Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued debate on the budget.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

S. Bond: I was very pleased, yesterday, to have been able to respond very directly to the Minister of Finance and the budget update that she provided. I want to continue to make some additional remarks this afternoon. I know that there are many members in the House that are anxious to speak, so I don’t intend to take a great deal of time this afternoon.

I did want to walk through some of the…. We’ve had a chance to take a closer look at the numbers, and I think it’s important we have a conversation about those. When you look at the budget update that was presented yesterday, in many ways, it is the official launch of the mandate of the NDP government, supported, of course, by their coalition partners in the Green Party.

I think it is important to take some time to analyze the budget and the throne speech. It’s very critical we do that. It really is the chance for the government to lay out not only its vision for British Columbia but, indeed, how British Columbians are going to be asked to pay for it.

It’s also important to hear from all parties represented in the House. I know that a number of critics on this side of the House will be speaking and will be bringing forward specific issues related to their particular portfolios. I’m absolutely certain that there will be some fantastic input from both sides of the House today.

We heard a little bit about that in question period today. One of the things that we can agree on — or, at least, I hope we can — is the starting point for this government’s fiscal strategy. I want to remind everyone, as I did yesterday, that earlier in the year the previous Minister of Finance outlined for British Columbians what he anticipated the fiscal circumstances for the province would be.

The process is, then, that the Auditor General of British Columbia audits the fiscal results, and they’re released so British Columbians can see, in a very transparent way, what the current state of the economy is. The process and the accuracy of the information are confirmed by the Auditor General.

[2:30 p.m.]

The now Finance Minister released the audited public accounts statements. In fact, what we found was exactly what we had said was going to happen. The fiscal circumstances that our Finance Minister had talked about were confirmed by the Auditor General. Our fiscal circumstances, the hard work of British Columbians, resulted in a budget surplus of $2.7 billion.

In her presentation at that time, the presentation of the audited public accounts, the Finance Minister agreed that British Columbia’s economy was strong and, in fact, leads the country. She actually laid out some excellent information in the PowerPoint that she presented on that day. When we look at what it does, it paints a very robust economic circumstance in British Columbia. The annual surplus for 2016-2017, as has been noted, was $2.7 billion.

One of the things that I think is most interesting…. I very much appreciate the comments about building a better B.C. and making sure we’re taking care of British Columbians. But I think being accurate about what’s happened over the last number of years is actually important.

This morning I heard one of the ministers, as he responded to the throne speech, talk about the spending pattern of this government related to education, for example. Well, interestingly enough, in the public accounts, the Auditor General confirmed that program spending that occurred in 2016-2017 actually went up by 4.1 percent. That’s not insignificant. If you look at the spending through a number of ministries, health programs spending increased by $486 million, or 2.5 percent.

This morning the minister talked about funding for education. While certainly British Columbians made it clear to every member of this House that they wanted to see additional funding assigned to key priority areas like education and health care, to suggest there hasn’t been funding provided to the Ministry of Education and for education programs is simply not true. The audited public accounts point out, according to the minister’s own PowerPoint, that spending on education increased by $256 million, or 2.1 percent. In fact, spending on social programs increased by $137 million, or 3.3 percent.

It’s important that we get the context right. I wanted to reiterate some of the numbers because this is the benchmark, this is the starting point for the NDP government in terms of their fiscal record in British Columbia.

We look at some of the other facts that were outlined in the public accounts. Taxpayer-supported capital debt spending of $3.7 billion for improvements to education, health care and other capital infrastructure. To suggest we weren’t building in British Columbia, supporting programs, again is not accurate.

Taxpayer-supported debt is 15.9 percent. That’s an important number to remember. As we begin to monitor and hold the government accountable for, first of all, this budget update, but a full budget that will appear in February, we have to remember that number. Our taxpayer-supported debt to GDP is 15.9 percent. That was a reduction from the forecast in the budget of 17 percent.

Here’s a statistic that’s going to matter a great deal in the days that lie ahead. The provincial GDP grew by 3.7 percent. That is the highest rate among provinces and better than the national average of 1.3 percent.

British Columbia is experiencing an incredibly robust economic circumstance. It was confirmed by the Auditor General when the public accounts were released. I think it is important. It is important for British Columbians that there be an accurate portrayal of that as we talk about what comes next. And as is no surprise to anyone on this side of the House, what comes next will be determined by the new government, their coalition partners. Our job is to hold them accountable for the spending that they intend to do.

Other factors that are absolutely essential when we look at the Finance Minister and the work that she’s going to do with her colleagues over the next number of years…. We have a triple-A credit rating. We’ll talk more about that later. But I can tell you that very few people think that having a triple-A credit rating is an exciting headline, until you don’t have one.

[2:35 p.m.]

We’ll talk a little bit about the risks. We certainly do see risk in this budget update. We see risks that may well impact our triple-A credit rating. It is always fantastic to be able to stand in this House and around the province and talk about supports for families, important program investments. Nobody really wants to hear about the triple-A credit rating until you realize that if we receive a credit downgrade, it means that money that is so important for programs, for all of the things that have been mentioned by the NDP government, will go to service debt.

We are concerned that we are beginning to see that risk increase with the budget update that’s been tabled. We’ve also tabled five consecutive balanced budgets. I’m sure that the Finance Minister, even in this short period of time, has recognized how difficult that is, and I’m going to talk a little bit more about that later. In fact, in order to balance this budget…. There are a number of significant commitments that have not been addressed in this budget, some very signature commitments that this government made that I think British Columbians are going to want some answers about.

A fifth consecutive balanced budget was confirmed. In fact, we’re also a leading job creator in Canada. Of significant concern to us is the fact that this budget assumes — yes, assumes — that the economic performance confirmed by the Auditor General will be repeated. That is an assumption on which this government based their budget.

Now I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they didn’t stop there. In fact, they built in additional spending commitments based on that assumption. British Columbia today has the leading economy in the country. Why should we be concerned? Because there’s a long list of risks that will impact the assumptions in this update. If we’re starting with those assumptions in the update, we still have to see a full budget in February.

Let’s look at some of those risks. They are not insignificant. So to simply pass them off as “we’ll manage this….” We’re talking about the softwood lumber agreement, NAFTA — not small issues; not local, regional issues — enormous issues that could impact the assumptions in this budget. Let’s talk about global economic uncertainty. Uncertainty is a word you’re going to hear a lot about, because today in British Columbia, if you ask the business community how they’re feeling, there is a great deal of uncertainty. Interest rates. I’m going to talk a little bit about those in a moment. The list goes on.

Perhaps the biggest risk we face is the number of promises — important, expensive promises — that are not reflected anywhere in this budget update. Yes, there will be a full budget in February, but the fact of the matter is this: any room that has been created by the number one economy in Canada has already been used up. How will the Finance Minister meet the commitments that this government made to British Columbians? I know that it’s tempting to look at that as being a critical approach by this government. Hardly.

British Columbians were told that this government — this new government, a coalition government — was going to bring a significant number of expensive programs. The other thing I think is really important to say today…. I heard it in some comments earlier. One of the members opposite talked about…. We talked about programs being too expensive because we don’t care about those kinds of programs; they don’t matter to us. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, they matter so much that it’s about making tough choices. It’s about figuring out how you can maintain the number one economy in this country and care for British Columbians at the same time.

[2:40 p.m.]

What’s most important? They deserve to know how the members opposite intend to pay for those promises. How will the Finance Minister meet the commitments that this government has made to British Columbia? How will she pay for all of this, particularly in the complete absence of a plan to grow the economy or to create well-paying, family-supporting jobs? Yes, there was some reference to an innovative economy, or we’re going to have an innovation council. I live in a part of the province where growing a sustainable resource sector is absolutely essential to the people where I live and to the economy of this province.

Those questions are not insignificant. Where is the focus on growing the economy, a sustainable resource development that creates well-paying, family-supporting jobs? I’ve learned this in my time, both in my family and here in the Legislature. There are only a certain number of ways that you can find revenue to pay for investments in important programs and services. You can grow the economy. Frankly, we see no plan for that. You can reallocate funding from other programs or services. We’ve seen some changes here, but there’s likely more to come. Or you can borrow, and you can raise taxes.

I don’t think it takes a great deal of research to figure out what British Columbians can expect from this government in the days and months ahead. Following the release of the budget update yesterday, a number of commentators have observed that the current state of the provincial economy couldn’t get much better. B.C.’s real GDP growth numbers for 2016 illustrate that our provincial economy grew by an estimated 3.7 percent, exceeding the Economic Forecast Council prediction of 2.7 percent in the 2016 budget announced last February.

As a matter of fact, the current minister is budgeting for just 2.9 percent growth for each of the next four years. Think about that. The programs, the plans and the budget that we laid out were based on economic growth of 3.7 percent, exceeding the Forecast Council prediction of 2.7. This budget — all of its promises, all of the things that are being expected to be paid for — is based on an assumption of 2.9 percent.

The minister is also scaling back economic growth to just 1 percent over the next three years. While these are prudent and certainly conservative assumptions to make in the budgeting process, it reemphasizes the fact that this government has no plan to grow the economy. It also begs the question: why is the government taking such an aggressive approach to spending? In other words, the current minister realizes, I hope, that she will very likely never have this much room to manoeuvre with again in a budget, other than the one she tabled yesterday.

We’ve had a chance to look at the numbers. I want to look at a couple of the programs that were announced yesterday. I also want to look at the election promises that appeared in the NDP campaign platform but did not surface in the budget update. Why does that matter to the Finance critic? It matters because if at some point the government intends to meet those commitments, somehow they’re going to have to figure out how to pay for them. Because it is not reflected in the budget update, the prognosis…. The minister herself spoke about retail spending and a number of other factors, in fact, being status quo, if not dropping. So at a time when you have the most robust economy, a volatile economic market…. We have NAFTA. We have softwood lumber. We have a massive spending plan with no way to pay for it.

The Minister of Finance made it clear. She wants to make life more affordable for British Columbians. No matter how many times we listen to members on the other side of the House, it is something that actually matters to every person in this Legislature.

The minister has indicated that banks are warning about the dangers of interest rate hikes. We didn’t even talk about the impact of potential interest rate hikes and how this will affect British Columbia’s capacity to carry increased spending.

[2:45 p.m.]

Let’s look at what has happened just recently. In July, Canada’s central bank delivered the first increase to interest rates in seven years. Earlier this month, the Bank of Canada raised the rates once again. While it was only a quarter of a percentage point, from 0.75 percent to 1 percent, the bank is already sending signals that we can expect other interest rate hikes, potentially in October.

Because of the tremendous impact that even a quarter of a percentage point can have on a provincial budget, I want to put the Minister of Finance on notice. In estimates, we’ll have a great chance to discuss this. How much does a 0.25 percent increase in interest rates cost the provincial treasury, and what risk does it bring to the budget update?

To be sure, interest rates are not the only hikes. The interest rate hikes not only affect government, but they affect consumers as well. Everything from variable-rate mortgages to credit cards will get more expensive. So, too, will the capacity of consumers and taxpayers to absorb the government’s proposed tax hikes, amounting to nearly $ billion over the next three years.

From the taxpayer’s perspective, this budget update is going to make life a bit more challenging to afford, because the minister also plans to abandon the law governing the revenue neutrality of the carbon tax.

It’s important to talk about these individual initiatives. Under our previous government, any increase to the carbon tax would automatically trigger a reduction in another form of taxation to protect British Columbians. However, this budget has made it clear that the government will no longer abide by the principle of carbon tax revenue neutrality for the next four years. This means consumers and taxpayers will feel the increase not only at the gas pump but when they heat their house in the winter.

The change will see the carbon tax increase by 40 percent over the next three years and pull an estimated $500 million out of the pockets of taxpayers with no direct revenue neutrality — in other words, no direct benefit back to that consumer. That doesn’t sound like it’s making life more affordable.

It’s also important to note that one of the things that British Columbia’s carbon tax was recognized for was the principle of carbon neutrality. In fact, it was recognized globally, and it was set as a model for others to consider when you look at the effectiveness and the use of the carbon tax. That disappeared yesterday with the budget update.

These are troubling questions not just for taxpayers but for the government itself. The overall concern we have to have today is that: can we, as a province, actually afford everything that the NDP and Green Party have on their wish list? Well, let’s take a closer look.

As we know, the credit-rating agency Moody’s certainly started to pay attention when the tolls were removed from the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges. Why? Because of the debt transfer to taxpayer-supported debt. That comes right back to the discussion about a triple-A credit rating and why it matters.

Moody’s sent a warning to say that without other mitigative measures, this would be a negative circumstance. So we will wait and watch, and we’ve certainly looked at some of the mitigative measures. In fact, we saw the George Massey Tunnel replacement disappear from the budget documents. Why was that? It was to mitigate the transfer of debt so that the members opposite could relieve some of the pressure on the debt side.

I think it’s important for the members opposite to actually stand up, look the people in the eye who are impacted by the cancellation of that project and be honest with them. This budget document makes it clear that it is not about consultation. It is about cancellation. Because if at some point in the future that project is put back into a budget, it will impact very significantly the ability of this government to manage the debt load.

[2:50 p.m.]

It’s time to be honest with the people who are impacted by congestion every single day. Binders and binders of consultation. Work done over years to move that project forward. I understand there are even piles of sand that are ready. There’s an office. That project has been cancelled. It is not about consultation. It is about cancellation. That’s just one of the projects, and it is a valid concern.

Moody’s has expressed that concern — the bond-rating agency. This government, when it comes to the tolls, is choosing to forgo at least $230 million in revenue every year that was used to pay off construction costs. Those costs are now being lumped into taxpayer-supported debt, and the government certainly got Moody’s attention very quickly.

We now have to wait and see. We have to wait and see how credit-rating agencies are going to react to a spike in the provincial debt coupled with the aggressive spending plan announced yesterday. That’s why higher interest rates announced by the central bank will have the serious potential to harm the government’s capacity to borrow. In other words, we could loss our triple-A credit rating.

What does that mean? It’s not something that people spend a lot of time around the water cooler talking about. What it means is that important revenue will go to additional debt servicing. That money can be spent on programs. It’s about prudence. It’s about making difficult decisions.

I want to remind the minister that her predecessor issued a stark warning in last February’s budget that if British Columbia had the same public debt charges in jurisdictions like Ontario and Quebec, we would be paying, on average, an additional $2.23 billion in debt-servicing costs. While I understand the Minister of Finance committed to balancing the budget until 2020, I don’t think you have to be very farsighted to see a bit of a blur on the horizon when it comes to the spending priorities and how they are taken into account.

Let’s look at some of these priorities. This budget contains a number of cut-and-paste items that were already announced in the Liberal budget last February. I think it’s important. I think it’s important, to the member opposite who’s questioning that, that British Columbians at least be reminded where those announcements were initially made. I welcome the fact, in fact, that the minister and her government chose to keep these items as a central part of their budget update. But let’s be transparent enough to at least recognize and acknowledge when those commitments were made in the first place.

Let’s look at some of the main ones. The reduction of MSP premiums by 50 percent. The reduction of the small business tax rate from 2.5 to 2 percent. Phasing out the PST paid on electricity. I remember how important that decision was for members on this side of the House — people who live and work in those industries, who support those constituents. That was something that they worked hard to make sure that the B.C. Liberal government put in that budget. And as I said, we’re very grateful to see that continuing, but let’s not pretend it’s a new budget announcement.

Here’s one that is very personal for all of us. We’ve heard over and over again over the last few days how much we have been appreciative of those who work to keep us safe in this province. Whether you are a professional firefighter, a volunteer firefighter or someone who works in search and rescue, showing our support in a meaningful way matters. So I can understand the pride that the minister felt in her government when she talked about the $3,000 non-refundable tax credit for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers. That’s why the B.C. Liberal government put it in their budget and made that announcement previously.

As I said, I want to be thoughtful about that. We welcome the fact that the Minister of Finance and her government chose to keep these items as a central part of their budget. But let’s be transparent about where they came from.

One thing the budget update did add on was an increase in the tax rate for business. This is something that I have a significant concern about, and I know that the members on this side of the House do. It’s not about being focused on corporations. It’s not about that. It’s about a competitive province.

[2:55 p.m.]

It’s about making sure that when capital, which is mobile…. Investors can choose wherever they want, in many cases, to invest. When they get the message that corporate income taxes are going up, that personal income taxes are going up and, by the way, that the carbon tax is going up and is no longer revenue-neutral, what kind of message does the government think that that sends to investors? Then the rationale that’s provided for an increase in the corporate tax rate is that we’re going to be on par with Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

I don’t want to be on par. I don’t want British Columbia to be on par with Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I want British Columbia to remain a competitive, growing, strengthening economy. By saying we’re just going to be on par, that doesn’t exactly send a message of confidence to investors that “British Columbia welcomes you in our province. We’re going to support your investment, we’re going to attract your investment, and we’re going to support you as you help create well-paying family-supporting jobs in our province.” No, we’re going to be on par with Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

I wanted to include this quote from the now Premier, talking about what his government would strive for. I know that governments make different choices and they take different approaches, but I’m not sure that striving to be on par is something that British Columbians would be proud of. The Premier said…. When asked about what we should do when it comes to being a tax jurisdiction, here is his quote: “The lowest-tax jurisdiction in North America is not something we should strive for. Why wouldn’t we strive to be the middle tax jurisdiction in North America?”

Well, we wouldn’t strive to be the middle tax jurisdiction because we want to be competitive, not just in Canada and North America but globally. That means you’ve got to make sure that your tax burden is competitive — not on par, not middle of the pack. You have to strive to be the best, to attract capital that is mobile. They can choose to invest wherever they want. We want them to choose British Columbia, not Manitoba, not Alberta and not Saskatchewan.

We’re sending a message to investors that it’s going to be more expensive to do business in British Columbia. What we want to be sending them a message about is that this is a fantastic place. We have a skilled workforce. We have a geography that works for them when we talk about the Asia-Pacific. We have enormous advantages in this province. It is a shame when we are relegated to be looking at what’s on par or the middle of the pack in North America. We are going to lose our competitive advantage with our other western provinces. That is simply not good enough for the province of British Columbia.

I want to talk a little bit about the spending initiatives, not just the ones that are contained in the budget. To be fair to the government, certainly they have begun and launched a number of projects, a number of supports to British Columbians, which they campaigned on. That is not a surprise to us. But I can tell you that I think there are some surprised people this morning, as we start to unpack what is not reflected in the budget update.

When we think of perhaps the signature piece of the new government — or, at least, one of the ones that they certainly talked to British Columbians about — it was the $10-a-day daycare program. Now, that program is not captured in this budget, at all. In fact, today and yesterday we’ve heard some interesting explanations as to why it isn’t.

The big concern that I have…. I have to admit that this was something that very much attracted a number of voters to the NDP and to the Green coalition. Young people struggle with child care spaces. How do they care for their children when daycare and child care are expensive, and they can’t find the spaces they need? This NDP government raised expectations. Voters decided that they wanted to support a $10-a-day daycare model, styled after the Quebec model.

Interjection.

[3:00 p.m.]

S. Bond: I’m sure the member will have her opportunity to stand in the House and speak.

The most important element…. I’m happy to have a conversation with her about this issue. The facts of the matter are, to the member, that the $10-a-day daycare program is not reflected in the budget update. My job, as the Finance critic, is actually to be able to point out to British Columbians that without some way of paying for it, it will be difficult to deliver that in a February budget. The point is that someone has to pay for it. I think all we’re asking the member and her colleagues to do is explain to British Columbians that if they are going to deliver that promise, it is an expensive one.

There may not even be a discussion about the merit of the program. All of us want to see improved benefits for families in British Columbia. But I think the member owes it to British Columbians to talk about where they’re going to get the almost $1 billion, in addition to all the spending promises that have been made here, to deliver that promise in British Columbia.

The other thing that’s been an interesting development is the fact that the Finance Minister yesterday said the reason it wasn’t in the budget…. She didn’t reflect on the financial aspect of it. She reflected on the fact that her Green partners weren’t happy with it, that there needed to be more discussion about the model. Well, isn’t that interesting. So today British Columbians who put their faith in many of the members on that side, although not a majority government…. They put their faith in this government delivering a $10-a-day daycare program, which today we do not see reflected in the budget update. We now hear that there’s got to be consultation with the partners in the coalition to get the policy right.

So what is it? Is there going to be a $10-a-day daycare program in British Columbia or not? And who is going to pay for it? Those are pretty simple, straight-up questions that deserve an answer. British Columbians want to know. The young families that supported members on that side of the House want to know. And, certainly, the official opposition wants to know.

We also want to talk about the other missing pieces. There is a list of promises: the $400 rent subsidy, support to students in post-secondary education, parks, conservationists. The list goes on. The issue isn’t that we’re necessarily critical about additional investment. The issue is this: it doesn’t appear in the budget update at a time when the economy of British Columbia is in the best state that it probably will ever be. The room to move is probably the best it will be right now, and the most expensive promises made by the NDP government are missing from their financial equation. That is an issue for concern — a legitimate issue for concern — for the British Columbians who heard the budget update yesterday.

We know how important it is to continue to look at the taxation regime in British Columbia. We know that there have been a number of other promises that have not been included. Our concerns today relate to the fact that British Columbia is in the most robust financial position that it can be. That’s been confirmed in the audited public accounts released just several weeks ago.

But we’re also concerned about infrastructure projects not mentioned in the budget. In fact, today we’ve heard the Minister of Education talk about their desire to add additional funding for schools. There are no new schools reflected in the budget update. And the answer can be: “They’re coming.” But so is $10-a-day daycare, so is a hydro freeze. A number of other expensive promises — they’re coming.

Where is the revenue generation plan that is actually going to pay for this, or are they going to require additional tax increases that come out of the pockets of British Columbians? That’s a fair question. It’s a question that over the next number of days and I’m sure throughout estimates I won’t be the only person asking this government and the Finance Minister how she’s going to pay for all of these promises.

[3:05 p.m.]

I know that my colleagues are going to get up in just a little while and, throughout the budget estimate processes, they’re going to be asking about that new hospital in Surrey that was promised. They’re going to be asking about the Peace River North hospital in his region. I know that the member from Skeena is going to ask about where the hospital in Terrace is at. It’s nice to have the Health Minister, and I’m sure that he’ll have answers to support the Finance Minister as we walk through those.

Interjections.

S. Bond: And Prince George. I’d be remiss if I didn’t take the opportunity to mention the Prince George hospital, and I thank the Health Minister for his intervention and reminding me about that.

I very much appreciate the time that I’ve been given to respond to what is a budget update. The budget is notable for what is not included. What is not included is a plan to create jobs. In fact, what the budget update and, certainly, the commentary from the government and the actions of the government today have created is uncertainty about the economic stability of British Columbia.

In fact, the other concern that people have is about job creation in British Columbia. Not only are we not talking about creating jobs; in fact, we’re talking about taking away jobs. Now, I don’t know how know how many members here…. I certainly live fairly close to Site C. It’s not in my constituency. Not only are we not talking about a jobs plan that creates jobs; we’re talking about a loss of jobs for British Columbians. While some of the members may think that’s funny….

Interjection.

S. Bond: Well, the member may think that’s funny. I am absolutely positive that the over 2,000 people that work at Site C today are concerned about their future.

To absolutely dismiss the Trans Mountain pipeline and engage in expensive litigation…. In fact, one of the risks listed in the Finance Minister’s update was about unexpected costs for litigation. What’s coming next? I don’t know if the member knows, but the Trans Mountain pipeline is planned to go through my riding as well. There are a number of views about that project in British Columbia. It is certainly not unanimous, and there are a large number of British Columbians who want to see that pipeline move forward because it has well-paying, family-supporting jobs attached to it.

So we have a budget update that relies on almost $1 billion of tax increases over the next three years, including significant increases in business and personal taxes, removing the revenue neutrality requirement for the carbon tax and elimination of the children’s arts and fitness tax credit. In addition to that, there is not a single indication of what the plan is to grow the economy, to create jobs and, in fact, to deal with the uncertainty that the actions of this government, in just a few weeks, are causing to the investment climate in this province.

This budget assumes the economic performance of the province last year, which resulted in a $2.7 billion surplus, will be repeated. There are no guarantees, and the risks are substantial. It relies on a substantial increase in forecasted GDP growth.

The cancellation of the George Massey Tunnel replacement project — 9,000 jobs. Site C, Trans Mountain pipeline, George Massey Tunnel replacement — what’s next? At some point, this government has to work toward identifying a plan for British Columbia that is going to rely on a sustainable resource economy in this province.

Yes, there needs to be innovation. Yes, there’s an innovation economy, but the bedrock of this province is a sustainable, well-managed natural resource sector. There is no indication of a single plan that talks about jobs. In fact, we’re impacting them with virtually every decision that’s made. That matters, not just to the people who elected me and where I live, but to the entire province of British Columbia.

It’s hard to understand. Just Friday the Premier promised…. Or at least, I shouldn’t say that. I want to be accurate in this House, and I apologize for that. The Premier implied that the $400 renters rebate would be the budget. It isn’t.

[3:10 p.m.]

As I conclude my remarks today, I do want to thank the Minister of Finance. I appreciate the very difficult task she’s been given, but I also want to recognize that she’s been given a circumstance that is the envy of Finance ministers across this country. If, at this point, when British Columbia is at its peak economic performance — at least, that is likely the indication…. We’re already seeing $1 billion of taxes piled onto British Columbia’s people and businesses in a budget update. Completely missing from this budget are some of the signature pieces that this government ran on.

Today we are appreciative of the opportunity to comment. Our job, as the official opposition, will be to watch the benchmark. The public accounts that were released recently set the benchmark. British Columbians deserve to know that they have a government that is going to have a strong economic plan, that is going to focus on job creation, that is going to welcome investment to this province and that they are going to be mindful that every time they increase…. Every time that they’ve been in government, they use the same pattern. They’re going to spend, and they’re going to increase taxes to pay for it.

That’s not fair to British Columbians. Our job will be to hold the government to account for the promises they made and for the economic situation that they have inherited.

Hon. B. Ralston: It gives me great pleasure and it’s an honour to rise in the House to address the budget that’s just been tabled. I want to thank the Finance Minister for the work that she’s done in preparing this document and the excellent job that she’s done in explaining it to the public of British Columbia.

Naturally, there are detractors opposite. I think that comes from their obligation to oppose, and they’ve taken to that very clearly and strongly. That, I’m sure, will improve the quality of decisions on this side of the House by hearing and reflecting upon the positive, constructive criticism that we hear from the members opposite. I look forward to that, and I welcome that.

I don’t think anyone would be surprised by the tone or the comments of the opposition Finance critic, although I do note that there is an assumption in what the member says about the economy. Yes, on the numbers, the economy was doing well. But what I encountered — and what many of my colleagues encountered in our own ridings and during the campaign and, indeed, throughout the province — was a sense that the prosperity of the province was not shared in the last 16 years and that the central preoccupation of the government, in economic terms, was with those people at the very top of the economic scale and not with all of the people of the province.

Certainly, many of the people in my riding — the average per-capita income is lower than the average of the province — find themselves working part-time, working at minimum-wage jobs, working in contingent labour with economic prospects in the employment sector that are tough. There was not a great sense, in the way that the opposition Finance critic has just set it out, that economic times were fantastic or great for them.

I think that’s part of the problem that the members opposite still seem to have. It’s that they don’t seem to understand what the public and their perception of their own economic circumstances…. It wasn’t and it isn’t perfect or great for everyone in British Columbia, and our commitment as a government is to try and make sure that the economy works not just for a few at the top but that it works for everyone. That’s what we’ve set out to do, and that’s what this budget sets out to do. It doesn’t….

[3:15 p.m.]

After 16 years of the previous government in power, there are obviously many changes that are required to achieve that goal. It certainly won’t be achieved overnight or in six months. We begin on a path, as we look forward to what looks like four years in government — or 4½ years; we’ll see — and a chance to build an economy that works for everyone.

Now, the member opposite — and I think this seems to be a standard of the criticism or the speeches that we’ll hear — talks about taxes, particularly personal income tax. Indeed, in this budget there is an increase in personal income tax to the top-income earners.

The top-income — 2 percent — tax filers, did, under the B.C. Liberals, receive a substantial reduction, which, over four years, amounted to $1 billion. That decision has been reversed, and those earners, individual tax filers…. This is your net taxable income. This is after all of your deductions, and obviously, people at the top of the scale have a few more deductions available to them, in tax-planning terms, than people who are working for wages and whose tax is deducted at source. Those people earning in excess of $150,000 net taxable will be paying 2.1 percent more on their income tax.

Now, that seems…. I don’t think that’s a calamity. Certainly, some people will resent that. I’m not sure that there are many that welcome increases in taxes, although some more philanthropic millionaires and billionaires in the United States, such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, have said that they welcome the opportunity to pay more taxes because, as a very famous judge — Louis Brandeis, I think it was — said: “Taxes are the price of civilization.” So they understand that people who, like themselves…. Bill Gates or people like that understand their obligation, through the tax system, to support the rest of society, thanks to the benefits that they receive through their own effort, but relying on the support of society at large.

I think that that modest increase in personal income tax for a very small group of people at the top, although it won’t be received with universal acclaim, is a reasonable measure, and that’s why it’s there. Similarly, on corporate income tax, there is a 1 percent increase, and it keeps corporate income tax consistent across western Canada. Somehow the members opposite seem to resent that we’re competitive with Alberta. I’m not sure what motivates them, although I might want to speculate about that.

On the other hand, for ordinary citizens who perhaps earn less than $150,000 net taxable, there are measures that begin to implement and relieve some of the financial pressure that they feel. For example, MSP premiums, Medical Services premiums, will be cut in half beginning January 1 upcoming, saving the average family up to $900 a year.

The small business tax rate will be lowered from 2.5 percent to 2 percent.

Those are some small measures, I think — but a big impact on individual families, particularly families in the riding that I represent, Surrey-Whalley. And I think many families throughout the province will be grateful and appreciative of those steps taken in the budget.

The other measure, certainly, that was taken, in fulfilment of a campaign promise, was to remove the tolls from the Golden Ears and the Port Mann bridges. That measure was supported by the B.C. Liberals in their second throne speech — or the one before the one that we were debating yesterday — in which, contrary to what they said in the campaign, they said that that effort could be accommodated within the fiscal framework that they were talking about, at least at that time.

[3:20 p.m.]

I know the author of that report, the former Premier Christy Clark, has left. She didn’t feel that she could come here, apparently, and defend that position here in person, but it is significant, I think, that that particular measure was supported by the B.C. Liberals not so long ago, only months ago. Those are some of the steps, I think, for families in terms of making life more affordable.

One of the other blights on our social landscape and on our society is the degree to which, despite the wealth of the province…. Again, it’s not shared equally. We have a minister now responsible for poverty reduction who is going to introduce a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy.

This is not something that is unique to this government. In fact, governments across the country, whether it was former Premier Danny Williams, who is a Tory, in Newfoundland or whether the Liberal government in Ontario or the government in Quebec…. Many provincial governments have seen fit as an appropriate social policy to implement a poverty reduction strategy. Indeed, that would seem to be, in their view, one of the important purposes of government — to make life better, not just for the people at the top but for everyone. That’s another mechanism that we will be exploring and introducing here to make life better for many, many more people in British Columbia.

I certainly welcome that initiative, that part of our government, and I hope the members opposite will consider supporting that plan when the time comes, although based on their record of 16 years, it seems unlikely. But one never knows. There may be a conversion as we go along, through the sheer persuasive power of a very effective minister in charge of that particular file.

Some of the other items…. This was very effectively addressed by the Minister of Education in his speech this morning, talking about a new tone, a new atmosphere and new objectives in the public education system. For too long, the B.C. Liberals viewed this sector as a sector which was appropriate to be rife with litigation, with confrontation with the teachers union. That really detracted from the best possible learning outcomes and the kind of commitment to public education that a modern, progressive society requires. Indeed, it’s absolutely essential.

The compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada…. Of course, the B.C. Liberals took the case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In an unprecedented decision, the court really didn’t even reserve after hearing both sides. Usually in a case like that, a momentous case, at the Supreme Court of Canada, the nine judges go away, have a conference, consider their opinion and sometimes will issue a written decision. It could be months, sometimes half a year later.

What they did in this case — because apparently for them, notwithstanding the effort of the lawyers on behalf of the government to convince the court otherwise — is they decided in less than half an hour that the B.C. government case, advanced by the B.C. Liberals, had so little merit that they dismissed it out of hand — within 25 minutes.

That’s the decision that’s now being implemented. Obviously, it’s a challenging decision to implement on such short notice, but certainly the Minister of Education and his officials have implemented that.

I know in my district, in Surrey, which is the biggest public school district in the province, they are hiring teachers. They’ve hired an unprecedented number of new teachers, and they’re still looking for a few more. The classrooms are full. There’s a very positive atmosphere. Trustees are happy, parent groups are happy.

[3:25 p.m.]

There is indeed a new tone in education. That is something that we on this side of the House are very proud of, and this budget certainly supports that effort and will continue to support that effort as we go forward.

So the minister — the member opposite…. One does fall back on earlier rhetorical habits, I’m afraid. The member opposite, in her address, talked about a rather dark picture. It seems to be a very pessimistic view of British Columbia’s future. Maybe that reflects the shift, from that side of the House, over to that side of the House.

In fact, what is going on in the economy are some very, very strong and very powerful things, some very good news. Let me relay a little bit of that good news.

Yesterday a company in Burnaby called Fortinet…. They are a global leader in high-performance cybersecurity. They have an operation in Burnaby where they employ 700 people. They started in Burnaby 17 years ago. They expanded to the United States. They have offices in Europe. They specialize in cybersecurity, because, obviously, cybersecurity threats are much more than denial of service. It’s a growth industry in terms of cybersecurity. They have their global research facility in Burnaby, and they made a decision to expand.

Federal Minister of Innovation Navdeep Bains and I met there a couple weeks ago. They were asked by one of the officials that was with us: “What was the decision that made you decide to expand in British Columbia?” And the decision wasn’t a financial one in the way that we’ve heard from the member opposite. What they said is the reason that they wanted to expand in Burnaby — and in British Columbia and indeed in Canada, rather than in the United States or anywhere else in the world — is what they call “culture.” What they mean by culture is the talent that is available to them to do the kind of work they do and that they’re very good at.

They announced yesterday that they’ve made a commitment, an investment, and they’ll be hiring 1,000 more people in Burnaby. The release went out yesterday. The member opposite has talked a little bit of a bleak future. Fortinet, this company, made an announcement of another 1,000 jobs in Burnaby just yesterday.

There are in the technology sector…. The member opposite was somewhat dismissive of the innovation commission, somewhat dismissive of the emerging economy task force. These are important projects that — together with our legislative partners, the Green Party — we are pursuing. We believe, and this side of the House believes, that the future economy requires innovation and is, indeed, essential to economic success in the future.

Indeed, the federal government has made innovation a centrepiece of its economic strategy. They’ve set up a major initiative, including the supercluster strategy, which many companies in B.C. have participated in. It’s a $950 million project. And B.C. companies, led by…. There are a number of applications. There’s a huge clean-tech sector. They’ve made an important application.

Telus and Microsoft have headed up another proposal, and these are major proposals by major employers which will have a huge impact on the British Columbia economy. To hear the members opposite that it’s a dark and negative time…. I just don’t understand that approach, and it seems to be belied by the evidence of what’s actually going on in the economy.

[3:30 p.m.]

Certainly, there are other enterprises, major enterprises. I, together with the parliamentary secretary, the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam, travelled with officials to the global headquarters of Microsoft, where we met with the president, who’s the person in charge of Microsoft. They’re very bullish on British Columbia. They want to invest more. They have an agreement — to give them credit — made with the previous government. They want to continue. They want to expand in British Columbia.

We also went to the headquarters, in Seattle, of Amazon. They’re on a supergrowth trajectory. They own 30 buildings in Seattle, most of which are occupied by their employees. They have an operation on West Georgia in Vancouver, where they’ve employed 1,000 people. And they’ve made an announcement that they’re looking for a new global headquarters. They are interested in British Columbia.

There are many other companies who are interested in British Columbia. That’s not just in the Lower Mainland. That’s in Kelowna. There’s a tech sector. There are tech companies in Prince George that are associated with the university, which I think the member opposite is probably very familiar with, which will assist and want to participate in that kind of growth. There’s a tech sector here on the Island.

Indeed, the tech sector works with modern, effective resource industries, because many of the solutions offered by technology are applicable to resource industries who can optimize processes. Modern mining requires a huge dose of technology to optimize drilling, optimize finding and locating the ore or whatever is to be extracted in a cost-effective way.

So to draw this dismissive approach that we heard opposite, of the innovation commission, of the emerging economy task force, is really…. I’m a bit surprised by it. Perhaps the critic will want to correct his colleague about the potential. But for resource industries, working with the technology industries…. Indeed, modern resource industries are inconceivable without technological advance. That’s just some of what’s going on in the technology sector.

In addition, I want to say that, in terms of trade and industries that promote trade internationally, I was recently up in Prince Rupert at the expansion of the Fairview Container Terminal. For those who are maybe not familiar with the terminal, it was opened in 2007. This is an expansion, a fully 80 percent increase in the capacity of the Fairview Container Terminal. It’s funded by a company called DP World, who are a company based out of Dubai, owned by a sovereign wealth fund.

They see Prince Rupert and the association of their container port with CN Rail as likely to become the most dynamic port in North America. Why? Because the ship-to-rail connection is very seamless. CN Rail. The president, Luc Jobin, was there at the opening. They are very proud of their association with the container port. It’s obviously connected to trade routes in British Columbia and the five-day rail journey to Chicago.

But the port itself is positioned…. Because it’s a deep-water port, an ice-free, deep-water port, it is uniquely positioned on the west coast to berth the new large category of ships, the Malacca-class ships, that will not be able to come to some of the other ports on the west coast.

DP World has a future expansion plan in another two years which they are actively considering, because their view of British Columbia, of the potential of the economic and the trading opportunities in the Port of Prince Rupert…. They’re very bullish on British Columbia.

So again, it’s disappointing to hear the negative and bleak view of the future prospects of British Columbia that the members opposite seem to want to take. Maybe they feel that advances their political cause. I don’t think so. But that’s their decision. That’s not my decision.

[3:35 p.m.]

The mayor of Prince Rupert, Lee Brain, was there. The mayor of Smithers, Taylor Bachrach, was there. They view the success of the container terminal and the expansion, the jobs it creates…. It will create — and this was an announcement made two weeks ago — 400 to 600 new jobs in Prince Rupert, and 40 percent of the workforce is Indigenous.

We’ve heard some representations from the Leader of the Opposition about, again, a very bleak and negative view. People I talk to in the longshore industry there, the Longshore Union Local 505, were very upbeat about the future prospects of this port and the jobs and the trade that it will bring to British Columbia, to Prince Rupert and to the Canadian economy.

Again, I think what this budget does is set into motion some of the supports for a shared prosperity that we should all be inspired to support.

There are other aspects of the budget that I do want to address, speaking as an MLA who represents a Surrey riding. We have a very capable and energetic minister who is going to deal with the new Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, along with the very capable Minister of Health. He’s sitting beside me, so I feel obliged to mention his name.

There is no doubt that the fentanyl crisis, the opioid crisis, has been a human tragedy and catastrophe — mostly in the Lower Mainland, but it’s spread throughout the province. While the solutions are not easy, what the new ministry will do will be to focus accountability, to focus the programs and, I think, begin on the path to tackling what is a very tough problem and tragic in its consequences, in view of the number of needless deaths that have resulted here in British Columbia. And we’re not alone. This is something that has expanded or is present in cities in the United States and elsewhere in Canada. But this approach, I think, will begin to reduce the number of deaths in the long run.

In my riding, there’s an area where it’s particularly evident that people are living on the street who are using fentanyl — although many of the recent deaths have come from people who are dying at home in private residences and are not necessarily on the street, so I want to be a little bit cautious about characterizing who the users are and who the people are.

Deaths. Not so long ago, back as we were campaigning, on my way early one morning to the campaign office, I saw emergency health services putting a tarp over a body 100 metres from my campaign office, which was a very graphic and emotionally draining reminder of the impact that this crisis has had on human life in our community. Again, there’s support in this budget for that ministry and for its potential solutions, so I’m very proud of that aspect of this particular budget.

I was instructed by my House Leader to speak briefly to this matter, to the budget, so I want to say that I’m very proud of this budget. It’s a first step, a budget update. We will be working on solutions, hoping to bring and aspiring to bring prosperity to all British Columbians.

S. Thomson: I’m very pleased to be able to rise and provide a response to Budget Update 2017. Before I start addressing some of the budget specifically, I did just want to take this bit of an opportunity to give my quick thanks to the volunteers and supporters and voters of Kelowna-Mission who provided their confidence in electing me to this position.

[3:40 p.m.]

I didn’t get the chance to do that earlier in some of the other discussion because of my short tenure in the Speaker’s chair. I didn’t have the opportunity to participate in those debates earlier. I just wanted to take this opportunity to do that and, also, to thank my ever-patient family: my wife, Brenda, and all the kids. As we’ve all said in this House before, we don’t get to do this work if we don’t have their continued support.

I really appreciate that and the ongoing dedication and commitment and work in our community and in our constituency of my constituency assistants, Nan and Janice, who are the front lines in our offices, in the community, and do such a great job.

I also want to take this quick opportunity to acknowledge our community and all of the work that they did, the support they provided, in response to both the spring flood situation we had in the Okanagan and the summer fires. First responders, emergency services, local government, Salvation Army, the Red Cross, volunteers and the B.C. Wildfire Service all came together to support our local citizens, to support those residents and citizens from the Cariboo and the Interior and Ashcroft and Cache Creek and, most recently, those in our community who were evacuated as a result of the Philpott fire in Joe Rich.

Unfortunately, in our community, we’ve had a lot of practice, given many of the incidents. But what you do see when all of this happens is the best in our communities and the best in people. That was certainly evident over the summer, and I really want to acknowledge all of the citizens of our community who contributed so much during that very, very stressful time for so many people.

I also want to take a quick time to voice my support and recognition for the B.C. Wildfire Service and first responders in all of our communities who risked their lives, their well-being, in the service of the province, fighting to protect countless families and businesses. I know that without their tireless efforts, the damage caused by this unprecedented season would have been far greater.

Unfortunately for our Interior communities, life does not return to normal once the flames are out. This situation is going to continue for a while. Recovery services are needed and going to be needed, and there needs to be a plan for the economic recovery for the businesses and families in the Interior. This needs to be put into action now, and I did not see this in this budget.

Businesses from small to large — tourism, small business, farmers, ranchers — are all hurting in B.C.’s interior. They will continue to suffer in the future if we don’t see that strong economic recovery plan in place. I hope over the weeks and months ahead that we’ll see that plan develop and the resources there in order to provide that support and economic recovery that is going to be so much needed in those areas.

Budget 2017 is interesting to respond to. I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance, as others have, in her appointment. The responsibility she takes on with this position — I know that she takes it very, very seriously and, as has been commented, has inherited a fiscal situation in the province that is and was the envy of the country.

The budget update provides for an increase in spending of $3 billion and increased taxes over $1 billion. But what is most telling in all of this is the assumptions that it was built on, and we need to make sure that we understand that context. Directly in the budget documents, it says that the outlook for 2017 is higher than projected in Budget 2017 — the update was higher than expected in Budget 2017— due to stronger-than-anticipated consumer spending and export activity that has provided for an upward revision of GDP. Then, in 2017, key indicators such as employment, retail sales, housing starts and exports have exceeded expectations.

[3:45 p.m.]

But most importantly, and very clearly, the budget update documents note key downside risks: uncertainty in U.S. fiscal and trade policy; potential slowdown in the domestic Canadian economy; faltering of economic recovery in Europe; slower economic activity in Asia, particularly in China; and the potential for monetary policy tightening, which will dampen economic momentum.

With all of that, and with all of those risks clearly identified and noted in the budget documents, this government has built, and cemented in, in their budget update, significant spending increases, increased taxes and a scenario that creates very, very significant risks and possibilities for future tax increases to support all of the increased spending that has been cemented into the budget update.

That’s without even recognizing that there are many of the election campaign promises that were communicated during the campaign that aren’t included in this budget update. Those have been noted by the member for Prince George–Valemount. This is going to require one of two things. It either has to require additional revenue to support all of that increased spending and those spending plans, or tax increases.

Most importantly, this budget does not contain an economic plan that will sustain jobs and growth in our economy. In fact, all of the early actions by this government do exactly the opposite. Creating uncertainty in the investment climate by the review process. Creating risk and uncertainty for the 2,400 workers at Site C through that process that sets up a possibility of cancellation of the project, essentially saying no to 10,000 jobs that will be created during the construction, a total of 33,000 jobs throughout all of the stages and the economic activity that that will bring.

Also, joining the legal challenge of the Kinder Morgan project, creating more uncertainty about investment in this province. Cancelling the Massey Tunnel replacement project, impacting over 9,000 jobs. It is very clear and evident in this budget update that this is a cancellation — not a consultation, as they have tried to portray it, but a cancellation of that project, impacting all of those jobs.

All of this in the early days has sent a chill to the investment community. It creates a great risk to the budget plan in meeting the assumptions that the update is built on. Instead, it relies on tax increases of almost $1 billion in taxes over the next three years, significant increases in business and personal taxes, removing the revenue neutrality for the carbon tax and the elimination of children’s art and fitness tax credits and others.

I agree with the comments from the member for Prince George–Valemount, and I think it is important to state this. We did hear a message. Most members would agree British Columbians sent us a message that they wanted to see additional investments in some priority areas, and I agree it is important to consider those. This budget contains some of those, and these are going to be important investments. But what concerns us, and what is missing in this budget update plan, is the plan to sustain the economy and grow jobs and a plan that addresses the risks that are clearly noted in their own budget documents.

Our ridings in the Central Okanagan have seen the benefit of this strong economic growth and the solid fiscal management of the B.C. Liberal government, delivering the five consecutive balanced budgets, our sustained credit upgrades, the triple-A credit rating and the jobs plan that has created over 200,000 jobs. In the Central Okanagan, the labour market continues to gain strength, with a 5.5 percent increase from January 2017 to June 2017 compared to the same period in 2016. Housing starts are up 87 percent. Multifamily units continue to lead that increase. Building permit values are up 40 percent, reaching an all-time high of $528 million.

Business licences are up 15.4 percent, reflecting strong confidence, particularly in the small business sector. Our leading airport in Kelowna saw an increase of 13 percent passenger traffic compared to the already record-breaking numbers of passenger traffic that we had in 2016.

[3:50 p.m.]

Our wine, tourism and craft beer sectors continue to grow and provide significant economic opportunity for the region. Wine in the Okanagan is a $200 million industry — 240 vineyards, 500,000 wine tourists each year and 10,000 wine-related jobs that go with that. We’ve seen our tree fruit sector continue to grow, particularly with the success that the industry is having in the export market in cherries and those opportunities that continued investment in trade and those relationships have provided for our region.

The Kelowna area boasts one of the top tech and start-up hubs in Canada. It’s a $1.3 billion economic impact. That has increased 30 percent over the last two years, with over 7,600 people in the local tech workforce and 633 technology companies with over $500 million in exits and acquisitions in the last two years.

The provincial government investment, which we were proud to be able to make, in the Okanagan Innovation Centre is paying tremendous dividends and has created that centre of excellence, that collision of ideas, the talent, the mentorship. The investment continues to grow, partnered with our strong post-secondary educational institutions. UBC Okanagan and Okanagan College — both experiencing record growth in enrolments this year — show confidence that was built on B.C.’s economic record and our opportunities.

Let’s be clear. While the Central Okanagan has built a diversified economy, there are many businesses involved and invested in opportunities that Site C would provide and that the Kinder Morgan project would provide. Those businesses employ people and invest in our community, and the actions of this government are putting all of that at risk — increased spending that is not supported by an economic plan to sustain growth and compounded by the very real risks that the budget update acknowledges and the risk to our credit rating with the transfer of construction costs to taxpayer-supported debt with the removal of tolls on the Port Mann Bridge.

As noted in the member for Prince George–Valemount’s comments, that action immediately captured the attention of Moody’s Investors Service, noting “the government’s plan is credit negative, as it will increase taxpayer-supported debt and remove a dedicated line of revenue for debt repayment.” They go on to say: “We assume this action will be taken in addition to other actions in the September budget update. Any ratings impact would therefore need to take into account other possible measures that would be announced at that time.”

The decision to cancel the Massey Tunnel replacement and account for all those costs expended to date will surely be one of those. A credit downgrade, which is a real possibility, will mean the government has to find another $199 million or $200 million in interest costs. How are they going to do that without a plan to grow the economy and grow jobs in British Columbia? That will be done by increasing taxes.

The tax increases in this budget mean we will lose our competitive advantage. The government says this puts us on an equivalent with Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Well, I don’t think, as others have commented, that we want to be equivalent, that we want to be measured somewhere in the middle against those other jurisdictions. We want to be leaders, and this budget update does not keep us in that position. Business confidence has already dropped from the top to near the bottom.

This budget does not even address, as I’ve pointed out earlier, the many promises that were made by this government. The much-vaunted child care plan. Who is going to pay for that? How much will it cost? How will it be implemented? Very clearly, a very, very significant investment is going to be required in order to meet the objectives. Again, a spending commitment is going to need to be funded. A budget update plan that does not provide for the revenue and the jobs plan and the economic growth that will fund that kind of investment.

[3:55 p.m.]

The $400 renters rebate, the commitments for building affordable housing, parks and conservation officers, capital spending and the education plan — all of those commitments, which aren’t accounted for in this budget update, are going to put those pressures and stress on the budget plan in 2018. Without a plan for that economic growth, and with the steps that have been taken already — which do, as I said, exactly the opposite in terms of job creation and growth — it sends exactly the wrong signal to the investment community, to those people who are willing to come and invest in our province.

Even their announcement of the funding that was in the budget for wildfire management, the $140 million…. It’s very important work that needs to be done, but it should be noted that this is not a new investment. That funding is already there. It’s in the Forest Enhancement Society. It was provided when we made the commitments to the Forest Enhancement Society — $235 million. The spending plan talks about $140 million in activities from that. But this is not a new and additional investment. I think it’s important to recognize, just as has been said before, that many of the measures that are in the budget update are ones that were already planned for and committed for in Budget 2017.

What’s missing? What’s missing are the plans to generate revenue to continue to build our export markets in the key trading destinations. I’ve had the opportunity and experience to travel into those markets and understand the importance of ensuring that we have an investment climate that supports our businesses and supports investment in the province. This budget does not do that. This update and the early actions of this government do exactly the opposite.

We see the very real possibility of the beginning of the dismantling of the strong fiscal framework that this province has been built on over the last number of years and the one that has attracted investment and job growth in the province.

This budget update makes it clear that we’re on track for increased spending without a jobs plan to sustain economic growth, with identified risks and early actions that result in lost jobs and lost economic opportunity. We’re only on track for increased taxation and the beginning of the spiral that this government, the government opposite, is so noted for — increased taxation, increased spending, dampening of investment confidence, dampening of small business confidence in the province and significant potential risks to increase taxes and potential great risks to the investment that we’ve seen in this province.

On this side of the House, we’ll hold the government to account. They have inherited a fiscal situation that was the envy of the country. I know on behalf of the constituents of Kelowna-Mission who put their confidence in electing me to represent their interests, to continue to help grow the economic prosperity of the province, to make sure that we continue to bring important investments and benefits to our region and to the province…. I know that on behalf of all those constituents in Kelowna-Mission, we’ll work constructively to ensure that we continue to provide the opportunities for our children and for our grandchildren.

I look forward to continuing that very, very important work as we address the budget update and as we continue to address the plans through the budget estimates process. It’s very, very important work on the specific details.

I would like to thank all of those constituents. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the budget update, and I look forward to the continued debate.

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s a pleasure to rise for my first speech of this session. I’d like to take the opportunity to begin by acknowledging the staff in both my riding of Vancouver-Fairview and in my ministry office who assist me so ably and who do such a great job for the people of British Columbia.

In my constituency office, my constituency assistants are Lisa Dekleer and Sean Phipps. They are keeping things going in Vancouver-Fairview, responding to the needs of constituents, the issues that are raised by constituents while I am here in session and often when I’m doing ministry business in Vancouver or Victoria.

[4:00 p.m.]

My former constituency assistant and now my executive assistant, Reamick Lo, is filling a very important role, ensuring that things run smoothly in Vancouver, that constituents get what they need and that the office has the oversight that it requires when I’m not present.

Here in Victoria — in addition to the many, many employees of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, my deputies, Mark Zacharias, Bobbi Plecas and Kevin Jardine — I’m also assisted on a daily basis by ministerial assistant Caelie Frampton and my most recent ministerial assistant, who just started this week, Eveline Xia, and administrative assistant Corinne Brosz, as well as a new administrative coordinator, Kirstin Nilson. My profound thanks to them.

There are many other people who have made this work possible for me and, indeed, helped me to be both elected and re-elected to this position. They are too lengthy to name. To my family, to my close friends who are a sounding board for me, who give me advice, who help me stay calm when events might often lead me to be excitable, I extend my profound appreciation and love.

Let me begin in addressing this budget speech by responding slightly to the end statements of the member for Kelowna-Mission. What the member for Kelowna-Mission failed to mention is the reason that the opposition is on the opposition side of the House and that parties representing 58 percent of B.C. voters are on this side of the House, bringing forward a very different program — despite the fact that the opposition party briefly tried to emulate it in its final throne speech. They emulated many of the programs, in fact, that they now say we cannot bring in for British Columbians and we cannot afford.

During the campaign, during the four years I was an MLA, I heard repeatedly from British Columbians in every corner of the province, and particularly in Vancouver-Fairview, that we have a social deficit, that the single-minded focus of the previous government on taking measures to cut taxes for the wealthiest British Columbians, to cut taxes for corporations, ended up transferring responsibility for balancing the budget onto the backs of working families — whether it was B.C. Hydro rates, ICBC rates, MSP premiums, rising student debt, rising tuition fees, the extremely ill-advised and, frankly, reprehensible decision to charge tuition fees for English language learning and adult basic education, which threatened to condemn new Canadians, and many people who were trying to upgrade their skills, to not have the opportunity to reach their full potential and to help build B.C.’s economy and help build our tax base.

That’s the legacy of the B.C. Liberal government.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

That’s why we’re on this side of the House. That’s why we’re trying to bring forward a throne speech, a program of legislation and a budget that focuses, first and foremost, on British Columbians, on the people of British Columbia, at the centre of our decision-making, at the centre of our policies, at the centre of our budget-making, trying to deal with issues of affordability for British Columbians — affordability.

People want access to child care. Women want access to child care so they can go out and get a job and be part of the workforce.

Students need the best possible opportunity to learn. They will finally get it because of this budget, which responds to the Supreme Court decision and goes further to ensure that students have access to teachers’ time and attention, that students have space and that the next generation of British Columbians students won’t face the conditions that Christy Clark, when she was Minister of Education, forced on an entire generation of students going through K to 12 over a 16-year period.

[4:05 p.m.]

We’re intent on making life more affordable for British Columbians in any number of ways. We’re intent on providing British Columbians with the services that they expect from their government, that they deserve from their government, that the economy and the government of British Columbia need to support. Whether it’s seniors who need home care, whether it’s young parents who need child care, whether it’s young people who need education, whether it’s post-secondary students in every corner of British Columbia who want to ensure that they can afford post-secondary education without graduating with a $30,000 debt, these are just some of the ways that we intend to support British Columbians with the services they expect and the services they deserve.

We also intend to focus on building an economy that’s diversified, that’s modern, that isn’t boom and bust, that doesn’t focus jobs in only one corner of the province, but that creates good, sustainable, diversified economic development in every corner of British Columbia. Yes, that includes responsible resource development, developed under an environmental assessment process that British Columbians can trust, in which they can have faith, in which First Nations find themselves a partner, not a litigate in protests in court case after court case.

Industry deserves to know what the rules are — that the rules are consistent, that there is an efficient process, in which the public and First Nations have trust, in which they know what the conditions they will have to meet will be and where they can see a pathway to approval instead of a road map to social conflict and First Nations litigation.

A modern economy in British Columbia depends on not putting all of our eggs in one basket and waiting for them to hatch for over four years, but ensuring that we seize the opportunities of a low-carbon economy, of the tech sector in British Columbia, of adding value to resources instead of simply exporting them virtually untouched and of applying tremendous opportunities of clean technology to help our minerals and mining industry be cleaner, be lower carbon, to ensure that we add value at every step of the process.

This budget update, in advance of our first full budget next April, takes critical first steps toward a B.C. that has predictability, that has stability, that has a modern economy and that provides services for people when they need them, where they need them and makes life more affordable.

We’re cutting MSP premiums in half. It’ll save families up to $900 per year, but we’re clear, over a four-year period, we will eliminate this unfair, essentially flat tax that transferred a progressive tax burden on a flat tax to all British Columbians in a way that was unfair and created great hardship for working families throughout British Columbia.

We’re supporting small business by lowering the tax rate by 20 percent from 2½ percent to 2 percent. But one of the very critically important things in our budget update today — particularly in Metro Vancouver, and particularly in Vancouver-Fairview, where I heard over and over and over again, before the election, during the election, since the election, where MLAs from all over the province have seen this trend of housing unaffordability spread and impact affordability for people and security for people in every part of the province — is we are making strong commitments to affordable housing.

[4:10 p.m.]

Starting with affordable rental housing, this budget update invests $208 million over four years to construct more than 1,700 new units of affordable rental housing in communities across British Columbia. That’s a strong start, and we will do more.

In addition, we’re investing $291 million over two years to construct 2,000 modular supportive housing units for people who are homeless. Homeless — not just people who are struggling to make rent. People who, when they can no longer make rent, or when they’ve been renovicted, or they’ve seen loopholes in the Residential Tenancy Act result in unconscionable rent increases that the opposition, when in government, continuously refused to address…. People who, when faced with those kinds of rent increases or evictions, may well find themselves homeless.

There is nothing — nothing, in my view — more critical in the actions that we need to take than to ensure that people can rely on stable housing, on affordable housing and on an end to the kind of reckless rent-gouging that we have seen under the previous government.

I touched on the issue of child care, initially. It is critically important that young families get the support they need so they can earn a living and so that women with young children can upgrade their skills at school, can enter the workforce and develop enhanced skills that come with being part of the workforce so they can support their families.

We are making a start, in this update, with $20 million in new child care investments, which we will ensure support more than 4,000 new child care spaces. Despite what the opposition has said, this is a start. We are working on details with people on this side of the House, and we will be glad to do it with people on the other side of the House. We know British Columbians need accessible, affordable child care, and it will be delivered.

Health care. My colleague the Minister of Health reminds me that a huge, huge portion of our budget goes to health care every year. We need to ensure that people have the health care they need when they need it, where they need it. We are investing in health care.

In the case of the priorities of opioids and addiction, there’ll be a $603 million increase over three years to the base budget for the Ministry of Health. We will be looking at programs that address the fentanyl emergency, and we will then address other pressures in the health care system, whether it’s urgent care clinics, whether it’s community health clinics, whether it’s ensuring that we have funding for long-term care and that we assist seniors with the home care they need to stay in their home as long as possible with the care and support they need. It’s more humane. It is a respectful way to treat seniors in their twilight years. It’s also more cost effective in the health care system.

I have wondered, for close to 16 years, why this obvious step, which is better for everyone and costs the system less in the long run, wasn’t taken. I look forward to our government introducing the measures that will address this issue.

We will take many measures to build a sustainable economy. We will invest in capital infrastructure that is needed throughout the province, which will both build strong and sustainable communities as well as provide jobs in every corner of our province, with $14.6 billion in capital spending over three years. Whether it’s schools, whether it’s hospitals, whether it’s transit, whether it’s energy efficiency or whether it’s transportation infrastructure, people throughout British Columbia — every corner, every riding, represented by members on both sides of this House — can look forward to seeing a capital plan that supports their communities and their needs.

[4:15 p.m.]

With our colleagues in the Green Party, we will implement an innovation commission and an emergency — emerging — economy task force. Perhaps I did mean an emergency economy task force. It will be an emerging economy task force and an innovation commission that will ensure that the 21st-century economy — clean technology; applying technological solutions to human health and to resource extraction and development and manufacturing — is not an afterthought, but it’s integrated into every aspect of our economy.

The member for Kelowna-Mission made the claim that there wasn’t an economic plan. On the contrary, we have an economic plan. We will be developing it in consultation with communities. We are open to input from every member of this House, from communities — importantly, from First Nations with whom we wish to partner.

We want to ensure that we’re not at the end of the train on the emerging low-carbon economy. That’s why we will implement a strong climate action plan with clear commitments, with a predictable carbon tax increase so that industry can plan and so that people will be spurred to seek, support and purchase innovative technologies that help them, whether it’s resource extraction, manufacturing, home-building, energy. Any of these important aspects of our economy will be spurred to innovate.

We have a tech sector that’s champing at the bit for the opportunity to develop and market technologies here at home and then to export them to the corners of the world that are looking to not only embrace the low-carbon economy for the future of our children and grandchildren but to benefit economically from the economy of the future, not to be doomed by an economy of the past that simply does not want to adapt to change.

Unlike the previous government and unlike the claims of the member for Kelowna-Mission and the member for Prince George–Valemount, who claim that we’re somehow abandoning revenue neutrality, people I talk to in my constituency and across B.C. — unless they’re in the richest 20 percent of the British Columbians — never experienced revenue neutrality because the bulk of the personal income tax cuts, although they will be retained, benefited the richest British Columbians after the first two to three years of the carbon tax introduction. They were burdened with fees, hidden taxes, costs of living, unrestrained increases in the cost of housing that more….

Interjection.

Hon. G. Heyman: We’ll talk about that another day, Member.

They were burdened by fees that make their lives unaffordable. What British Columbians want is not a so-called revenue-neutral plan that has a number of boutique tax credits, including tax credits that existed before the carbon tax was ever introduced and being attributed to revenue neutrality. If a tax credit is good for the economy and creates jobs, it should stand on its own, and it will.

We will, unlike the previous government, ensure that 80 percent of low- and moderate-income families in B.C. receive a rebate in advance of paying carbon taxes. Ultimately, 50 percent of B.C. families will be better off with a rising carbon tax and our carbon tax rebate system than they are today under the frozen carbon tax of the previous government. We will also invest in green initiatives, transit, the clean economy and other measures that will make B.C. a leader again in fighting climate change.

It’s an honour to speak to this budget update. It is, of course, an honour to be on this side of the House — and one that I do not take lightly. It’s one that I welcome and my colleagues welcome.

[4:20 p.m.]

We look forward to responding to the needs of British Columbians, the desire of British Columbians to have the services they want, the desire of British Columbians for a more affordable future, for a clean, innovative, modern economy where they’re not asked to choose between the environment and a job, but where their future is helped and shaped by a government that understands that a strong economy, with good jobs in the future, depends on maintaining our natural capital, on joining the fight against climate change in a way that encourages technological growth and new jobs that can help us develop our resources, develop our tech sector, develop housing and develop communities around B.C. in partnership with communities, in partnership with First Nations, in partnership with British Columbian families, providing good jobs and a clean environment for their kids and grandkids.

With that, hon. Speaker, I will take my place. I look forward to the continued debate.

M. Morris: Before I start addressing this spending plan, I would like to just acknowledge the hard work that the folks in Prince George did during the wildfire season that we’ve had this summer, which is still ongoing: the city of Prince George — the work and the effort that they put into it — the College of New Caledonia, the University of Northern B.C., all first responders.

There were a lot of people that came together and hundreds of volunteers that stepped up to the plate in Prince George to help out and made sure that the thousands of evacuees that came to Prince George were well looked after. I walked through their various camps and the places that they were staying — nothing but accolades for the folks in Prince George for the good work that they did in trying to help out.

My colleague from Prince George–Valemount kind of summed this budget up quite succinctly. She said that it’s a spending plan without a plan for growth. It kind of sends a shiver down my spine when I see that or when I listen to some of the details. The NDP inherited Canada’s fastest-growing economy. We have the lowest unemployment rate. We had a triple-A credit rating. We had $2.7 billion in surpluses. And now they’re in the process of dismantling this economic engine faster than I could ever expect.

I want to make a prediction. It’s not going to take very long before our credit rating in this province is downgraded and the money that we’ve got from that triple-A credit rating that we have right now is going to go to further interest payments. As my colleague from Kelowna remarked, it will be close to $200 million a year with a credit rating downgrade that we have here.

This budget relies on tax increases — simple. Before and during the recent election campaign that was outlined in the throne speech on Friday and today captured in the budget…. The minister and her colleagues have laid out a very aggressive spending plan. They’ve promised everything from $10-a-day child care to $400 for every renter in the province.

Now, this is a catch-all. This is something that I heard during the campaign. I looked at the dollar figure involved in this $10-a-day daycare, and it was astounding. Metaphorically, I look at this as that shiny thing that’s out there that attracts people to come in through the door, or a shady car salesman that advertises a certain vehicle for sale at a certain price. You get through the door, and you don’t see it anymore.

That’s exactly what we’ve seen here. We don’t see it forecast in any budget. They haven’t mentioned it. It’s not going to take place. What they have said about child care spaces is the same thing that we had brought up in our Budget 2017 in February. They talk about support for students in post-secondary — don’t see that. They talk about parks and conservation officers — don’t see that. There are a number of things that we don’t see.

[4:25 p.m.]

The Minister of Finance said in her presentation that there will be larger reforms coming in February. Again, that sends shivers down my spine. We’ve seen some pretty significant spending initiatives here that they’ve announced, but with larger reforms coming in February, in the first full NDP budget of this government, it’s going to be a scary thing for sure.

The list of planned expenditures is long and undoubtedly will continue to grow, although, notably, neither child care nor the rental rebate were in the budget. This unstable coalition of governing partners is showing that it lacks a clear vision for our province and a complete lack of a plan to carry out promises. What’s also missing is a plan to sustain and grow the economy and create the jobs that British Columbians need and deserve. What’s also missing is a plan to generate revenue, attract investment, and expand and increase our export markets to Asia and beyond.

The previous member who spoke, the Minister of Environment, called it an emergency economy task force, and I think he had that aptly named. This is what the NDP plan is. They call it an emergency economy task force. They don’t have a plan in place. They’ve had 16 years to figure out how they were going to come and present something for us here today. But it’s an emergency economy task force that the Environment Minister was talking about to try and generate some revenue to pay for the enormous amount of money that you guys are just throwing out the door quicker than we can ever imagine. I’m waiting to see what that looks like.

This budget is about relying on taxes, about relying on tax increases that amount to almost $1 billion over the next three years. That’s just the beginning. I think we’re going to see some facts coming out on increases as we go down the road.

It includes removal of the revenue neutrality in our carbon tax. It’s been mentioned here today, but I want to mention it again. B.C. was recognized by the UN for the innovative work that we did with our carbon tax. The revenue neutrality of that tax was quite attractive, and it achieved what it was supposed to achieve. Now that’s gone. That’s going to have all kinds of ramifications for industry down the road, which I’ll talk about a little bit later.

We’re going to be losing our competitive advantage. They say that now we’ve got the same corporate tax rates, the same tax levels as Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. We’re not the same as Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. We have a very diversified economy in British Columbia here that is far greater than the economies of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

We’re not reliant on closed markets. We’re not reliant on the United States. We’re not reliant on any particular country. We ship all over the world from British Columbia, and we need to attract that investment to ensure that we maintain that diversity here in British Columbia. We’re going to lose our competitive advantage in many things that some of those other provinces have.

The resource sector is critical. Every year, we’ve hosted the resource forum in Prince George, and we hear from a variety of international players in the resource sector. We’ve been recognized in B.C. as doing a significant amount of work to attract the resource sector, to ensure that the environmental standards that we have here in British Columbia far outweigh every other jurisdiction in the world in how we do business here, and I think we can be pretty proud of that.

My constituency in Prince George is in a critical location for the resource sector and for the economy of British Columbia. We have north-south, east-west highways. We have north-south, east-west railways. We have north-south, east-west pipelines for natural gas. We’ve got an oil pipeline coming into a refinery in Prince George. We have a number of things that make the location of Prince George critical. We have the CN container facility in Prince George that organizes the containers for shipping on to the Port of Prince Rupert. I think it was the Jobs Minister that was touting the — all kinds of accolades about the Port of Prince Rupert and the number of jobs that it’s created out there.

[4:30 p.m.]

I hope he recognized the fact that a lot of the things that happened with the Port of Prince Rupert, a lot of the things that happened with the container port, with CN in Prince George, and a lot of things that have happened to support those jobs are the result of 16 years of a B.C. Liberal government from 2001 on. So I thank him for recognizing that.

Prince George started off as a forestry town. It’s changed significantly over the years, with the resource sector that we do have, with the pipelines coming into Prince George. It’s a centre for a lot of the services that are supplied. A lot of those services are in the trucking industry and the manufacturing industry.

We’ve replaced the Salmon River Bridge. There was a significant impediment to hauling the big, wide, heavy loads that we have, that we find necessary for the resource sector in northeast and northwest B.C. We did have planned in the budget a bridge crossing, the Parsnip River Bridge, and I’m hoping that the NDP government follows through with that. It’s the single most critical bottleneck that we have on the highway from Prince George north, and it needs to be replaced as soon as possible in order to assist the economy there.

Now, I noticed today my colleague from Peace River North was making a statement in the House, and he talked about LNG and natural gas. He made the statement that he hopes this government supports natural gas and liquefied natural gas. I was interested to see that very few members in government clapped for that, which indicates to me that there’s not a heck of a lot of support on that side of the House within government for our natural gas industry in British Columbia.

I think that’s shameful that they don’t support that. That’s one of the key economic drivers of British Columbia. Without that, they’re going to have to increase taxes even more, and without a resource sector, then they’re going to increase taxes on who might be left working in this province here. Let me give you an example of how valuable that natural gas is to British Columbia. I had a haircut here in town not too long ago, and the barber was talking about the environment and how she didn’t support Kinder Morgan and how she didn’t support the LNG projects that we had on the table here.

We started talking about it. I looked in that nice little barbershop, and it had five polypropylene sinks. She was playing music from her iPad, and I said that her iPad contains about 65 minerals that are removed from the ground. When I told her that the plastic sinks that she had in there come from natural gas, the derivatives of natural gas and the petroleum side of things, she had no idea.

I’m wondering how many people that think they’re saving the environment by cancelling all these projects realize that they’re going to have to get rid of a heck of a lot of the things that they enjoy every day. I don’t think she really understood that.

The other part of that…. I read an article in the newspaper here not too long ago about Petronas. Of course, Petronas cancelled a project when the NDP came into government because of the comment, I would say…. They probably knew that the icing was on the cake when they heard the Premier, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, saying no to Pacific natural gas, I think Petronas decided that it would probably…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

M. Morris: …be in their best interests not to carry forward with that program.

Do you know what Petronas is looking at now? They have a lot of assets in northeast B.C. They’ve got a lot of supply in northeast B.C., so they’re going to ship it through the pipes and through the systems down to the Gulf of Mexico, where it’s going to be turned into LNG and shipped to the same people that were going to buy it from us, should we have built that plant here in British Columbia. So I think we missed a real opportunity there, and it’s a shame that this government took the stance that they had.

The forestry sector, as I said, has been a big player in Prince George and throughout this province here. It’s been the mainstay of our economy in the early years and still is a big part of our economy. But we’ve had the devastating forest fires that we’ve seen through the southern Interior and the Cariboo, up into the central Interior, to a degree. Millions of cubic metres of wood have been destroyed. On top of that, we’ve suffered through….

[4:35 p.m.]

We’re reaching the end of the pine beetle epidemic. We’re still harvesting a lot of the dead pinewood that we have out here, but now we’ve got a situation where the spruce bark beetle has encroached upon us. Up until 2016, just in my riding alone, we lost 500,000 hectares of spruce to the spruce bark beetle. That was up to 2016. I think in 2017, we can probably see that increase significantly.

There are a lot of things that we need to look at to address the deficits that we see coming down the road in our forest sector. I haven’t seen anything as to how they expect to address that. What I have seen is that they’re talking about increasing the carbon tax. They are going to increase the carbon tax, $5 a tonne. That’s phenomenal, because increasing the carbon tax…. Of course, they’re going to eliminate the revenue neutrality of that so it’s going to affect everybody in the pocketbook.

I was talking to an acquaintance in Prince George who runs a small trucking company. He’s got a couple of dozen trucks. I asked him how this was going to affect him. He said: “Well, it’s simple. I’m just going to pass it on to the consumer. Then the consumer passes it on to the next person.”

At the end of the day, the people that the government is saying they’re trying to help by increasing the carbon tax and eliminating the tolls on the bridges are the ones that are going to be hit in the pocketbook, because it always gets down to the consumer. So people are going to be spending more money regardless. When you sit in a resource-based economy like we have in Prince George, where we have thousands of trucks running down our highway every year, providing the resources that people in urban B.C. and Vancouver Island enjoy in their life every day, it’s going to affect every single person. That’s not only in this House, but every single person in our province.

We’ve heard a few things talked about with respect to Site C and the loss of 2,600 jobs if this government goes through with their threats to shut it down. Those jobs, as our leader has stated earlier on in his comments, affect every corner of this province. We have people from just about every community in this province that are working up there.

I was speaking with a contractor who came into my office not too long after this government came into being. He said: “You know, I’m on the verge of investing $1 million into my company because of my contracts with Site C.” And he said: “I don’t know what to do anymore.” I said: “I wish I could help you. I don’t know what to do in this situation either.” Do you invest $1 million and, at the end of the day, have the government turn around and shut that whole complex down and put 2,600 people out of work and you lose $1 million?

I was at Home Depot about the same period of time, picking up a few building supplies for a project I was working on. I ran into three contractors from Prince George. One of them came up. We were talking about the political situation in British Columbia and the uncertainty that has spread across British Columbia in the resource sector as a result of this government. He said: “I lost 18 months’ worth of work when the NDP government got elected because of the uncertainty that it’s created. The people that were contracting me cancelled that contract — 18 months of work down the drain.” He had several people that he was going to hire to work for him, so it affected not only his family but the families of many other people.

Another individual that I was talking to about the same time the Site C controversy was going on — and it’s still going on — was trying to get a mortgage. He’s a mortgage broker, and he’s trying to get a mortgage for an individual that worked on Site C. He couldn’t find an underwriter for that mortgage because of the uncertainty that this government has placed on Site C and the resource sector throughout the province.

The uncertainty is killing us. The uncertainty is subduing the amount of private investment in this province. It’s subduing the enthusiasm that a lot of the different business owners had in order to build their companies up, and it’s had a very devastating effect on our economy.

[4:40 p.m.]

The other part of this…. Of course, it goes back to my previous work as the Public Safety Minister. Guns and gangs were a big focus for us when we were in government. I would have thought that it would have been a major issue for this government, but I haven’t seen…. There was nothing in the throne speech, and there was nothing in the budget to indicate that they were even concerned about guns and gangs. I know we did a pretty good job, but there’s a lot more that could be done there.

It was troubling to hear about the Premier and some of his colleagues that attended this gathering. You know, there were some gangsters there, and there were some businessmen there — a fundraiser. It’s very troubling to see, particularly in the city of Surrey, when guns and gangs are so prominent and are such a big issue for the community members that are there. It doesn’t send a very good message to the folks that this government has things well in hand.

They eliminated the tolls on the bridges. They’re very proud of that. That was a very high priority for that government to do when they came into power — eliminate those tolls so that people can travel back and forth and maybe have a few bucks in their pocket. They completely forgot and, I guess, overlooked…. It wasn’t a high priority for them to say that crime and guns and gangs and the people that have lost their lives in the fentanyl trafficking as a result of the guns and gangs that we have here are a problem. They ignored that as a problem.

I look at the roughly $200 million that they eliminated from the tolls and turning the cost of that bridge back into the public debt again. Putting it on the province’s debt load is increasing our interest rate and increasing the amount of money we’re spending on interest. But just the money that they collected from tolls, the $200 million a year that they would have collected from tolls, would have bought 1,400 policemen, or a combination of policemen, mental health workers, addiction workers and people that would concentrate on the guns and gang issues to try and subdue that crime and make Surrey and Langley and Abbotsford and Aldergrove and all those locations a safe place to be.

It didn’t even register on their radar. So here we go. We’ve got gangsters running around and getting their picture taken with the government members opposite, and nobody has got it on their radar.

One thing I was happy to hear about was that this government did mention fentanyl in its budget. It’s a curse. It’s something that has affected people that I know very closely. It’s affected a number of people, a number of families, in this province. It’s killed hundreds of people in this province.

What isn’t talked about too often, and I hope that government has it on their radar, is the number of fentanyl overdoses that have resulted in lifelong problems with brain injury and organ injuries and dysfunction, where the individual can no longer be supported in the community without strong supports from social services or medical services. So the millions of dollars that they say they’re going to spend on this…. I’m going to be waiting with bated breath as I see it roll out.

This government also talked about some of the things that they’re going to do that haven’t shown up in their budget. Conservation officer service. You know, we talk about grizzly bears. We talk about bears, and we talk about public safety when it comes to these kinds of carnivores that we have. Every year, there’s somebody that is either killed or seriously injured by some bear in the wilderness.

We have a decline in our ungulate populations across the province here with our whitetail, our mule deer, our moose, caribou and elk — all of these kinds of animals out there. We’ve got hundreds and thousands of kilometres of resource roads that have been built over the past two or three decades. A number of hunters go out, and maybe they’re hunting illegally. Maybe they’re taking more animals than they should. We don’t have enough conservation officers to start addressing the plethora of these roads and the situations that we have out there.

This is something that we were focused on. Obviously, it’s not a big deal for this particular government here. They’re focused on other things. But it’s something that someday they should be turning their mind to as well.

[4:45 p.m.]

This governing partnership that we see…. I see it as an unstable governing partnership. It’s going to certainly lead to some interesting issues here. They have no vision for rural B.C. I’ve heard a lot of noise over there whenever I’ve talked about rural B.C. issues, but very few of them understand what happens in rural B.C.

I’ve heard comments about how everybody right around British Columbia is concerned about the high cost of housing, about this, about that and about the other thing. They’re not — not all over British Columbia. They are, perhaps, in some specific ridings — you know, Vancouver, urban B.C., perhaps the Okanagan might be some areas — but not all over B.C.

I haven’t seen hardly a soul from government come up to my riding in the last number of years. It’s going to be interesting to see who might be coming up here in the next little while. I’m curious to see that. One or two trips. A quick little bus trip in and out the same day or an airplane trip in and out the same day.

Anyway, this budget is a scary budget. It’s a spend budget with very little planning on how we’re going to recoup the amount of money that they’re going to be putting into the different things that they’re going to put it into. Like I said, there are bigger things to come when they announce their full budget in February. I might have to take something to calm my nerves for that particular day, because I think it’ll be a shock to us all.

Anyway, I look forward to holding these folks to account, this government to account, for the things that they say they’re going to do, but more so for the things that they refuse to even acknowledge that are out there, like our guns and gangs, for an example, and keeping British Columbians safe.

B. Ma: I rise today to speak in support of the minister’s budget update.

I want to begin by acknowledging the traditional territories of the Songhees and the Esquimalt First Nations, upon whose land we are able to hold these proceedings today. I would also like to take a moment to thank the people of North Vancouver–Lonsdale for choosing me to serve them as their MLA. It is a riding that exists on the traditional territories of the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh peoples and a riding that has once again put their faith into an NDP candidate, since former MLA David Schreck was elected in 1991.

My commitment to the people of North Vancouver–Lonsdale is that I will work hard for them every day so that I might one day be worthy of the honour that they have bestowed upon me. Without going into a long list of names, I want to thank my team, my volunteers, my supporters and my family for believing in me and for giving so much of themselves so that we might succeed together. It is because of all of you that our new government is able to offer all of the changes that are represented by this budget update.

In particular, I would like to acknowledge my patient and loving partner, my talented and dedicated sister and my fierce and loyal mother for being with me through what has been one of the most challenging endeavours I have attempted in my life so far.

I would like to congratulate all of the members who have joined us in the Legislative Assembly — those who have been re-elected for their second, third, fourth term or more, and those who, like me, will be serving their first term. Finally, I would like to thank the former B.C. Liberal member, Ms. Naomi Yamamoto, for her eight years of service to the people of North Vancouver–Lonsdale and for running what I believe was a very honourable campaign.

I am the Canadian-born daughter of two Taiwanese immigrants — my father an engineer, my mother an accountant, both small business owners. Both worked extremely hard in their businesses in order to give me and my sister a middle-class upbringing. They instilled in me the value of working hard. It’s interesting to know that there was a time when hard-working families could actually provide middle-class upbringings for their children. Nowadays families work very, very hard to just be able to pay the bills, let alone own a house, pay for swim lessons for their children or save for retirement.

Small businesses, like those my parents ran, drive the local economy in B.C., and they deserve to be supported. By phasing out PST for electricity for businesses and cutting the small business tax rate from 2.5 percent to 2 percent, we are helping hard-working small business owners like my parents succeed.

Prior to my election, I sat down with the CEO of the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce to talk with him about the concerns facing businesses in North Vancouver. At the time, we had already committed to gradually and predictably increasing minimum wage to $15 per hour.

[4:50 p.m.]

I asked him if this might draw ire from businesses, the way that so many members opposite have suggested. His response to me that day was that the most urgent and significant challenge facing businesses on the North Shore was affordability — that is, of housing for their employees and affordability of lease rates for their storefronts. It was also about transportation and child care for their employees.

Businesses are struggling to hire enough people to keep their businesses functioning because their employees cannot afford to live in North Vancouver anymore, and those that choose to commute to work from off of the North Shore cannot get to work on time because of the lack of public transit services and the extreme congestion on the roads. They have had brilliant, talented women leave for maternity leave with the full intention of returning to work and then become unable to return because they were unable to find child care. He said to me that the issue of minimum wage and any potential disagreements that do exist there pale in comparison next to those challenges.

In fact, I have heard from many small businesses that have said that they would gladly pay higher wages if it meant that they would be able to support and retain their employees for longer without losing their competitive edge and that they would fully support the establishment of the fair wages commission. This budget does that and more to support businesses by creating the conditions that allow them to succeed, providing child care for their employees so they can afford to come back to work, improving affordability so that their employees are able to live closer to where they work and investing in transit so that their employees can get to work.

We will be increasing the corporate tax rate by 1 percent and increasing taxes for those individuals earning in excess of $150,000 a year. I fully support these measures. I will admit, shortly after the minister’s budget update speech, I received a text message communication from a community member. “Good job on the tax increase,” the text read. It was shortly followed by another text message: “No, I’m not being sarcastic. I really do think the tax increase is a good idea.”

He continued to clarify his position, saying: “As someone who from time to time earns more than $150,000 a year, I can honestly tell you that I am not going to notice the change, and, quite frankly, the things that aggravate me and my family every day will benefit far more from my tax dollars than what I can do with those dollars on my own.” He told me that what he was concerned about were seismic upgrades for his kids’ schools, helping those living with drug addiction and providing housing for the homeless so that playgrounds can go back to being playgrounds rather than necessary shelters for those with nowhere else to go.

He told me he wants the housing market to be managed so that one day he and his wife could actually own a larger home for their growing family. He said that he wanted more public transportation spending so that he and his family can continue to help the environment by living a car-free life. In short, he wants conditions to improve for everyone — for everyone to be lifted up — because he knows that for someone earning his income level, that’s actually what will help his family most. I believe that more young professionals understand this than those members opposite might think.

I am reminded of a conversation that I had during the election this year. I had knocked on the door of some community members to ask about the issues that mattered to them, and at this one home, a husband and wife had opened the door. In the woman’s arms, a small child, not two years old. I asked them how they felt about the upcoming election. “Well,” the husband began, “I suppose what’s most important to me is the economy, and the economy is doing pretty well, I hear. They say that the province has a large surplus, so I guess the B.C. Liberals know what they’re doing.”

The wife beside him scoffed, loudly. “If the economy is doing so well,” she said, “why are we working so hard to make ends meet? Why can’t my sister find secure housing? Why can’t we afford to pay child care? Why can’t my mother receive the care that she needs? Why can’t we save any money for retirement? When I take my child to the doctor, why does it take an hour to catch a bus? It seems to me like the economy isn’t worth anything to our family if that economy isn’t actually working for us.”

[4:55 p.m.]

I’m paraphrasing, of course, as she used much more colourful language than Madame Speaker would allow here in these chambers today. Suffice it to say, without too many more words from me, at the end of my visit, both members of the household agreed that they would be taking an NDP lawn sign.

You see, British Columbians can see through the rhetoric that contradicts their own lived experiences. Under the previous government, while the province enjoyed a surplus, it was the people of British Columbia who paid for it in their day-to-day lives, and they paid dearly. The official opposition may criticize the proposed spending in our budget update, but by doing so, they confirm exactly how little they have learned from the experience that has led them to that side of the House.

A government serves people, and when a government delivers services, they deliver them to real people — people who live, who laugh, who cry, who suffer, who yell out in pain, who love and are loved. This new government understands that, and we have put forward a budget that demonstrates that understanding. When my constituents speak with me, the three most common issues that come up are housing affordability, public transportation and child care — three issues that are all intricately tied to affordable living here in B.C. I am pleased to know that our government takes all three matters seriously.

Out on the North Shore, traffic congestion has been out of control and long ignored by the previous government. They had nearly 16 years to make the investments we needed to keep people moving — yet, for the most part, nothing.

I want to acknowledge the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, who was able to fight through five B.C. Liberal Transportation Ministers, over the last eight years, to finally bring attention to the North Shore with the Highway 1 lower Lynn corridor improvements, and I’m pleased to know that this new government is committing to continuing with those improvements. But after 16 years of neglect, we also know that those measures alone will not be enough.

That’s why this government’s commitment to support the ten-year mayors’ transportation plan is critical. It will mean more buses on the roads, more handyDART services for those with mobility challenges, increased frequency of the SeaBus for commuters and the addition of B-lines across the North Shore to cut through the congestion.

City planners and transportation engineers have known this for years. You cannot build your way out of urban congestion with more lanes and more bridges. The residents of North Vancouver–Lonsdale know that public transportation is our way out of the mess the previous government allowed us to get into. I am pleased to know that this government has reiterated their commitment in the throne speech to work collaboratively with local mayors and our partners in the federal government to deliver better transit options for people.

I support the government’s commitment to move forward with new child care investments that will allow us to support more than 4,000 new child care spaces. I also know that this is just the beginning of our commitments to bring in accessible and affordable child care to British Columbia. That’s good news for my constituency because North Vancouver–Lonsdale has a major child care crisis. In North Vancouver, we have one of the highest rates of families led by single parents in the province. The need for child care in those families is absolutely critical.

I remember meeting a single mother of three on the doorsteps. She shared with me that her child care expenses had cost her $42,000 last year. She pays $42,000 a year so that she can go to work and support her family without worrying about the safety of her children. On top of that, every year, her family’s rent continues to rise, but her salary stays the same. Through tears, she told me that she didn’t know how much longer she could make it work.

Child care is, of course, critical for those families led by dual parents as well. Over and over, I’ve heard of parents who, being unable to find affordable child care, have had to choose between providing a second income to a family that’s already under a huge financial burden or providing safe, reliable child care for their child. It is a choice that no parent should have to make. But there are no fair choices when a government that is meant to help people fails to do their duty.

This is why I was the first MLA out of the gates to speak with the member for Burnaby-Lougheed, just minutes after her appointment as Minister of State for Child Care, to tell her about the North Shore and how the North Shore has a serious child care problem. “Don’t forget about the North Shore,” I implored her.

[5:00 p.m.]

A few short weeks later, the minister was meeting with North Shore not-for-profit child care providers, district of North Vancouver, city of North Vancouver and district of West Vancouver municipal planning representatives in the area of child care, and other North Shore child care stakeholders, to learn about the challenges that we face. This is how I know that the commitments being put forward by the budget update now are only just the beginning of what will be a comprehensive plan to put the child care crisis to bed. This is a key aspect of improving affordability in this province, and it means more money for parents to ensure that happy, healthy children grow up in happy, healthy families, which leads to happier, healthier communities.

Speaking of affordability, I know that housing is top of mind for so many people in North Vancouver. Sixteen years of neglect have allowed our real estate market to get out of control, our rental rates to skyrocket. Waiting lists on our subsidized housing stock run miles long.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This issue has generally left hard-working individuals and families behind. It is a huge mess. And now that we have a government made up of people who are ready to work for people, it also means that we now have a government that is actually interested in cleaning up that mess.

We’ll start by working on a comprehensive strategy to improve housing affordability by closing speculation loopholes and reducing tax fraud and money laundering in B.C. real estate. While we are doing that, we’ll be injecting more funds into the residential tenancy branch so they can address the backlog of cases that have held so many renters captive.

The additional $500 million for housing has not come a moment too soon. Let’s get started today on those 1,700 additional units of affordable rental housing and 2,000 units of modular supportive housing for people who are homeless.

Every week, I have people come into my office who have been hurt by the failures of the previous government in this regard. There are simply too many stories to share. The examples are endless, from renters being slapped with 40 percent rent increases using clauses introduced by the previous government to families falling victim to fixed-lease loopholes that the previous government failed to close. It’s enough to consider our housing situation in a state of emergency.

The new government’s spending proposals in this budget update are absolutely urgent and absolutely necessary. It is also urgent and necessary for us to commit to fighting poverty, which is why this budget includes the initial funding required to develop a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy and a $100-per-month increase to disability assistance and income assistance rates.

I remember the day this announcement was made. I had spoken with a constituent who I knew was struggling. She is one of the sweetest women you will ever meet, and she lives on disability assistance. You can often see her walking down the streets of Lonsdale with her cane, usually travelling between medical appointments. Although she is extremely shy, she never fails to give a passer-by a friendly greeting and a smile.

I told her that day that her disability assistance cheques would go up by $100 a month as of September 20. I also admitted to her that I knew it really wasn’t enough to make her life easy. I went on to tell her that we would be launching the development of a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy, but she interrupted me before I could finish. “Because of you,” she said, “I’ll be able to buy food. It is more than I have had for a very, very long time.”

I do not take the positive impact that we have had on the lives of people like her for granted. I know that this government will work hard every day to continue to make her life better.

After people, the environment is our greatest and most important asset, and it must be defended — full stop. You see, I believe that the debate over whether pipelines are better or worse than railcars, better or worse than tankers for transporting whatever substance it is that we are arguing about today, and whether an environmentally disastrous project produces 50 full-time jobs or 100 temporary jobs….

[5:05 p.m.]

That debate pales in comparison to the question: what kind of future do we want for our children? What kind of world do we need to leave our grandchildren? What kind of lives do they need to be able to have the opportunity to lead? And do we want them to have access to clean drinking water, clean air, healthy agriculture?

We must be able to see the forest from the trees. It is absolutely right for B.C. to take serious and decisive steps to protect the environment and meet our climate change goals. That is why I fully support the increase to the carbon tax and the end to the revenue-neutral nature of the tax so that families can be supported and so that investments can be made in green initiatives that would give us a fighting chance at saving this planet.

I look forward to the additional climate action measures that will come in the weeks and months ahead, as we work with our colleagues in the Green caucus and the official opposition.

We must support this budget. We must support this budget because British Columbians deserve better than what they received under the previous government. We must support this budget because climate change and poverty, opioid overdoses, homelessness and hopelessness are real issues.

It should not be a question of whether or not we can afford to resolve them but a question of whether we, as a society, can afford not to. From regulations that manage climate change and the environment to the distribution of social funding and poverty reduction, governments provide the fundamental framework within which companies operate and within which people live, work, succeed, suffer or die.

It is a heavy burden, and there are never easy answers. But I am optimistic because I know that the decisions and choices this government has made are informed by learning from the mistakes of the previous government. These are priorities that put people first, not profits. And these are choices that help the many, not the very few at the top.

I would like to leave my colleagues in this room with one final thought. That is that despite all of the challenges we face in our great province today, despite all of the disagreements we have had and will have in the future, despite the swath of carpet between our desks between this side of the House and that side of the House — that perhaps represents a greater divide than what truly exists in our hearts — I believe we can overcome our differences and work together to build a better B.C.

A great man who most if not all of us are familiar with already, who also believed this all to be true, told us this before his death. “My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic, and we will change the world.”

J. Rustad: It’s an honour to rise today to speak in response to the budget.

I want to start, first of all, by recognizing some people in my riding — in particular, my wife. All of us here do this job. It takes a lot of time away from family, away from friends. Without support of family, of course, it’s very, very challenging to do this job, if not impossible. So I just want to say thank you to my wife, Kim. I love you. I look forward to seeing you this weekend, since we weren’t able to get together last weekend.

Having said that, I know family supports everybody here in the work that they do, so I want to appreciate all of the families that help us do what we do.

I also want to take a moment to recognize my campaign team, as well as my riding association. There’s a lot of work that goes into winning an election and a lot of work that goes into making sure that, politically, we’re prepared for an election. I want to thank the team for the work they’ve done. In particular, I want to thank June Clark, who is currently my riding president and who was my campaign manager. She put in a tremendous amount of effort during this last election, and I very much appreciate it.

[5:10 p.m.]

I also want to take a moment to thank our constituent assistants, particularly Nadine Frenkel and Lory Derkson, who work in my office in Vanderhoof. They do a great job for all of my constituents, and I know that they really have my constituents’ interests at heart, as they work hard every day to make sure that their issues can be addressed in the best way possible.

I want to start in my response in terms of the budget to actually just talk about a forestry issue, because I think it speaks to the heart of many of the things that are in the budget. In particular, we’ve had such a terrible wildfire season. It’s been unprecedented in terms of the season itself. Many, many people stepped up to the plate and volunteered. They worked hard. Many contractors came in to the call and provided services. Such a great effort by many, whether it’s the people from out of country, whether it’s our armed services or, of course, the professionals that work within the Forest Service — I want to say thank you to all of them.

In terms of the work they’ve done, I’ve had a chance to go out to some of the fire camps to meet with some of the people on the ground, to talk with some of the contractors. It truly is remarkable to see the dedication and the work. A great example is the team from Mexico, which gained a huge amount of respect for their professionalism, the amount of hard work. They were considered to be the absolute A-team in going in and in what they were doing. I want to thank them for coming up and spending the time helping to fight our fires.

The other side of that, of course, is the impact that’s happened to so many people. I was very fortunate in my riding that we had only a number of small fires this year that were well contained by the ministry. But, of course, throughout the Cariboo and further south and into the Kootenays down into the Okanagan, there have been many, many fires that have gone unchecked. In some cases, they have destroyed lives, not physically but in terms of what people have built up over generations in the loss of their farms, the loss of their homes, the loss of businesses. It really has been a terrible situation for them.

The recovery of that is going to be an important component. Just as a note, it wasn’t actually a line item in the budget, per se. I was a little curious about that because there is so much to be done, but I’ll perhaps have an opportunity to get into that a little bit later.

Going through and fighting these fires…. So many of the people that were on these lines have taken time away from other work. They have dedicated equipment and dedicated people that they’re paying wages to and they’re paying the fuel for, as well as paying the banks in terms of interest and other things. They haven’t been paid promptly. I know it’s a problem that’s within the system, but given that this is the longest period of a state of emergency that B.C. has ever had, you would think that there would be an effort and a recognition of the overwhelming amount of invoices and of amounts owed to the people that have been working on this fire.

I just want to mention one group. As of today, Graydon Group Management is sitting on $314,155 in unpaid invoices, representing wages for security personnel, for vehicles used in protecting the various sites and fire camps virtually around the clock for months at a time. While not all of this amount is outstanding, our concern is that none has actually been paid as of yet. The clock is ticking as to how long they’ll be able to carry on with this financial burden.

I recognize there are lots of challenges there, but come on. We had a $2.7 billion surplus. It’s time to get to it and get some of these people paid. There are other examples that we’ve raised in the Legislature around this, but these people have worked very hard to help protect homes and to protect property value and to protect our forests — tried to preserve what forests we have left. It would be nice to see this as a priority, as much of a priority that the government has made for other people.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: It’s interesting. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is talking about who was thrown under the bus. I would suggest that the people throwing people under the bus at this particular point are this government for not getting to their job and paying the bill. While they’ve toured wineries, while they have played golf tournaments, etc., there are people…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

[5:15 p.m.]

J. Rustad: …that need these resources.

There’ll be lots of other opportunity to talk about this, whether it’s in question period or in estimates. I just want to urge government to think about these individuals, these families. I hear a lot of heartfelt stories from members that have gotten up and spoken about what they want to see. These people have challenges making ends meet, paying mortgages. They’ve got children. They’ve got other issues that they have to do.

Without actually receiving payments, they’re in a situation where they’d have to pull equipment off the fire or they’d have to shut down what they’re doing, take out second mortgages on homes or other assets just to help meet payrolls. I mean, it’s crazy. We need to be able to get this done, so I urge you to make this a priority and get this done, as part of having a budget that you inherited.

I have to say that when I think about my riding…. I think about the things that go on in my riding, whether it’s forestry activity, whether it’s mining, whether it’s ranching and the agriculture sector. All of these things help to build towards great communities — people that work hard to help other people, people that volunteer, whether it’s for ball teams or soccer, people that like to recreate in our outdoors. All of these good-paying resource jobs are a significant part of what makes the quality of life in Nechako Lakes.

I’m very honoured to have the chance to represent the people. I want to thank them once again, as always, for sending me down to be their voice, to be their representative here in the Legislature.

When I think about all of those things that are going on, there’s a tremendous amount of uncertainty that has been created over this past number of months — uncertainty because people are unsure how investment is going to be driven into the area. Mills need to see reinvestment. Mines need to be able to track capital to be able to build. Agriculture — they need to be able to go to the bank. They need to be able to make sure they’ve got the capital behind them, whether it’s cow-calf operations or other types of agricultural operations.

Everybody is wondering: what are the numbers going to look like? How does it work for me in my riding? How does it work, as a company, to be able to invest, whether they’re putting new tires on their trucks for hauling or whether they need to buy new iron for working the woods or whether they, larger companies, want to invest $650 million in building a new underground mine? All of these things depend upon certainty, depend upon the ability to be able to go out to the markets, whether it’s the banks or other investors to be able to attract the capital that’s needed to make those kinds of investments.

I think about…. For example, in my area there’s a tremendous opportunity in agriculture in the hog industry, in export of hogs to the Chinese market. But how do investors make those kinds of investments when they don’t know what the rules are or when the rules are changing? So when I think about other things in my riding — infrastructure…. Our road network has been seeing about $10 million to $15 million a year in terms of improvement — paving and all this kind of stuff.

Will that kind of investment continue? Was there a commitment from this government to make sure that that is done in rural B.C. and in other areas? I know there’s a huge focus on the Lower Mainland and the Island. I get that. But our economy is incredibly dependent upon our transportation network. In rural B.C., we have huge distances that have to be covered. You can’t take a bus. It’s not 20 minutes across the road. It is hours of travel just to get back and forth to work, travelling long distances. We need to make sure that we have that infrastructure improvement.

Colleges have investments that are needed. There’s an investment that’s needed in Vanderhoof in the college that’s there. There’s an investment that’s needed in Burns Lake. These are things that were committed to, and we’re hopeful that the new government will see that, in terms of advanced education and carrying on with those priorities.

I would say the big one…. I was pleased to hear in the throne speech the talk about wanting to make sure that services were available in communities across the province, particularly out in the rural areas. There’s a need for a new hospital in Fort St. James. The hospital was first put in place in the early 1970s. It was meant to be a temporary structure, and 45 years later it’s well beyond its useful life. It needs to be replaced. I hope that this government will find the way to be able to find the dollars that can see that project advance and find that kind of ability to provide the services for those people in Fort St. James.

[5:20 p.m.]

To the budget in particular. The reason why I talked about the uncertainty in mining and agriculture and forestry is that I looked in the budget with hope for the opportunity to see that kind of certainty brought to those industries. Sadly, I didn’t see it. It just wasn’t there. What we did see were tax increases for the corporations. What we did see, in particular, was the carbon tax — not just an increase in the carbon tax but the elimination of it being revenue-neutral. That’s an important component. For many people in rural B.C., they don’t have the options that urban B.C. has.

I get that if the majority of your caucus is from urban B.C., maybe they don’t understand what rural B.C. is really all about. When you look at somebody who lives in Fraser Lake, they have to drive an hour to an hour and a half to get to a hospital for services. That means they’re going to have to pay tax just to go and see those services — the extra tax. They don’t get the offsetting income tax cuts that came through a revenue-neutral tax.

Our farmers plowing the fields and our loggers can’t electrify. They’ve got diesel trucks. They’ve got diesel equipment that’s out in the middle of nowhere. They have to use fossil fuels, yet they’re going to be taxed without the offsetting tax cuts. They’re going to be taxed to the tune of $1.7 billion over the life of an NDP government, assuming you go full term.

You look at that cost. What’s that money going to be spent on? It’s going to be spent on your projects in the Lower Mainland. It’s going to be spent on these types of pet projects that you’d like to see. I get that you want to do that, but let’s be fair in terms of where this revenue comes from. You’ve got an increasing burden in rural B.C. to pay for urban B.C.

We saw the divide in the last election, and all this budget has done is increase that divide. As a matter of fact, when I look across all of the tax increases that they talked about…. Like I say, I went and looked at the budget, initially with hope, because…. The economy is what drives revenue for governments, not extra taxes. You need to build or grow your economy to be able to make a sustainable investment in services.

We’ve been doing that for years. It’s why you inherited a $2.7 billion surplus. It’s why you’re in a position to be able to make those kinds of investments. But I can tell you that it’s just like a lottery winner. You go out and win a lottery. Suddenly you increase your lifestyle, and you’re spending all this extra money. When the money runs out, guess what happens. You’re in real trouble. Now you’ve got debt. You can’t make your payments. You’re in a situation where you’re fiscally challenged. What ends up happening? You end up having to go bankrupt or restructure. That seems to be what this government is following.

They’ve inherited $2.7 billion, a massive surplus. They’ve inherited the strongest economy in the country, and they’re going out and spending heavily without taking into consideration how they’re going to generate those additional revenues. The way they did it here, initially, is to increase taxes. I mean, even at a time we’re running a $2.7 billion surplus, you’ve increased taxes. You think about this.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan says: “And create jobs.” You don’t create jobs with government spending. You create jobs by generating economic activity.

Interjections.

J. Rustad: I’ll get to Site C, Members.

Here’s the thing I find most disturbing. You look at the budget, and the budget has $1 billion in tax increases. But as Paul Harvey said: “Here’s the rest of the story.” The $1 billion in tax increases is actually hidden. The full amount of the tax increase is hidden because you’ve taken the deduction on MSP.

We had paid for the MSP deduction in our budget without having to do tax increases. It was done. It was written off. It is not fair for you to be looking at reducing the amount of the tax increase by doing that in terms of wrapping in MSP. The reduction was already paid for. When you take that MSP out and you look at taking that tax increase for the full term of an NDP government, it’s $3.8 billion in taxes that you’ll be collecting from the taxpayers.

Interjections.

J. Rustad: The members opposite here chuckle about that. I’m using the same NDP math that you guys used during the last election. It was good.

What I wonder about is this: when you look at that kind of a tax increase over this time, how can you stand up and say that you’re trying to make life more affordable? These are tax increases. You haven’t even come anywhere close to meeting what you’re wanting to do in your platform.

[5:25 p.m.]

How are you going to afford to pay that when you’ve already burnt through the surplus? The economic growth is slowing down. You can see it even in your own projections. How are you going to be able to go forward and do that? There’s only one way. Two ways, sorry. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. There are two ways. You can do either massive tax increases, or you can run deficits.

We all know that the NDP party has always been known as tax and spend. They have always been known as tax and spend, so I get that, but you didn’t have to prove it in the very first budget. It’s even an update. It’s not even your first full budget. It’s kind of crazy.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s have one speech at a time, please.

J. Rustad: I want to go forward, as well, with a couple of other things. When I look at this…. I know I’ve got the members opposite a little riled up on this, and that’s good. That’s what this is about — a healthy debate. It’s why the desks are 2½ sword-lengths apart. But I’ve got to tell you that when you look at those numbers, it’s quite disturbing.

Here’s another thing I find very disturbing. The throne speech made a statement that said that there was a rise in part-time, low-paying jobs — that employment in this province had a rise in part-time, low-paying jobs. Yet on page 72 of your own budget document, it says most of the year-to-date jobs gained had been full-time employment — about 74,500, in comparison with only about 15 percent of those jobs as part-time.

I don’t know how you guys square that in terms of your language. I get that there’s politics involved in it, but come on, you shouldn’t have two documents that say two exactly different things one day right after the other. But as a matter of fact, when you think about it…. When you think about those jobs and job creation, I also found it interesting that in the very first month of full NDP government, we lost 28,600 full-time jobs.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: And the member opposite says “whatever.” He obviously doesn’t understand where tax revenue and supporting family and poverty reduction come from. It doesn’t come from part-time jobs. It comes from good-paying, full-time jobs and a strong economy.

Going back just for a minute to the carbon tax. I talked about the $1.7 billion increase and that people in this province are going to have to pay that tax for projects. But I want to mention a couple of other little things. It also says in the document that fugitive emissions will be captured and that slash piles in the forest, which are part of our forestry activity, will also be taxed with the carbon tax.

First of all, we’ve had the worst fire season on record, and we’re creating a disincentive to get rid of slash that is the fuel that can help to grow a wildfire. I’m not quite sure why you’re doing that. I grant that we need to utilize this fibre, but why are you making it a penalty to destroy or to get rid of this fibre before you actually have an opportunity to able to figure out how to use it? I don’t get that. But you’re doing it. It will put an extra burden onto the forest industry. It creates a problem. It creates an incentive to want to leave slash out there instead of burn it and get rid of it, which is obviously a massive fire hazard.

But with the fugitive emissions, what you’re talking about doing there is taking industry that is functioning today, that is competing in the world, that is competing to export products and to be able to provide products within this province, and you’re going to be putting extra taxes on those industries.

Now, I get that you guys are all about wanting to raise taxes. But the point is, what you do is make it less competitive and, once again, drive up the cost and drive away the investment that’s needed. When you think about what those fugitive emissions are…. I would love to challenge one of the members opposite to come back and just say what that number is for the smelter in Kitimat, what that will mean for the bottom-line of the smelter in Kitimat and the thousands of jobs and the community of Kitimat that is supported by that smelter.

It’s huge. Have a look at what you’re doing to the economy and what you’re doing to the engine that helps to create this surplus that you are now out spending. I can tell you that there’s no question that unless you can focus on being able to grow your economy and create those jobs, that is the result you get.

I just want to touch briefly on a couple of other little issues. They’re not little issues. They’re big issues: poverty and poverty reduction. You’re going to have a plan. You’re going to follow some of the other provinces. We’ve seen other provinces actually drop their plans. There are a couple of other provinces that don’t have.it. You guys made a claim that every province in the country has one. But that’s fine. Maybe you didn’t do your research. That’s fine.

[5:30 p.m.]

However, when you look at child poverty in this province, child poverty rates went up by 43 percent under the NDP in the 1990s — up 43 percent. It went up 38 percent in the 1980s under the Social Credit. Since the B.C. Liberals have been in power, it’s dropped by more than 40 percent, to levels not seen since the early 1980s.

That’s the truth, and those are not even government numbers. Those are numbers that come from Child First, in their research. All you have to do is look at the numbers and quit drinking the Kool-Aid, because these are the real numbers that are out there.

If you want to see poverty reduction, if you want to see reduction in child poverty, it’s jobs. It’s creating an economy that can create those jobs; it is not through a government program. Now, government programs are important. They’re needed to help people through challenging times, but they will not impact on that significantly. Every other place in the country has not been able to match what we have been able to do on that kind of reduction.

For people that are on welfare or on social assistance, we’ve seen a reduction of about 30 percent under B.C. Liberals. It’s going to be very interesting to see what the numbers do under an NDP government. I can’t guarantee 100 percent, but I can almost guarantee you that those numbers will increase. They did in the ’90s, and they will again. I can guarantee they will again.

There is one question I do have, and I’ll get a chance, maybe in estimates, to talk to the Minister of Social Development on the disability bus pass. I’ve just got to ask one question on that. How is it fair for people who live in my area that do not have access to a bus — that they won’t get the same benefit as somebody who can access a bus pass? I don’t get that.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: No, we solved that, Member. We solved that. I’ll maybe just note that if you want to heckle, maybe you should go to your chair or around it.

But having said that, we solved that problem. We made it equal. We made it fair around that — a $212 million increase. We made that fair. You guys are bringing it back, but I just want to ask the question. How is that fair for people in Nechako Lakes? People on disability cannot access a bus pass. They can’t access it.

The other thing I want to ask, because some people…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

J. Rustad: …that access the bus pass, access it even though they can’t physically take buses.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Any member who wants to make a comment must make it from their own chair, please.

J. Rustad: The challenge we’ve got on that is that they’ll take the bus pass, and they’ll sell it. I get it. They’re entrepreneurial. They want to make money on it. But how is that, once again, fair to the people of my riding of Nechako Lakes? I think government programs should be fair. They should be equal to be able to benefit people all around this province.

Back to the budget. My time is close to running out, so I want to say that when I look at the people in my riding, they ask me: “What’s in this budget for us? How is this going to help the people of Nechako Lakes? How is this going to help the mother that has to take a child down the road to services because services aren’t there? How does it help in terms of people that want to create jobs?”

We’ve got New Gold that wants to invest. We’ve got AuRico that wants to invest in new mines. We’ve got a company that’s trying to restart Huckleberry. We’ve got forestry companies that want to make these investments. How does this help?

Now, I will say this. There are some promises of services out in the areas that I represent. It’s going to be interesting to see if it happens, to see how that happens. When you think about this….

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Boy, oh boy. The member for — what was that riding again that you had? — Powell River–Sunshine Coast. I know he’s eager to get up and explain this, and I look forward to hearing him come up and explain this. But how does that help in my riding?

You’ve said that you want to think about rural ridings, that you want to think about services and employment in those ridings. That’s great. I look forward to seeing how that will develop. But I can tell you that every step this government has taken in this budget hurts the ability for employment in my riding, hurts incomes that people earn in my riding. It’s a straight fact.

[5:35 p.m.]

You’re taking $3.8 billion out of the pockets of people in this province. For the majority of that, the people in rural B.C. will not see anything come back. The bridge tolls, the issues that you’re doing in the Lower Mainland. It is what you did. I’m not going to comment about that. But when you think about the budget and when you think about my riding, how does it help the average person that lives in Vanderhoof or in Fraser Lake or the person in Granisle that’s hoping to see the Morrison project go ahead, or the person in Fort St. James that needs that hospital?

How will it help the person in Houston that wants to be able to see the investment in the mill or the new mine reopen in the area? How does it drive the investment that’s needed to fire the economy of rural B.C., where 65 percent of the exports come from in this province? How does it drive the economic potential there? Now, these are tough questions. I know this is just a budget update, as it’s described. The full budget will be in February, six months from now.

It will be interesting to see how things change between now and then. It’ll be interesting to see how the other promises that have been made by the NDP will come to fruition and how you’ll pay for that, because you burned through the surplus. You haven’t thought about how you’re going to continue to feed the goose that has laid that golden egg for you. There are only two ways it goes — more debt through deficits or more tax increases, or a combination thereof.

It’s an honour, once again, to have the opportunity to raise the issues that are important for the people in Nechako Lakes, to be able to talk about the passion that they have — whether it’s for the wildlife, whether it is for recreation, whether it is for being able to work at good-paying jobs in forestry or mining or agriculture, whether it’s that they’ll provide for their children and to be able to make sure that their communities are strong.

I just have to make one comment about that. There is a big difference in rural B.C., particularly in the area I represent. In rural B.C. and in my area, when there is an issue that needs to be dealt with, everybody comes together and deals with it. They don’t look to government to solve the problem. We had power outages for weeks back in 2007. A massive storm came through, and people got out with their chainsaws and said to B.C. Hydro crews: “How can we help?”

Down here and on the Lower Mainland, when something like that happens, it’s: “When is government going to solve this problem?” It’s a big difference. I implore you to think about those rural communities when you’re putting together these budgets. Think about how they need to work and how you can strengthen those communities so that they can enjoy the benefits of this province like all other people in this province.

It’s what we have been focused on for years — creating those jobs, creating the economies, trying to make sure that families have an opportunity to be able to provide for their children and their grandchildren so that they know that their efforts will see the fruits at the end of the day and not just be taxed to death.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to make comments about the budget. As you can probably guess from my comments, I will be voting against the budget for the reasons that I have laid out here.

A. Kang: I am humbled to stand here on the traditional territory of the Songhees and Esquimalt people, who have lived here before us, and thank them for the ability to meet and work on their land.

As the new MLA of Burnaby–Deer Lake, I’m honoured to rise today and speak on behalf of those who have desperately needed a voice, those who have bestowed the trust upon me and those whom I have pledged to serve with all my heart. I rise today on the shoulders of giants, including my predecessor, Kathy Corrigan, a giant not necessarily in physical stature but a giant in kindness, courage and wisdom.

I speak proudly about our government’s budget, a budget that invests in a better B.C. for everyone.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my family for being there every step of the way during the past few months, whether it be on the campaign or transitioning into my new role as the MLA of Burnaby–Deer Lake.

I would also like to thank my executive, election planning committee and campaign team, all who worked tirelessly week after week, giving me support, strength, their time and talents, making it possible for me to be here today. Especially, I want to thank my campaign manager, Roseanne Moran, and my predecessor, Kathy Corrigan, for their mentorship and friendship, which I will cherish for a lifetime.

[5:40 p.m.]

Lastly, I would like to thank the people of Burnaby–Deer Lake who elected me here. I pledge to work hard every single day, month and year to serve the people, with sincerity and diligence, in Burnaby–Deer Lake and the people of British Columbia.

Fifty-five. It took 55 days for a government to come up with a budget that will put us on the path of building a better B.C. for everyone. It only took us 55 days because this is a government about the people, and with the balanced budget presented by Finance Minister Carole James yesterday, we are making a statement that everyone in this beautiful province is a priority.

Deputy Speaker: Member. No names, please.

A. Kang: I’m so sorry.

This is my first time standing in the House with a budget, but never have I been prouder to have the honour of standing next to my colleagues, who genuinely care about the people of B.C. We have all sworn an oath to serve the people of British Columbia, and this is exactly what we are doing right now and will continue to do as long as we follow the vision set out by our Premier.

School started last week for the majority of B.C. students, including my daughter, who is entering grade 5 this year, and my son, who is entering grade 3.

I want to start off by saying how much I love them, and I love them dearly, and I care about them. For the past ten years as a school teacher, I saw an entire generation of students being left behind as they went to schools with overcrowded classrooms, inadequate resources and many schools which were in need of seismic upgrade. Before reading this government’s budget, I was worried about my children and all the students in B.C. — worried that they would be learning in crowded classrooms, worried that they would not receive the resources they needed and worried that they would not be able to realize their fullest potential.

But today I stand before you comforted and reassured by this government’s decision reflected in the budget document before us. I know that my children and all B.C. students — young or old, rich or poor — are in good hands as our government is committed to investing in our education.

As a school teacher, as a teacher by profession, I strongly believe in the principle of education as a vehicle for social mobility. Education is a right, not a privilege. With this government’s budget, we are giving back to the people their right that has been taken away, bit by bit, in the last 16 years.

A quality education should not be accessible only to the wealthy and the privileged, but accessible to everyone. Our government has committed $681 million over three years, including $521 million for up to 3,500 new teaching positions and $160 million for enrolment growth.

We should celebrate the enrolment growth. If we can retain the talents, we can expect them to contribute to our economy. But we cannot let the increased enrolment compromise the quality of our education. By providing additional dollars for enrolment growth and adding new teaching positions, our government is not only addressing the problems of the present but also planning for the success of our future.

Not only is our government investing in our children’s learning, but we are also investing in our children’s safety. Now that summer is over, our children are spending almost a third of their time in schools, away from our supervision. When we send our children to school, we expect the schools to be safe — safe places where our children can play and learn.

For too long, school buildings have been structurally unsound, and this government’s budget is going to fix that. Our government will streamline seismic upgrades, build and improve our schools in British Columbia. A healthy and inviting learning environment where students are safe is an essential component to the success of our students. Our government is going to provide that.

This budget shows that our government is taking care of students of all ages and shows that our government is making considerable efforts in bridging our students with the workforce. The $2.6 billion investment for post-secondary institutions across the province reflects just that. The investment will go to our priority projects to build capacity and help meet the province’s future workforce needs in key sectors, including science, trades and technology. The positive externality in education is tremendous. A better educated province is a more competitive province. Investing in our students and quality education is investing in a strong, sustainable British Columbia.

[5:45 p.m.]

I am also confident that our government’s budget will achieve its intention of attracting a diverse pool of talents from all around the world. Our province is strong due to our diversity. To allow the students to thrive and succeed in B.C., the government is making an immediate $19 million commitment to restore free English-language-learning and adult basic education courses. Those who participated in ELL programs have gone on to become doctors, engineers, architects, designers and more in our province. The list is not exhaustive, but they have become an integral part of our strong economy.

As a mom and a former teacher, I believe that no investment is more important than a quality education. I am proud that we are keeping our promises to invest in our children, their education, our future, our hopes and dreams. This year students, parents and teachers can look forward to a better school year. Our government’s new budget is not only investing in education, but it is also investing in everyone who lives and wants to live in B.C.

Having served as a municipal councillor for the past nine years, I understand the challenges that our renters and homeowners are currently facing in the Lower Mainland, particularly in my riding, Burnaby–Deer Lake. I’ve been listening to local residents about their concerns and their struggles with the housing situation. Low-to-moderate-income renters are struggling to find affordable homes. Some were even forced out of their homes due to soaring housing prices. This is the result of 16 years of inaction and neglect of the previous government.

This government is different. Our new government is committed to investing in the people of B.C and making life more affordable for everyone. Our government is listening to people’s concerns and acting on those concerns.

There is an inadequate supply of affordable housing for income renters throughout the province, but the problem is particularly acute in urban areas and large cities such as Burnaby. A story that epitomizes the affordability crisis is the story of Beverly, a resident of Burnaby–Deer Lake. Due to personal life circumstances, Beverly had to find another means of housing. For ten years, she had been living in the same apartment. For a decade, she had called the neighbourhood her home. Beverly is a low-income earner. For many reasons, including the challenge of accessibility of the renters’ tenancy branch and the lack of affordable rentals in the region, she had less than a month left when she reached out to me for help.

With the support of Burnaby council and my office, and as a testament of the success when municipalities work in partnership with the provincial government, we were able to help her find a new home in which she now happily resides. This story is not a unique one, nor is it a rarely occurring circumstance. Hundreds of situations like Beverly’s arise every single day. In fact, I’m sure that many of us sitting here in the Legislature have received similar distress calls.

Over the past 16 years, housing and rents have increased to an unprecedented high, and the number of renters who are looking for non-market rentals and social housing has increased dramatically. These economic changes and pressures make finding affordable housing for low-income families and individuals a great challenge, if not an unsurpassable barrier.

One step of our government’s promise to invest in the people of British Columbia and make life more affordable for people is to invest in housing, with $208 million to build more than 1,700 new units of affordable rental housing across the province to assist low- to moderate-income renters, and seniors and adults with mental health challenges or developmental disabilities. We will invest over $290 million in funding over two years to build 2,000 new modular housing units and over $170 million over three years to operate them and provide 24-7 staffing and support services.

Our government’s budget is about the people of B.C., young or old. The budget cannot be presented at a more appropriate time. This Sunday, on September 10, we celebrated Grandparents Day. Now, most of us celebrate Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. Grandparents Day, which is on the first Sunday in September after Labour Day, is just as worthy of recognition and celebration. Why do we celebrate Grandparents Day? The same reason we celebrate Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. It’s a day to honour our grandparents and to raise awareness about our senior citizens.

[5:50 p.m.]

Because my grandfather has four daughters, one being my mother, and ten grandchildren and 15 great-grandchildren, it takes an incredible amount of effort to coordinate everyone’s schedule and get everyone together. We live across various cities in B.C., but this past weekend we all found time and gathered together as a family to celebrate my grandfather’s 94th birthday, conveniently on the same weekend as Grandparents Day. It was a beautiful day, a perfect opportunity to spend time with my grandfather, whom I love very much.

Of course, every family spends time together differently. Regardless of what activities families across B.C. choose to do, I hope that Grandparents Day will bring you and your grandparents together, celebrating your family and each other.

As the Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, I have taken the liberty to speak briefly about Grandparents Day. Not only does Grandparents Day bring families together, but the day of recognition also shines a spotlight on the growing number of grandparents and other relatives who take on an enormous responsibility of parenting when parents are unable. In B.C., grandparents or other relatives raise more than 13,000 children.

I deeply and sincerely respect the seniors, the elders of our society. That is why I’m proud to highlight that in the budget speech, our government will be investing $189 million over three years through a federal-B.C. agreement that helps seniors with improved home and residential care.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, I have been speaking to advocates and visiting senior care homes across the region. Our seniors are pillars of our society. Seniors are important because of their long-accumulated knowledge, experience and wisdom.

As I make my visits to community centres, senior homes, parks or just waiting by the grocery store, I love to stir up a good chat. Oftentimes, unexpectedly, I will learn important life lessons and practical experiences, such as: be kind to those around you. This advice may seem pretty obvious, but we all need a little reminder now and then.

I was speaking to a senior volunteer who, at the young age of 70, was still very active in the community. I asked her how she was able to keep up her upbeat personality and find the energy to volunteer and help other seniors. She told me that we all live once and pass through this world just once. Between the time when we open our eyes to the time when we close our eyes, it’s called life. Make the best of it for you and everyone around you. This is why our government is investing in our seniors. We want our seniors to retire with dignity.

When our seniors are in care, I want them to be able to take a bath more than once a week and to be able to get the care and attention needed when they need basic care or to use the washroom. For the past 16 years under the previous government, too many B.C. seniors were denied personal care, comfort and dignity. Surveys and reports tell us that nine out of ten care homes don’t have enough staff, and seniors can’t get the support they need that will help them stay in their own homes.

All seniors in B.C. should have care and services they can count on, and that is why we’re investing in our seniors, with $189 million over three years. Whether a senior chooses home care or residential care, they deserve to be staffed by professionals who take pride in their work and provide compassionate care. Our government will invest in staff training so that care personnel have the right skills and training to give seniors the attention they need. Seniors should be able to depend on someone being there for them who knows them well. Our government will provide an improved quality of life for seniors as we invest in improved home and residential care.

Our government is committed to making life more affordable. Since September 1, we’ve eliminated the tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges. The change will help save families who regularly have to cross the Fraser River an average of $1,500 a year and commercial vehicles approximately $4,500 per year.

[5:55 p.m.]

I know a family, a working family with two toddlers, who couldn’t afford child care and had to rely on their parents for child care support. They live in Burnaby, and their parents live in Surrey. Dad is in the tech sector, and mom is a school teacher. With the cost of living being so high, young families such as theirs are finding it challenging to save up for their children’s future, education, healthy food choices and perhaps even a few community programs such as swimming or soccer.

Trying to save a few dollars by using the Pattullo Bridge meant that more time had to be spent on the road in gridlock, along with all the other people who were trying to avoid tolls. The trek from home to grandparents began extra-early each morning, with a longer journey, cranky toddlers when they arrived at the grandparents,’ and tired working parents. Choosing to cross the Port Mann Bridge wasn’t a financial choice as much as a personal-care choice for their family. Their journey every workday to the grandparents, on a regular basis, cost them a sum of close to $2,000 each year.

With the elimination of tolls, tens of thousands of drivers like this young family, who cross these bridges every day, will have more money in their pockets to spend locally. By having money to spend locally, we will have more to invest in British Columbia and its local businesses.

Making life more affordable, improving services people can rely on, making new investments that grow jobs and help develop a strong, sustainable and innovative economy — that’s our vision. We have heard that laid out clearly in the budget speech yesterday. It is time that British Columbians have a government that listens, consults and makes democracy work. This is the government we have heard in the budget speech, and I’m very proud to support it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I call upon everyone in this House and everyone watching this: if you believe in a government working for you — if you believe in a government working for the people — support this budget. If you believe in making life better and more affordable for the people, support this budget. If you believe in investing in our future and its people, support our budget.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I would like to take a moment to thank my family, my friends, my neighbours, my constituents, my staff and my community. I would like to conclude my remarks by emphasizing that this budget reflects the priorities of the people. British Columbians together have made this budget possible, and together we will realize our vision for a better B.C. Our democracy is stronger than ever, and prospects in our province have never been brighter.

L. Throness: Thank you, colleagues. It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of my constituents today, to the first budget update of our new NDP government — a budget that builds on one that the B.C. Liberal government proposed in February of this year. I sort of regard this budget update as the wayward child of a more virtuous parent, because there’s a genetic connection between that budget and this one. The child, after two months, has already gone off the rails, gone off the tracks and needs some correction.

The NDP inherited a stellar economy. No one could hope to have a better start to government than we provided — an economy firing on all cylinders. Our economic growth was the best in the country. B.C.’s job creation was the highest in the nation. Housing starts were up 25 percent higher than the historical average. Retail sales were up. Exports were up. Operating debt was down and set to disappear by 2019.

This is due to the power of free enterprise, for sure. But our economy was buoyed by a responsible B.C. Liberal government that balanced its budget and produced growing surpluses five times in a row, a government that kept taxes low and commanded a triple-A credit rating, the best you could get, in no small part due to the Finance Minister, the member for Abbotsford West.

It was also due to another person. Here I want to take a moment to pay tribute to our last Premier, Christy Clark. She spent 15 years of her life in this House, pouring her heart and soul into public service, as we all do, trying and succeeding to make B.C. a better place. There is no one who worked harder than her.

When I met her in 2012, she asked me to run in a by-election. She put her boundless energy and enthusiasm behind my bid, coming out to the riding five times on five separate days to campaign with me, who was a completely unknown and untested candidate. I was impressed. Christy Clark is an excellent politician. She can walk into a room with 40 people in it and leave the party calling most of them by name. She’s extremely personable. People would tell me that they felt they were the only person in the room when Christy was talking to them.

[6:00 p.m.]

When I lost the by-election in 2012, I appreciated that she kept faith in me. She allowed me to run again a year later. I was able to deliver an election victory. Since then, working with and for her, I found her to be approachable, practical, rational, intelligent, strategic, insightful and wise. She’s a lot of fun with a great sense of humour. She is a leader of large character, not threatened or defensive, open to criticism yet in no way a pushover. In fact, I was deeply affected with the maturity and gentleness with which she approached the events this summer leading to her eventual resignation. I am very sorry that she is gone.

B.C. has lost a public servant of the highest quality, and it’s a privilege to count her as a friend. History will be kind to Christy Clark, and this entire House owes her a vote of thanks.

But that is in the past. We have to look forward to the future, to the budget and its estimates, which provide for us a foretaste of what is to come in the brave new world of the NDP. To begin with, I want to talk about revenue generation, because that’s one half of the budget.

I went through the budget update delivered by the minister this week. I looked for measures to grow the economy, and there were a few. There were some measures to grow business. But in each case, these pro-business measures were offset by policies that would stifle those same businesses and constrict growth in the larger economy. Allow me to describe what I mean. On one hand, the NDP are reducing the small business tax rate from 2.5 to 2 percent. That’s good. We support that. On the other, they’re creating a fair wages commission, tasked with determining how to bring the minimum wage to $15 per hour, which is an attack on small business.

In fact, there was a study in Ontario today that came out that said that their $15-an-hour wage will take away 50,000 jobs. If that’s not an attack on small business, I don’t know what is. Effectively, it’s really like a new tax on small business. Which will have the greater effect: the tax reduction or the rise in wage costs? I think we can guess the answer to that.

Let’s look at another measure from the B.C. budget update. On one hand, they’re phasing out the PST on electricity for business, which really wasn’t their idea, by the way. It was a carryover from the B.C. Liberal budget. But it’s a good idea. We support that. On the other hand, they’re increasing the corporate tax from 11 to 12 percent, which wipes out any competitive advantage we have with the rest of Canada. No more incentive for a corporation to come to B.C.

Now, I would add here that the difference in tax treatment between small business and corporations, where the government reduces taxes for small business but raises it for corporations, shows that it’s always okay for the NDP and the Greens to demonize the corporate world. The only kind of legitimate business to them is small business. I wish I could understand that mindset, but it’s incomprehensible to me. Maybe because corporations are seen as the enemy of unions, which are the backbone of the NDP in this province. But in my view, if you have two geese that lay golden eggs, you don’t feed one and starve the other. You try and encourage them both. But I must continue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Throness: Finally, they’re appointing an innovation commissioner and creating an emergency economy task force. Well, that’s okay. We don’t oppose that. On the other hand, they’re increasing the carbon tax on April 1, which is definitely contrary to the interests of business in B.C.

I want to explain here the all-important policy of carbon tax revenue neutrality, which is being sacrificed by our new government. You see, under the B.C. Liberals, the government sought to change behaviour through the carbon tax with no other objective in mind. That means that we took money the carbon tax brought in, and we put it right back into tax relief in other areas of the economy. We injected it back into the economy, and that’s why our economy was able to grow, even with a carbon tax. It was not an overall burden to the economy, just an incentive to reallocate private resources. But the carbon tax report from the budget shows that the revenue from the carbon tax is projected to be $1.2 billion, and the NDP have decided not to give it back. The minister said so.

So there are seven personal and ten business tax reductions under the B.C. Liberals that stand to be eliminated. And this amount will now flow into spending programs rather than tax relief, which is an effective $1.2 billion tax increase. Let me name just a few of the items of tax relief that we can expect to be ripped away under the NDP, under their new carbon tax policy. The northern and rural homeowner benefit, worth $84 million. But of course, the NDP didn’t win in rural and northern B.C., so what do they care?

[6:05 p.m.]

How about the home-renovation tax credit for seniors and persons with disabilities? Maybe that will be taken away. The school property tax reduction of 50 percent for farmland. The small business venture capital tax credit or the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, and many more. What’s going to happen to them? I think they’re up for grabs. We can expect them to disappear under this government. Or maybe they’ll play a shell game — keep some of them, but raise taxes in other ways. Oh, and surprise. They’re doing just that.

It didn’t take very long to describe the things that they’re going to do to grow the economy in B.C. It’s going to take longer to describe the tax increases and the spending.

But first, I want to talk about project cancellations. I want to talk about the habit of the NDP and the Greens, their friends, to just say no to big projects in B.C. I’m talking of course of the threat to cancel Site C, placing in jeopardy 2,700 good jobs; their stumbling and fumbling legal battle against the Trans Mountain pipeline; their stoic opposition to the development of LNG in this province.

In fact, the NDP and the Greens together seem to rejoice, seem to gloat, that the Pacific Northwest LNG consortium scrapped their project instead of being deeply concerned at losing a $36 billion investment in this province, the largest private sector investment ever in this province — I think in Canada, one that would have benefited the entire province. Indeed, it would have benefited the globe in terms of emissions. I just don’t understand it.

Now they’ve scrapped the bridge that would have replaced the aging Massey Tunnel after years of consultation, hundreds of public meetings and millions spent by companies putting together bids that came in well below the expected cost, putting a sudden end to 9,000 good, high-paying jobs. To me, it is just stunning.

In fact, the NDP — in concert with the other enemies of progress in this House, the Green Party — have slammed this province into full reverse. I try to understand them. I think, for the Greens, projects mean action, and action requires energy, and they don’t like to use any of that. The Greens would prefer to sit back with their candle lanterns and fold their hands rather than get up and move on something other than protest demonstrations against people who are trying to grow the economy.

We will never know the damage that has already been done by the chilling effect, the pall cast over this economy by both partners on the other side. That’s because we can never know the companies that decided not to make an investment, that decided not to expand, that decided not take a risk on a province where the government is fundamentally disdainful of markets, profits, free enterprise and the needs of business.

But let’s move on to tax increases. I want to list them. One of the big complaints I get in my office is the subtle increases in B.C. Hydro, MSP and ICBC rates. But in opposition to their own election platform, which promised to “stop ICBC increases,” one of the first announcements of our new government was to increase ICBC rates by 8 percent beginning on November 1. That’ll be $130 per year added to the average insurance bill in B.C., or $205 million per year. Fantastic. It wasn’t even part of the budget. It was before the budget.

Instead of taking some more difficult choices that were laid out in the independent report, they immediately chose to raise taxes, because that’s their default. As I’ve said already, corporate taxes are rising from 11 to 12 percent. That’ll bring in $306 million a year by 2018-19. Let’s add to that the carbon tax — $212 million more in that same year. Contrary to what the B.C. Liberals contemplated in their budget in February — I think it’s kind of funny — the NDP are subsidizing the rich by removing MSP premiums for people making over 120 grand a year.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find this in the budget. Somehow they missed that. But then, they’re doing the opposite. They’re raising income taxes by almost two points for those making over $150,000 a year, which will pull in $273 million more in revenue each and every year.

Let’s not forget smokers — they’re always an easy target — with an increase in taxes that will bring in $25 million.

Finally, just to make sure they’re democratic and egalitarian, they’re hitting everybody, even kids. The NDP will eliminate the children’s fitness equipment and children’s art tax credit, which is an effective tax increase for parents on those activities of $11 million a year. That’s six separate tax increases in this budget, bringing in a total of $1.032 billion more from the beleaguered taxpayer every single year.

Let’s talk about spending for a moment. The B.C. Liberals created a surplus, and the NDP will get to spend it. There’s some kind of injustice there, but that’s politics.

[6:10 p.m.]

The provincial public accounts were made public a few weeks ago. They confirmed just what we predicted. At the close of the last fiscal year, which ended on March 31, there was a $2.737 billion surplus. That’s an enormous sum, carefully raised and carefully managed by a prudent government.

What does our new NDP Finance Minister forecast for the end of this fiscal year? A surplus of $246 million, and that’s based on an expectation of higher growth in the economy — 2.9 percent instead of our more prudent forecast of 2.1 percent.

Spending will rise by $3.1 billion in this budget in one year. The NDP will have 256 days between when they took power and the end of the fiscal year, and they will spend $12 million a day, every day. Business days, weekends, holidays — $12 million a day, over and above normal program spending of $49 billion. That’s a massive outpouring of funds. If we didn’t have tax increases in this budget, we’d already be in deficit territory.

A $246 million surplus on a budget the size of B.C.’s provincial budget is a razor-thin surplus — half of 1 percent. It’s like if you had an income of a thousand bucks and you had a $5 surplus. That’s what it’s like. If you dropped your Starbucks on the floor, your surplus would be gone. If anything in this province goes wrong — if the wildfire season continues, if interest rates go up, if federal policy changes, if there should be any external shock — like NAFTA, softwood lumber, war overseas, recession or anything else — that surplus would disappear in a flash, and we’d be into a deficit.

One of those threats is the American debt and deficit. I’ve been harping on this every year since I was elected in 2013. I saw that the American debt topped $20 trillion last Friday, an enormous sum. The consequences of that enormous weight of debt, in combination with our own Canadian federal debt and deficit, hangs like a sword over the heart of the North American, and even the global, economy.

But let’s continue to talk about spending. Here I want to talk about infrastructure for a moment. I want to point out that the NDP is increasing spending on infrastructure, which will increase B.C.’s taxpayer-supported debt. I cannot count how many times the NDP railed against the B.C. Liberal government for doing this. Now they’re doing exactly the same thing. Their hypocrisy is perfect, if there is such a thing as perfect hypocrisy. Kind of an oxymoron to me. They will add over $7 billion to the provincial debt over the next three years. Unbelievable.

While I’m talking about hypocrisy, I had a look at the estimates for the ministry that I have the privilege of critiquing in the coming session, the Ministry of Children and Family Development. This is a tough portfolio for whatever minister is in charge, as the former minister for us, the B.C. Liberals, the member for Surrey South, found out over the past four years. The NDP, when they were in opposition, savaged the minister. That is no exaggeration. They were vicious. They were beyond nasty.

Day after day, I sat in question period. Sometimes for 20 out of 30 minutes, they were accusing her of everything under the sun and that on a very personal level. She took the pounding, and she responded with fairness and objectivity and rationality. She did not give it back to the NDP in the same way. I thought she did a marvelous job. She displayed strength and grace and resiliency of character.

Now we come to the estimates. And to my shock, to my surprise, I find that the NDP have copied the B.C. Liberal budget word for word in their budget update. Hardly a penny has changed except, of course, that there’s $238,000 more for the minister’s office budget. So after five years of roasting the minister almost every day, we find that it was all an act. It was all show. It was all fake rage. It was all political theatre, because when it comes to the bottom line — the budget — we find that the NDP actually agreed with all the B.C. Liberal priorities. I can’t believe that. The hypocrisy is astonishing, and the depth of political cynicism is breathtaking. To me, this is a character issue.

You know, I think the NDP owe the member for Surrey South an apology for dragging her personally through a knothole purely for political gain, to smear her character and her good name, to turn British Columbians against her with a long series of political cheap shots, only to reveal that they actually agreed with her all along. But sadly, an apology will not be forthcoming from this government. They are not big enough for that.

[6:15 p.m.]

But to return to my theme, I think that the NDP is jeopardizing the economic future of this province through a series of damaging spending announcements and tax hikes. I must confess it’s a bit disheartening to push for balanced budgets for four years, to undergo criticism for it, to hold off on demands and finally to emerge with a rock-ribbed economy — and also a compassionate economy on the social side — only to have the NDP take a baseball bat to the surplus overnight and begin to dismantle the winning structure of controlled spending and low taxes that we built so carefully over four years.

The really big-ticket promises of the NDP have yet to be filled. What about the public service unions, who will now call in all their political chits and demand big raises? The NDP has no strength to resist their friends. How can they refuse five unions, which together alone gave $1.6 million in political contributions in 2016? During the last campaign, the NDP wrongly accused the B.C. Liberals, without a shred of evidence, of corrupt practices. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

What kind of political action will union contributions generate from the NDP? Well, we know one thing. It’s the promise the NDP made to unions to help them grow by eliminating the workers’ democratic right — the secret ballot for union organization. Add to that more union jobs for teachers, health care workers, child care workers. Just about every public body of organized labour will enjoy growth and prosperity under the NDP, except, of course, the private sector unions who serve the energy industry — an industry the NDP seems to oppose even more than they support unions.

What about the cost of $10-a-day daycare, which they admitted on the campaign trail would cost a billion and a half dollars? What about stopping rate increases at B.C. Hydro and B.C. Ferries, building 114,000 units of affordable housing, giving every B.C. renter 400 bucks a year, freezing tuition fees, and reducing prescription drug costs? Over the past four years, if anybody had a complaint, the NDP threw it into their budget and promised to take care of it. I counted 280 promises in the NDP platform, most of which will require significant new funding.

In summary, the NDP is very predictable in their first budget, raising taxes, spending $3 billion of our hard-won surplus in just six short months, based on a rosy economic projection, with yet more spending and tax increases to come, yet doing almost nothing to generate more tax revenue.

I want to save the most egregious thing till last — something that impacts my own constituency directly every day in a very real way. Chilliwack doesn’t rate an increase, of course, in the budget of the NDP. I would note in the transportation investments listed in the budget, the widening of the No. 1 Highway out to 264th Street, which was promised in the B.C. Liberal election platform, is not included in this budget.

This is a disaster for everyone living east of Surrey. We in the eastern Fraser Valley know the definition of gridlock very well. It is a parking lot once or twice a day on the No. 1. People get frustrated. They try to hurry. They get into big accidents just about every day, but the NDP are just too busy spending on other things to get this basic issue done right for the economy and the people of the valley.

To conclude, this government is a legal entity. I’ll admit they have the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor to form a government. I don’t argue with that. I do say, however, that this government lacks political legitimacy. It is a minority government. It’s not even a coalition government. The Greens sit in opposition to the government. Forty-one members are governing over 45, if you count the Speaker, and soon to be 46 members.

The ones who are governing across the way have a minority of votes and seats in this Legislature. They do not have a democratic mandate from the people of B.C. to do any of the things that they’re foisting on the province here today. This is a politically…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Throness: …illegitimate government. The people of B.C. did not vote to gut the surplus or to stop Site C or to stop LNG, the Trans Mountain pipeline or the Massey Tunnel replacement bridge.

My own constituents have approached me to say that they certainly did not vote to be effectively ruled by the smallest party in this House that holds the balance of power, by the Green Party, that received just 17 percent of the vote and has only three seats.

If they think they are politically legitimate, the government will call the by-election in Kelowna now, today, to lay their decisions before the people of B.C. for their judgment, rather than wait five months till the last minute. What do they have to wait for? Now that they have a Speaker, they will still be able to muster the votes to pass legislation in this House no matter the outcome.

[6:20 p.m.]

To conclude, this politically illegitimate government is opposing the economic development that British Columbians need and want, and through tax hikes and spending increases, it’s putting in place all the building blocks for a repeat of the 1990s. It fails to respond to the transportation needs of my constituents, and there is no way that I will support this budget.

L. Throness moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. H. Bains moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 1:30 Wednesday afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:21 p.m.