Proceedings in the
Birch Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 5 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2025

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 11:14 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025, to order. We are on clause 2.

On clause 2 (continued).

Peter Milobar: On the minister’s last answer last night, she referenced that the vice chair would have the authority to make a unilateral decision that would not ultimately wind up going in front of cabinet with this change, because it would only be Treasury Board dealing with any Assessment Authority Act issues in terms of the assessment reviews.

[11:15 a.m.]

The minister referenced that the vice chair would have that ability if things were not considered to be too substantial of a

Assessment Authority Act issues in terms of the assessment reviews.

The minister referenced that the vice-chair would have that ability if things were not considered to be a too substantial of an impact or too substantive of an issue, no materiality, those types of…. She didn’t use the word “materiality.” I’m just adding that in to kind of give that context of the level of decision that would or wouldn’t be allowed as vice-chair.

I canvassed this before with a predecessor when the first changes were made, around giving the ability to the chair and the vice-chair to make unilateral decisions, instead of Treasury Board as a whole, on other issues. Since that change, has there been a defined set of guiding principles that Treasury Board has agreed to that spell out very clearly what would be considered substantial or not? There wasn’t at the time.

That couldn’t be answered at the time because what one vice-chair might think is substantial, a different vice-chair might not. They might have a completely different interpretation of what would be considered substantial. Has there been any development of that with the Treasury Board in terms of better defining the limits of the powers that this ability to be a sole decision-maker has empowered?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is a standing practice, and there has not been a need to bring a review of this practice. What I would say, though, is that when there is a decision made by the vice-chair in this way, it is still minuted and presented to the Treasury Board. There is that additional step that the member might not be aware of.

Peter Milobar: Is the minister saying that a decision by the vice-chair is not final? If not, then what is the point of empowering the vice-chair to have a decision-making ability if it ultimately still has to be ratified by the actual Treasury Board?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: In fact, it’s not that the decision of the vice-chair is reviewed or isn’t final. It’s that it’s communicated so that all the Treasury Board is aware of the particular decision.

Peter Milobar: Well, then that goes back to my previous concern raised, around whether there’s been any clear delineation of rules and definitions around what would be considered material, what would be considered substantive, what would be considered time-sensitive or important for a wide range of decisions that has now been, under this government’s watch, conferred….

[11:20 a.m.]

That power has been transferred over, instead of Treasury Board as a whole, to one individual. A reporting-out mechanism is fine and dandy except the decision has already been made and is starting to be enacted by the time anything may be even reported out. Simply informing Treasury Board

that power has been transferred over, instead of Treasury Board as a whole, to one individual.

A reporting-out mechanism is fine and dandy, except the decision has already been made, and it’s starting to be enacted by the time anything may be even reported out. Simply informing Treasury Board of a decision doesn’t actually change what the decision was. It just means Treasury Board has now been told.

Why with these types of changes coming in, which are meant to streamline…. I don’t take issue with trying to streamline processes, by any means, but if the premise is to try to streamline and still provide certainty and clarity for all parties that might be involved in this — the landowner that might be involved and impacted by a decision through B.C. Assessment, B.C. Assessment understanding the state of play with decisions and how they may be made by government in cooperation with them — why has there not been a schedule like that developed?

I can understand that perhaps in the rush to change the legislation when that happened — I believe it was back in 2021 or 2022 — that that wasn’t necessarily provided at the time. We’re several years past that though. Certainly, there’s been more than enough time to operationalize and understand what should be considered substantive or not.

Again, vice-chairs come and go at Treasury Board, so it seems to be a streamlining process that is going to change and swing dramatically, depending on a personality and their own view of what is substantive or not.

Has there not been anything developed? It’s sounding like not. If not, when will that be actually developed?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is by convention, and there is not a decision ahead of us to fetter the discretion of the vice-chair. Recommendations come from Treasury Board staff that advise the vice-chair as to whether this is a decision that has been made at the vice-chair individually or whether it should go to the Treasury Board.

I will share with the member there are decisions by vice-chairs to take issues that may, in fact, be within their purview to decide upon that would not be…. The member used the word material, but we would say highly consequential decisions that might be ones that we would expect a vice-chair to want to make, where they’ve asked for the Treasury Board to weigh in. I think having that discretion is working very well, and we have no intention to fetter that discretion.

Peter Milobar: Just to better understand the change in clause 2, though, previously to approve the B.C. Assessment Authority’s bylaws that set the taxes and rates for specified land and improvements, that would go to Treasury Board as a whole. It would then get reviewed by, basically, cabinet, Lieutenant Governor in Council, and then it’s done. It’s approved.

[11:25 a.m.]

But that could, could it not, under that process, include the whole tax roll, the whole assessment roll for the whole province? It’s not necessarily a single parcel that we’re talking about. This is setting tax rates and land values

but that could, could it not, under that process, include the whole tax roll, the whole assessment roll for the whole province? It’s not necessarily a single parcel that we’re talking about. This is setting tax rates and land values of land and improvements, potentially for the whole province at any given time.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I just want to provide a little bit of clarity about what clause 2 is really referring to here.

First of all, I have the sense, and the member can correct me if I’m misinterpreting, that the member may think that this is about property taxes and assessments for individual properties.

That in fact is not what this is about. This is in regard to the B.C. Assessment budget approval process and budget requirements, so not property values. I just want to make sure that we’re both speaking about the same thing there.

[11:30 a.m.]

Essentially, B.C. Assessment is required to have a legislative timeline by which to get the approval of their budgetary requirements approved. The Treasury Board has the expertise to make recommendations to the vice-Chair in regard to budgetary issues, and it’s appropriate the vice-Chair would then make a decision.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

regards to budgetary issues, and it’s appropriate the vice-chair would then make a decision.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Peter Milobar: I’m just wondering. With part 4 of clause 3, with the amount being determined, when was the last time these income levels were updated?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I will provide a couple of choices here. We do know that the last time this was updated was several years ago. I’m hearing from my team it’s at least 2010. We could take the time to find a precise answer or get back to you with a precise answer. Your decision.

Peter Milobar: Thank you, no. I don’t need a year-by-year breakdown, just the general overview of it. That’s fine, especially if it’s that far back at a minimum.

In terms of this change, though, by repealing subsection (4) and substituting it with this new, is this considered — to the government’s balance sheet, not to the household — a net positive revenue source or a net negative?

In other words, is this change going to have more treasury money going out the door to households, or will they actually be keeping a little bit more, expending a little bit less on the on the sales tax credit?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This particular change would be captured under technical measures under page 59. I’ll share with the member that this change is to align the language of the legislation with its administration. CRA, the Canada Revenue Agency, has been administrating this provision in the way that it was amended since the sales tax credit was reintroduced in 2013. So, really, it’s been essentially administered as intended, not as written, and as such, there will be no impact both on individuals for this change, nor on the fiscal plan.

Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On clause 6.

Peter Milobar: I’m just wondering who the minister consulted in regards to increasing the venture capital tax credit from $120,000 to $300,000.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ll share with the member a couple of things. The individual annual limit has not been increased since 2019, when it was increased from $60,000 to $120,000. Since then, inflation has eroded the tax credit’s real impact. Additionally, increasing the limit to $300,000 will allow for investments of up to $1 million, which will make it easier for businesses to secure the capital that they need.

I did hear the member’s question in regards to who we consulted with, and I would share with the member two points on that. One is it can be very difficult to consult on tax measures because they can influence behaviour and can be market moving. So, we have to be very careful in consultation on tax measures.

I will share with the member that the driver for this change comes from a couple of different places: one, my time in the private sector and hearing from many folks who felt strongly that it’s important that we create a better climate for investment, and this is one tool that can be employed for that; two, during my time at JEDI, I heard from a number of folks that this would be a mechanism that would be very well received by folks who are looking for investors, particularly angel investors and the class of super angel investors that has emerged in British Columbia as important investors in the community.

[11:40 a.m.]

I continue in this role to hear about the importance of increasing opportunities for investment into British Columbia. This measure aligns with more work that we have coming on this file to ensure that British Columbia is a place where people want to make investments. It’s deeply important to us as we work to grow our economy. This is a small tool in that direction, and that’s why we made the change.

Peter Milobar: I’m certainly not opposed to measures that try to make B.C. more competitive or attract investment or help

people want to make investments. It’s deeply important to us as we work to grow our economy. This is a small tool in that direction, and that’s why we made the change.

Peter Milobar: I’m certainly not opposed to measures to try to make B.C. more competitive or attract investment or help grow those types of projects.

Has the Minister given any thought, given that…? It does seem to take a long time in between these jumps, and then when it happens, it’s quite substantive. Going from 60 to 120 was quite a jump, but now this is, even on a percentage basis, even a much higher jump than that.

Was there any thought given to triggering just automatic increases to this over the next several years to try to keep stimulating that type of investment growth, recognizing that as things get more expensive, project or investment needs will continue to increase just to deliver the same style of potential investment project in the first place?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: To the member, I would just thank him for his thoughtful suggestion, frankly. We did not consider that, but I appreciate the suggestion.

I will share with the member that what we are doing with this measure is we’re keeping track of how it lands and the additional investments it attracts through the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation to ensure that in fact it is creating a lift in investment — whether it’s been successful, whether it ought to be altered, and so on, monitoring its uptake.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:43 a.m.