you’re going to hurt somebody, you go ahead and do it anyway, and it you just add salt to the wounds and you put an extra $10,000, $20,000 or $40,000 in your pocket, as a minister or the Premier, while somebody else can barely meet ends and put food on their table.

The actions of this send a message to British Columbians. The actions of this budget say that this government does not care. They say they do, but their actions say….

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour.

B. Banman: Noting the hour, I would like to reserve my spot and move that we adjourn debate.

B. Banman moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. J. Osborne moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:53 p.m.