Orders of the Day

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

[2:35 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

Hon. M. Mungall: I am very pleased today to rise in this House as the new Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and to support the New Democrat government budget that we tabled just earlier last week.

I’m very proud of this budget. But before I move into my comments on our first budget update…. Well, our first budget, and it’s a budget update, as everybody knows what happened with the election — moving into September, our first opportunity to deliver a budget. We’ll be delivering our first full one in February, for those at home who are watching. But this budget update I’m very proud of, very proud to support and proud to support as the new Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

As I said, before I move into my comments, though, about the budget, I do want to take this time to say a few words of gratitude to people in my constituency. It’s my first opportunity to do so following the election. I’d like to especially thank those who get out and volunteer for our democracy. Whether it was the two independents who ran; or Tanya Wall, who’s the regional district director for area B in the RDCK, who ran for the B.C. Liberals; or Kim Charlesworth, who ran for the B.C. Green Party, I want to thank them all for stepping forward and being a part of our democratic process.

I notably want to say that the volunteers, who are a part of that democratic process, who get out with every candidate day after day, whether it’s on the doorsteps or in the campaign offices, are just doing…. It’s amazing that these people come forward and volunteer, and volunteer such long hours and work so hard.

For my team, I especially want to say thank you to Heather Compton, who was my campaign manager. She’s been with me the last two campaigns. She comes out every time for New Democrats, and she delivers. We are so grateful to have her on our team.

[2:40 p.m.]

Sherry Nicholson has been my financial agent the last two elections. She’s been volunteering as our constituency association treasurer for about seven years now. I always say that for all of us, our financial agents have a special place in heaven, because that job is extremely demanding. There’s no end of forms to fill out, no end of dollars and cents to track, and they do a tremendous job. I’m very grateful to Sherry Nicholson for the work that she does, on a volunteer basis, for those of us in Nelson-Creston.

I have a very long list. I’m going to first say, to Curtis Bendig and Laurie Langille — just amazing people. I love being on campaigns with them. They are amazing volunteers and really help make the democratic process work. Alison, Aaron, John, Rita, Becky, Brenda, Enid, Stan, Jesse, Byron, Janice and Anne — you guys are all amazing. Thank you so much for being in that campaign office or out in the field every single day, whether it was answering questions of those who came in to the office, making sure the office was open or getting out on the doorstep. You guys humble me every election with the amount of volunteer hours that you put in.

I would be remiss if I was a terrible wife and forgot my husband, Zak Matieschyn, who does all of this every step of the way with me and is just the best friend, I think, anybody could ever have. I love him dearly, and I’m so glad that I get to call him my husband.

Last, but so far from the least, are my amazing constituency assistants, who are in the office every day serving the people of Nelson-Creston, serving the Kootenays. I think every single member in this House appreciates their CAs and knows that we would never, ever be able to do the work that we do on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia without our constituency assistants. So let me take this moment to say a huge thank you to Tessa Bendig, Laurie Langille and Jesse Pineiro, who was filling in for Tessa Bendig this last year while she was on a maternity leave with her new little one Aurie. They are the amazing faces that people get to see and interact with and who help them every day in the constituency.

I also want to do a couple of community shout-outs. This year was my 15th year at Kootenay Pride. Of course, Kootenay Pride parade has been going on for longer than 15 years, but it was quite young when I first started marching in Kootenay Pride. I remember that few people lined the streets, and in fact, some people shared messages of hate as we walked down the street of Nelson, proud of our diversity in the community.

Fast-forward to today, just 15 years later, and Baker Street is lined from beginning to end with people celebrating our community’s diversity. Our rainbow sidewalks, our rainbow flags — they are all over for the entire pride weekend. We decorate the constituency office, and I’m just so pleased, after 15 years, to see the change and support and love for human rights, and the Kootenays has just grown and grown and grown. That truly is something to be proud of.

I also want to shout out to the Creston Fall Fair. I wasn’t able to make it this year because we were delivering our Speech from the Throne. Hopefully, I’ll get some opportunity to have comments on that, as well, later on in the session. The Creston Fall Fair, the agricultural fair, is just a wonderful opportunity….

If you or anybody in this House ever finds yourselves in Creston, normally in the first week of September, that is your opportunity to really take in the incredible agriculture, which I’ve been talking about for years in this Legislature, that exists in the Creston Valley. We grow everything in the Creston Valley, whether it’s asparagus, carrots, wheat, whether it’s ranching — even oranges. Yes, you can find oranges and citrus fruit in some of the greenhouses in the Creston Valley. We take great pride that we grow the best food that you’ll ever eat.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Mungall: I was just reminded by a colleague sitting nearby that her favourite is the Kootenay Meadows cheese. Alpindon is my personal favourite, although some people love the Nostrala. And if you actually go to the farm, you can get the Mountain Grana. But I digress from the budget — at that point, quite a ways.

[2:45 p.m.]

Before I come back to the budget, let me just say: Kaslo Jazz fest, you did it again — another amazing year. About 300 volunteers and thousands of volunteer hours make that happen. Shambhala Music Festival is turning out to be a world-premiere electronic music festivals, in Salmo of all places. You might not think as you drive by Salmo that it’s hosting a world-class music festival, but it is, because that’s how we do it in Salmo. And 75 years of the Balfour ferry landing. We celebrated that this spring. It was very exciting.

We almost lost that ferry landing just over a year ago, but the community was very vociferous in their push-back to the government of the day. Just taking out that ferry landing would have destroyed so many small businesses. That we get to keep that was definitely cause for celebration this year.

Back to our budget. I mentioned that I’m very proud to support this budget. It’s great to be able to rise and feel confident in that what’s being put forward is going to deliver on the very things that I heard on the doorstep in May and April.

One of the things I heard a lot about was access to post-secondary education. A lot of people couldn’t even get their foot in the door at Selkirk College for a program — for example, university science transfer; or nursing, a very popular program at Selkirk College; or some of the trades programs — because those individuals required some high school upgrading, adult basic education.

It used to be free. When I started in this place in 2009, the one thing that I could always support the then Liberal government on was that adult basic education and English language learning was free. That meant that people, no matter what their income, could get their foot in the door so they could get to post-secondary education, and they could get the job that they wanted to get.

What we know is that 80 percent of jobs today require some level of post-secondary education. So if you want a job and if you want a good-paying job, you need post-secondary training. But if you did not have the grades in high school, for whatever reason, or you’re a mature student and you needed to do that upgrading — it’s required — and you could not afford adult basic education, basically you were not allowed to better your life. That was what was happening structurally, systematically.

I was on the doorstep — one gentleman in Creston. I remember him telling me…. I saw him on the doorstep, and then we had a conversation there. Then he came back, actually, to the campaign office, and he wanted to tell me more about his situation. Creston has a College of the Rockies program in that community. For him, he was wanting to better his life, get a better-paying job, and he wanted to do some preliminary university studies. But before he could do that — he was a mature student — he required some adult basic education. He was working a minimum-wage job. He was struggling to pay his rent.

Creston is nowhere near the cost of living that Vancouver is. I just want to highlight that, because that affordability crisis isn’t just a Lower Mainland issue. It’s a B.C.-wide issue. It’s happening in the rural communities I represent. You only need to look at the recent census data to see that.

Anyway, I didn’t need to look at this recent census data because I had somebody in my campaign office telling me right then and there how the cost of ABE — the new cost that was put on by the B.C. Liberal government — was impacting his life and preventing him from getting the opportunities that he should have.

[2:50 p.m.]

So when we announced that we were going to be funding adult basic education and English language learning so that it was free for all British Columbians, I think literally three minutes after I put it up on Facebook, this gentleman was right on there, posting his elation at the fact that he would now be able to register this September for ABE. He could go back to school and get his degree and get the job that he wanted, a good-paying job. That’s the difference that this budget is making in people’s lives.

That’s one story, but let me share with you some more. As you’ll remember, for the last four years, I stood in opposition — I was the critic for Social Development. I took on the role of advocating for people with disabilities and for poverty reduction in this province. This is something that I did prior to my time as an elected official, when I was running the Nelson Food Cupboard, a small food bank. It’s a little food bank that could feed thousands of people out of the corner of the basement of the Nelson United Church. It still does. I saw poverty walk in and out of the door of that food bank every day, back from 2003 to 2005.

I came here and, from 2013 to 2017, sat as the critic for Social Development and introduced legislation for a poverty reduction plan. Five times, I believe, I did that and — regularly, year after year in the budget estimates process — asked about raising the rates for people with disabilities and people on income assistance. Year after year, no raise came in. Finally, a raise came in, but so did the bus pass clawback at the same time, taking away most of that raise. What happened, in that meantime, is that poverty deepened and deepened, particularly for people with disabilities.

In my view, that’s just wrong. Just because somebody has a disability, it doesn’t mean that they should be poor. I think we can do better than that in our society, in 2017 — and we are. We are, because this budget is increasing disability and income assistance rates by $100 a month. That’s on top of the existing increases that were announced previously. We are also increasing earnings exemptions, so that people with disabilities and people on income assistance are able to get their foot in the door with employment opportunities. They can get a part-time job and, eventually, maybe make that a full-time job.

I can’t even begin to tell you the number of people I have heard where that would have made all the difference in their lives — just to be able to keep an extra $200 a month, if they could keep that from a part-time job — what that would mean for their monthly expenses, how that would help to lift them out of poverty. There are so many stories along those lines. It’s hard to even pull out just one.

I know there’s one young woman whom I’ve been working with very closely and getting to know over the last several…. I’m thinking about all of them all of a sudden. But this one young woman, Sheenagh Morrison, has visited this House. She has become a regular in this House, and she’s just a tireless self-advocate, not only for herself but for people with disabilities across this province.

I want to let everybody know that they have an amazing advocate in Sheenagh Morrison. She’s here all the time, and she has the ear of, I think, every member now. She has taken selfies with, I think, every single one of us. She has been a force behind this decision to increase disability and income assistance rates, to increase earnings exemptions.

Another thing in the budget is to end that bus pass clawback.

Way to go, Sheenagh. You did it. Way to go, Tabitha Naismith. Way to go, so many people all across this province. Nick Toner, in my riding, is just an incredible advocate for people with disabilities.

[2:55 p.m.]

The list goes on and on. I worked with so many people for four years, and I want to say: “Way to go. The changes in this budget reflect all the advocacy that you all did. I’m so proud to support your advocacy. I’m so proud to support the results of your advocacy that are in this budget.”

Another item in this budget that I’m really pleased about, and got some feedback on just last weekend at the Nelson farmers market, is the cut to medical service premiums. This is an idea on our path to actually eliminate MSP. That’s long overdue. The Liberals had an attempt at this in their promised budget before the election, but it was quite complicated. You’d have to apply, and once you did apply, you had to be eligible, and it was only a certain group of people, and so on. We’ve made this simple. We’re just cutting it in half. We’re beginning the process to eliminate MSP — like every other province in Canada.

I’m going to tell you what this meant for a woman who came up to me at the farmers market on Saturday. She, unfortunately, lost her job. It was a union job. In her collective agreement, her MSP premiums were being paid for by her employer, so she actually never had to pay her MSP premiums directly herself. But she lost her job, and she’s got a new job. I’m very glad to say that she found another job, but this job does not have that same type of collective agreement or benefits. As a result, she’s paying MSP directly.

She came up to me and said: “My new job pays less than my previous job, and I can’t afford this.” I looked at her, and I said: “You won’t have to, because we’re going to cut MSP on January 1, and we’re going to eliminate it.” She was, like: “I know. Thank you so much.”

She was so glad, because in her life, she was going to have a little bit more at the end of the day to pay her bills, to put food on the table and do stuff that a lot of other people take for granted — go to the movies with her husband, for example. Have a date night with her husband. Everybody should be able to enjoy a little bit of fun in this world, and that’s what that’s going to mean for her.

Something else I heard a lot about in this election…. I know that as soon as I say it, members opposite are probably…. Well, if I’m lucky enough, they might start heckling. I want to take note…. To the many parents who came up to talk to me about two things — education and child care — on education, we’re delivering. We’re working with teachers. We’re working with school boards. That’s the commitment that you can get from the NDP government.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Mungall: I am so fortunate. I’m getting heckled. It’s not by who I thought I might, but thanks all the same for paying attention.

The other item is child care. So many parents came out. They got organized. We had stroller brigades for child care. Moving B.C. to a universal child care system is no small task. I’m going to tell you that members in the Green caucus and members in the NDP government are working together, and we are looking forward to delivering on a program for British Columbians. That is coming.

It’s going to be a program that is rooted in early childhood education, that has the support of parents, that has the support of early childhood educators. I am very much looking forward to working with the people in my community and the people in this House to deliver — finally. We first started talking about universal child care in this country in 1970, long before I was even born, and I don’t think I’m a spring chicken anymore. That we’re finally going be able to deliver on this item is extremely exciting. I know that the parents back home are with us every step of the way, and they’re excited too.

[3:00 p.m.]

I did want to address something that I heard from another member. I believe it was the member for Kootenay East, actually. I was listening to his speech, and one of the things that he brought up that I did want to take a few minutes to address was the tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges. We’ve eliminated those tolls. Anybody who’s ever crossing those bridges, whether they live in Surrey, Maple Ridge, Coquitlam, Nelson, Creston or Cranbrook, will not have to pay tolls anymore.

The way that member characterized it was that his constituents were paying for the transportation needs of people in the Lower Mainland. I’m really getting tired of this urban-versus-rural dichotomy of the B.C. Liberals, this narrative they’re trying to put forward. We’re one province. We are British Columbia, and we are proud British Columbians.

As a rural MLA, I stand with my caucus members, with members from urban ridings, on the issues that matter to them, as they stand with me — and you — on the issues that matter to us in rural B.C. To give that member opposite an example of that: would he like a bridge in his riding tolled? Would he like a road in his riding tolled? I don’t think so.

If he thinks they would, I’ll remind him of what happened in 2001-2002, when the B.C. government suggested tolling the Kootenay Lake ferry. We got mad in Nelson-Creston. We got really mad. You know what happened at the end of the day? It was urban members from the New Democrat opposition of two, at the time, who took our rural voice to this House, not our own Liberal MLA, and we kept tolls off our ferry.

That’s why the New Democrat government is taking tolls off the Golden Ears and the Port Mann bridges. It’s because we are one province, and it’s not fair that one community pays tolls while others don’t. We shouldn’t. So I’m very proud that we’ve delivered on that, and I’m very proud of the New Democrat members back in 2001-2002 who stood up for my riding.

There are so many ways that we need to be making life more affordable and building good jobs on good projects. I believe there are many ways that we can accomplish this, but I want to talk about some of the ways that we’re going to be accomplishing that in my ministry. I’m very proud of the work that we’ve already started doing.

One of the things that I’m working on right now with my staff is establishing the B.C. mining jobs task force. One of the things we need to do in this province is to ensure that we’re creating mining jobs and that we’re keeping mining jobs. We have to ensure that we have a straightforward process for the mining industry. We have to make sure that communities and First Nations are on board with that process and that industry is working with communities and First Nations. And you know what? I have to say I’m incredibly impressed with the way that industry, for the most part, does exactly that.

Not too long ago I was touring Teck in the Kootenays, in my own backyard. That was the west side that I recently went to, and I’m off to the east side soon enough. These are family-supporting jobs at Teck. Teck is a fantastic example of a good industry leader, on so many fronts. One of the fronts is how they can actually meet our climate change goals, our GHG reduction targets. I look forward to working with Teck and others in the industry on that issue, on ensuring that mining jobs are sustainable, on ensuring that we are not just creating but that we are keeping those good, family-supporting jobs.

[3:05 p.m.]

One of the other items in my mandate letter is to create a road map for the future of B.C. energy. There is no doubt about it. We have a tremendous amount of opportunity, with renewable resources, for renewable energy in this province. We are just at the beginning of what that’s going to be.

First Nations have actually taken the lead on this. We’re going to be working with First Nations. We’re going to be working with so many people to make that happen.

I see that my time is almost up. But let me tell you, I had a very long list of all kinds of things that we’re going to be doing in my ministry to work on making life more affordable and creating good jobs. I’m going to list them off quickly: reinvigorating the innovative clean energy fund; developing an improved and properly resourced approvals process to assess mining applications — let’s get those projects going.

LNG. For so many years, the Liberals made big promises and never delivered. Meanwhile, our competitiveness went down. We’re going to be addressing those issues. We’re phasing out PST on electricity. We have a mining flow-through share tax credit that’s extended for a year. We have a mining exploration tax credit that’s going to be expanded, including costs incurred from environmental studies and community consultations.

We’re going to ensure that whatever we do, we are working hand in hand with First Nations and communities, because building a better B.C. isn’t just a government task. It’s all of our task. First Nations are meaningful partners. It’s time government worked with them in that fashion.

I am extremely excited at the prospect of what it means to be at the beginning of an era of reconciliation and to build on UNDRIP, the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, and to truly build a better B.C. with First Nations, with communities. We’re going to get it done. I’m very excited, and I’m excited to support this budget.

N. Letnick: Indeed, it’s a privilege to take my place in the budget debate. I will not be supporting the budget, and I’ll be going through my reasons why, over the next 20 minutes or so.

Before I do that, I’d just like to give a shout-out to all of the people in Mexico who are suffering under the conditions of an earthquake in the last couple days, especially the parents who have lost their children in schools. It goes to show you how important it is to continue with our seismic program here in British Columbia. Again, my prayers and thoughts go out to all of the people in Mexico during this very difficult time.

When you’re preparing a budget speech — as I have done now, I think, something like eight or nine times over the course of my eight years-plus in this Legislature — it’s always interesting to see that budgets have things that you can support and, of course, things that you wish were in the budget.

At the end of the day, for me, it’s always come back to my constituents. What is in the budget for my local constituents? Maybe that plays a role why, next to the Minister of Advanced Education, I had the second-highest plurality in the province, and she had the highest. Congratulations to her.

I think that speaks to the emphasis on making sure that your local constituents’ needs are addressed throughout the eight years or four years or number of years that you’re here. What you see in question period is very interesting. But at the end of the day, most of the voters don’t watch QP. They do watch, however, how you deliver on their priorities.

I’m going to focus most of my time on their priorities, in my response to the budget. Also, in my area of Kelowna–Lake Country, a wonderful area. I’m sure most of you in this House have visited Kelowna and the Lake Country area once, or more times, in your tenure in British Columbia — a beautiful place with even more beautiful people, people who, like every part of the province, get together in times of crisis.

We had some crises this summer, as other parts did — in the case of forest fires, in the Joe Rich area as well as in the Lake Country area. Thank goodness that they weren’t as extensive as they are in some other parts of the province.

[3:10 p.m.]

When you lose a home or are not allowed to go see your pets or have to leave your house in a hurry, that’s very dramatic, no matter where you are in this province, including in my area. So I want to give a big shout-out to the firefighters, the people at the emergency centres, the volunteers, the municipalities, of course, who led the attack, and all of the other personnel around Kelowna–Lake Country for doing the work that they did to support my constituents through the challenge of the fires.

Of course, before the fires were the floods that came through in our area. We did have some damage to properties but, luckily, no lives lost through the floods, and hopefully with time we will adapt to the quicker freshets in the spring and find a way to lower the risks that climate change has played in our part of the province.

Also, of course, I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for the support of my family, and I’d just like to give a shout-out to my wife, Helene, who right now is in Quebec visiting her cousins in that belle province. [French was spoken.] I hope to see her very soon. And I am blessed, like many in this House, to have children that actually live in the area of my home and not necessarily at home. They’re all grown up now and started their lives independent of Mom and Dad, in the Kelowna area. So I’ll give a shout-out to them and to my newest daughter, my daughter-in-law, Joanna, and, of course, our one and only granddaughter, Luna, who I miss terribly every time that I leave the riding.

The staff. You hear from members across both sides of the House that we couldn’t do our job without our staff. In particular, my constituency assistants Katja Maurmann and Lesley Driscoll — a big shout-out to you, wherever you are, if you’re watching. But you’re probably not. You’re probably working, helping some constituents, as you do so well.

To my new legislative assistant, Tyler Schaffrick. If I mispronounced your name, Tyler, I’m sure you’ll tell me when I get back to the office. I appreciate the work that you’ve done. You’ve been great here in Victoria to help this MLA get used to a new office — actually, I’m in my second office already — and a new role. Thank you, Tyler, for all your help.

I’d like to also thank our ministry staff in the Ministry of Agriculture. It was a privilege to serve as the minister for more than four years. I have great respect for the ministry staff, all the way from the political staff through to the 360th employee that works for the ministry. I’m sure the current Minister of Agriculture has a great team that’s working to support her.

At the end of the day, we’re all in this to support agriculture, the industry and the seafood industry as well; to continue to improve B.C.’s food supply security; and to help farmers and ranchers, processors, producers and fishers continue to be successful in what they do to supply us, and also all the people of British Columbia, Canada and around the world, some top-of-the-line products at affordable prices. My hat goes off to the whole team at the B.C. Ministry of Ag.

I’d also like to thank two former Premiers — I can actually say their names now in the House, former Premier Gordon Campbell and former Premier Christy Clark — for the foundation upon which this budget has been laid. For 16 years, they worked very hard through very difficult times to make sure that the future of British Columbia was secure financially for our kids and our grandchildren.

Former Premier Campbell had to bring a budget under control that was damaged considerably — and this province’s reputation, damaged considerably — through the time in the ’90s. Former Premier Christy Clark had to work very hard through a recession after the sub-prime mortgage crisis in 2008 to make sure that we continued over the years to come back to balance and stay balanced.

[3:15 p.m.]

Those two Premiers have set an example, I believe, on how to ensure that we do have the funds necessary to tackle our more serious challenges as a province, both in terms of infrastructure investment creating opportunities but also on the social infrastructure side, the social safety net.

It really comes through, when you look at the record: five consecutive balanced budgets after the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the recession; the triple-A credit rating — that seems to be under challenge, right now, I understand, from some of the bond-rating agencies; the $2.7 billion surplus that was provided to the government to start off with, best performance of an economy in the country; and leading investments in health care and education, which I firmly believe the members opposite will continue to build upon.

When we look at the successes that we see in this particular budget, much of that comes from the previous leadership that we saw from the former Finance Minister. Again, kudos go to him and the team for permitting that to go ahead through our budget and then handing it off to the new government.

Reductions in MSP by 50 percent immediately. Small business tax reduction from 2.5 percent to 2 percent. PST elimination on electricity. We’re also seeing a $3,000 tax credit for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers continue under the new government. I would like to thank the new government and the Finance Minister for continuing those initiatives.

On the local scene, because of the balanced budgets and the strong fiscal situation that the previous government brought us to, we’ve had a growing economy in the area of the Central Okanagan, thanks to partnerships, of course, with my colleagues — the former member for Kelowna Westside, the former Premier; as well as former MLA Ben Stewart; and, of course, the newly minted former Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, now known as the member for Kelowna-Mission — who, along with myself, have had the privilege of serving the Central Okanagan ridings and delivering on some of these priorities that the people of the area have brought to us, like Okanagan College and UBC Okanagan. Major expansions there — over $100 million in investment.

And $10 million in tourism; $9.4 million in the replant program for the Okanagan tree fruits; $7 million for the third-largest but best Okanagan innovation high-tech centre in British Columbia. In total, it’s almost $1 billion in government construction and job-creating projects.

We’ve also been very fortunate to see a new Highway 97 from Winfield to Oyama, of course, increasing access speeds but, more importantly, saving lives and improving safety. One very important part of that was concrete medians from Kelowna to Vernon. We’re almost through with that project, but that, too, is saving lives.

I remember being at a cemetery for a service. We were celebrating a life, and as we were celebrating the life, right outside on the highway, there was an accident, a very serious car accident — one of many before the medians went in. I don’t know the stats, but I would imagine that since those medians have gone in, we’ve seen quite a reduction in fatalities along that stretch of the road.

We’ve also seen, in our area, thousands of more handyDART and conventional bus service hours, $8.4 million to help buy and prepare the CN Rail corridor for use. This is an interesting project, one that probably only happened because of our strong fiscal situation, where the CN Rail corridor was available for sale. The local municipal governments asked us to contribute — a third federal, a third provincial and a third local. We were able to secure the third provincial dollars for that once-in-a-lifetime purchase at $7.2 million. Since then, we’re able to provide $1.2 million for upgrading the railbed to a usable standard.

It is important that we continue to identify those key priorities for our constituents. Millions for critical local water infrastructure — we’ve seen money come to help people in our area get good, clean water.

[3:20 p.m.]

We’ve also seen, of course, hundreds of millions of dollars come into our area to expand our Kelowna General Hospital and the particular services that are being offered there — a lab building, a new cardiac surgical centre, including obstetrics, and a medical school.

These are important investments, and investments that are being done throughout the province. In particular, I’m highlighting those that were invested in our area, including the Foundry. This is a new hub for youth and young adults with mental health and substance abuse challenges. I had an opportunity to visit the Foundry a few weeks ago and am looking forward to their work in helping young people with substance abuse and mental health issues.

We have a new integrated team approach to seniors health located at the Cottonwoods Care Centre and funds for affordable housing projects in our area — like the New Gate; NOW Canada; Pleasantvale Homes; Apple Valley homes, phases 1, 2 and 3 — and funding for 205 new local, licensed daycare spaces.

With this new budget, I am hoping that we will also see further investments in our area. The completion of Highway 97’s six-laning project and the intersections improvements. The completion of the John Hindle Drive, connecting Glenmore to Highway 97 at UBC Okanagan.

The implementation of a nurse-in-practice program, which will help over 3,000 people find a family doctor in the Central Okanagan. With this new budget, I’m also hoping that we will see the creation of a new multidisciplinary health hub for residents of Lake Country, as is available in other parts of the province.

We will continue to see support for Accelerate Okanagan as they can take full advantage of their new space in the Okanagan centre for innovation in downtown Kelowna.

We will help school district 23 deliver on the schools that they need. In addition to the ones that we were able to secure over our time in office, we also need a new school for Rutland, a Lake Country middle school, a high school for Glenmore and a replacement for Glenmore Elementary, which I hope, over time, we will see moved forward with.

We need to continue to expand our transit service in the Central Okanagan — and I’m sure that this new budget will accommodate that growth, as well — and also, to move forward on 13,000 new additional child care spaces by 2020 that we had committed to in our platform.

We need to complete the transfer of the old Highway 97 to the district of Lake Country and help Lake Country taxpayers turn into a world-class public amenity. We’ve already done the completion. I was on the government side when the completion was done. But we need to look for partnership with the new provincial government to turn it into a world-class amenity. I’ll be working with the district of Lake Country to see that happen, as well as fixing the bottleneck at Beaver Lake Road and Highway 97.

A couple more things that I hope we will see, through this budget, when we get into the details. To continue to fight invasive mussels in our lakes in British Columbia and, of course, in particular, in our lakes in the Central Okanagan. These are very horrible creatures that can clog up waterways, hydro facilities and, of course, make it very difficult for tourism. So we need to continue to expand our vigilance and funding for a fight against invasive mussels. And, of course, continue to deliver on agriculture and their needs.

With that, I would like to spend a few minutes to talk about agriculture as the agricultural co-critic. It is important that we continue to see success in agriculture throughout British Columbia. We’ve had great successes over the past few years.

We’ve achieved $14 billion in revenue for agrifoods. It’s a record year, way ahead of what we projected as far as when we would achieve that. So $3.8 billion in exports — another record. Not only have we seen a record increase in domestic consumption and sales; we’ve also a record increase in exports. They go hand in hand.

We’ve also seen a record increase in our labour force — just under 63,000 people employed in agrifoods in 2016. That’s up over 6,000 people from 2015. That year was a banner year, in 2015, with net cash for our agrifoods sector at $440 million, up 21 percent from the prior year, and a net profit. The first time in the last ten years that our agrifoods sector was in the black. Again, just great results.

[3:25 p.m.]

We also saw an increase in funding for the land commission by more than double, from $1.9 million to $4.5 million, so they can continue to do their work independent of interference from MLAs. We’ve seen faster service in rendering their decisions because of the local panels that have been working extremely well in and around the province to make sure that decisions are done by people who have local knowledge on the land base.

We’ve seen a permanent measure, putting the Buy Local program permanently into the budget. I will, of course, have a question in estimates to find out whether or not the new Buy B.C. program is going to take those funds away from Buy Local or if that’s going to be in addition to. I’m sure the minister will be able to answer that when we get there.

One thing about the Buy Local program that I hope will continue is the whole issue of matching dollars. The matching dollars with the Buy Local program requires that the proponent puts in at least 50 percent of the dollars for the marketing promotion campaign. That’s leveraged close to $30 million in private investment towards marketing B.C. products. I hope that’s what continues with the new program. We’ll canvass that in estimates.

Another item that’s in the budget — or was in our budget before, which I need to understand if it’s in the current budget — is the amount of money going to greenhouse growers to offset them for the cost of the carbon tax, especially if we see carbon tax going up.

Some other questions that I’m not too sure of with this budget which we’ll have to canvass in estimates: is there money in this budget for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act for the registration or licensing of catteries and puppy mills? Is there money for the SPCA? We had committed an extra $5 million to help the SPCA on the capital side and, of course, I’d like to know if that’s continuing.

I see that there is money for new trade representatives to Hong Kong and South Korea. Notwithstanding the fact that the government, when it was in opposition, voted against the TPP, I would like to make sure that the government is committed to continue to expand trade with our foreign partners and therefore will continue to implement the new trade representatives in those areas.

Carbon tax. As I mentioned, the carbon tax seems to be targeting fugitive emissions and slash pile burning. I’d like to know what that means for agriculture. Does that mean that if cows are out there creating fugitive emissions, they’ll have some kind of mechanism to capture that and charge the farmers for that? When the farmers or the orchardists are cutting down old trees and burning them, or the ranchers are cutting down trees to provide land for their cattle, will that mean that they’ll also have to pay when they burn those slashes?

These are questions that I have regarding the budget that we’ll canvass more fully in the next few weeks.

Also, we’re talking about a new framework with the federal government. The staff had done a great job of negotiating a preliminary agreement with the federal government for what is currently called Growing Forward 2. It’s moving to a new framework, a new name, but essentially it’ll be very much part of the same, with some money going to business risk management — the majority of it going to BRM — and some of it going to innovation.

The question will be: will we fully fund our 40 cents on the dollar? The federal government puts in 60. We have been, in the past, putting in 40. Will this new budget allow for the government to provide our full funding of the 40 percent?

Other questions that I will have on this budget through estimates is the agriplex on Vancouver Island. We had committed $5 million in capital funding — I’d like to know if that’s still going to be there — and another $5 million for the B.C. tree fruit industry for replant. Will those dollars also be allocated through this budget? Still some questions that we don’t have the details on and which we’ll canvass through the estimates process.

There are some things that aren’t very clear in this budget, and my concern is that they might come, actually, in the February budget and at a high cost to taxpayers.

[3:30 p.m.]

Things like the $400-a-year renters rebate — very expensive. The $10-a-day universal daycare — another very expensive…. The elimination of interest payments on student loans, a $1,000 completion grant for college and university graduates, $5 million to restore provincial parks and hire more conservation officers, $10 million in more arts and culture funding, a rollback on ferry rates, a freeze on hydro rates, and income taxes that were promised in the Green platform, like the new tax on personal residence capital gains.

These are some of the items that I’m really concerned about — concerned because a government’s role is, of course, to provide social programs to citizens of the province. Also, part of the government’s responsibility is to set the conditions under which the private investment flows into the province.

In prior years, we’ve seen what NDP policies regarding trying to attract investments have done. I looked up some headlines from the ’90s, economic headlines: “NDP is a Big Spender on a Bender,” Vancouver Sun in 1994; “B.C. Economy Stagnates under NDP Rule, University of Calgary Report Warns”; “NDP Keeps Spending Like There’s No Tomorrow — Don’t We Wish” in the Province in ’99; “NDP Hammered for Creating Bad Business Climate,” Vancouver Sun, 1998.

This budget is a fundamental departure from the sound fiscal policies that will attract investment and, if continued, will reduce the quality of life of most British Columbians. It’s for that reason that I stand here in opposition to the budget, and I will not be supporting it when it comes to a vote.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

G. Begg: It’s an honour for me to stand here today as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. I, like many other Canadians, have much to be thankful for.

We are all, except for our Indigenous brothers and sisters, the progeny of immigrants to this country and have prospered because of the bounty which accepted my ancestors from Scotland and Ireland and offered them a new life in a new land. I acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional territories of the Lekwungen people, including the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations.

As original settlers in Ontario, then called Upper Canada, my forefathers in the 1800s carved a life out of the wild, untamed forests and lakes and rivers and were pioneers in the true sense of the word. I, too, was born in Ontario. My presence in this House is a continuation of a life of public service. Before being elected, I was a career member of the RCMP.

I’m here today because of the support of my wife and family and the good citizens of Surrey-Guildford. I want to acknowledge and thank my constituents in Surrey-Guildford, who worked so hard to make sure that my riding, a new riding, was first represented by a New Democrat. Surrey-Guildford was created in the 2015 redistribution from parts of Surrey-Tynehead and Surrey-Whalley.

It’s also a good time for me to express my gratitude to a whole team of supporters in my riding. Brett Barden, my campaign manager, an incredibly talented and motivated young man, whose dedication and work ethic is unparalleled anywhere inside or outside of the political arena. Trevor Loke, the youngest person ever elected to the Vancouver park board, a true visionary and an advanced intellect whose political acumen and team-building and motivational skills were so valuable to me during the campaign.

Stu Neatby, now my constituency assistant, one of the best political organizers anywhere, and I thank him for his support and ongoing leadership. Amy Choi, who was the cheerful and talented team-builder and organizer who made sure the campaign office was an open, inclusive and welcoming place. Felix Magalanis, who so capably made the calls and knocked on doors seemingly without ceasing. Hannah Watt, an engaging and charismatic young woman who added vigour and spirit to everything we did.

[3:35 p.m.]

There are many others. Glenn Girard; Dave Betker; Faroukh Williams; Bob Akester, my friend, who accompanied me to all manner of events and functions and whose history with the New Democratic Party goes back to Tommy Douglas; Ashley Fehr; Michael Cheevers; Ren Morley; Christine Dixon; along with the entire Surrey-Guildford executive — all of the hard-working donors and volunteers.

I will speak today in support of the government budget, but before I do that, first let me boast a bit about the city that I represent here, the city of Surrey. Surrey’s population has now surpassed 500,000. As of May 2016, last year, the population was 517,887. That’s an increase from 468,000 in 2011 that also represents a growth rate of 10 percent, which means we’re outpacing the national average, British Columbia, the city of Vancouver and the Vancouver region in general.

To give you some perspective on those statistics, and for comparison, between 2011 and 2016, Canada as a whole grew by 5 percent, British Columbia grew by 5.6 percent and Vancouver grew by 4.6 percent. So clearly, our growth rate at 10.6 percent surpasses everything else. With Surrey adding an average of 1,000 new residents per month, as of February 2017, the population of Surrey was estimated to be 525,000 people. It’s expected that Surrey will surpass Vancouver in population to become the largest city in B.C. by 2030.

I’m very proud to represent Surrey-Guildford, the largest municipality of Surrey, one of the most dynamic areas in the entire province.

It’s important today that we acknowledge the devastating impact that forest fires have had on our great province over these recent months, and we salute the men and women from across B.C. and around the world who’ve stepped up to meet the challenges presented by the unprecedented forest fire situation. The personal toll and the economic toll on our citizens has been daunting, and our hearts and thoughts are with all of those affected today.

I’m proud that our government is helping evacuees, communities and businesses impacted by wildfires, with $100 million in support through the Red Cross, along with $140 million in forest projects focused on wildfire risk reduction, reforestation, wildlife habitat restoration and raising awareness of the FireSmart program.

Today’s topic, however, is the budget and the update that this government recently tabled and then updated. We on this side of the House fervently believe that a budget should benefit all of the people of the province, not just the few at the top, and that’s why we’re committed to making choices that benefit everyone. It’s clear that this budget, like the election that preceded it, is a clear change in direction for this province.

This is a budget that aligns with the priorities of the people of the province of British Columbia. This is a budget that will make life better for all of the people, and it’s clear, I hope, that this is a government that works for all of the people. This budget brings to reality our commitment to make life more affordable, deliver the services that British Columbians can count on and create a strong, sustainable economy that works for everyone.

The stark reality for the past 16 years has been a Liberal government in this province where children and families struggled to get supports. Seniors couldn’t find care when they needed it. Families were unable to afford housing. Businesses couldn’t find staff because workers couldn’t afford to live in the communities they worked in. Fees were increased. People were paying more and getting less.

During the recent election campaign, I knocked on hundreds of doors in my riding. One message that became resoundingly clear very quickly was that residents of Surrey-Guildford were tired of being ignored.

[3:40 p.m.]

Time and time again, I was greeted at doorways by citizens who were fearful of their future, of their ability to maintain a lifestyle that they had worked for their entire lives. They were tired of rising fees and lesser services, of a government that was concerned more about their own priorities and privileges and not concerned about their lives and their issues.

I visited schools where portables had become the reality of the school lives for thousands of children, who were faced each day by the prospect of getting up in the morning and going not to a classroom but to a portable. Some of them had spent the majority of their school lives in portables.

Residents in Surrey-Guildford had three major concerns: education that was deteriorating, with students in overcrowded classrooms and portables and with class sizes out of control; a tax, called a toll, on the Port Mann Bridge; and a health care system that was not meeting their needs.

I will share a story with you from this past weekend from my home riding that I hope helps to illustrate some of the needs of my community.

I had the great opportunity to share some time with the Rotary Club of Surrey Foundationat their starfish backpack program, a weekend food, literacy and availability program created in response to teachers hearing the cries of their students. Too many children were coming to class on Monday morning hungry, reporting that they had not eaten over the weekend. The starfish program in Surrey is 100 percent staffed by volunteers who pack two breakfasts, two lunches, two dinners, healthy snacks and fruits into each backpack, each weekend throughout the school year. The backpacks full of food are delivered then to elementary schools once per week.

The good part of that story is that teachers are now reporting improvement in children’s reading skills, math skills and ability to focus and do cooperative work. Children have increased access to healthy foods, along with their parents.

Let me remind you that this is not a program in some Third World country. This is a program in Surrey, British Columbia, in Canada, in the 21st century.

Let me share this starfish story with you, the story from which this program was developed. While walking along a beach, an elderly gentleman saw someone in the distance leaning down, picking something up and throwing it into the ocean. As he got closer, he noticed that the figure was that of a young man picking up starfish, one by one, and tossing each one gently back into the water.

He came closer and called out: “Good morning. May I ask what it is that you’re doing?” The young man paused, looked up and replied: “Throwing starfish into the ocean.” The old man smiled and said: “I must ask, then, why you are throwing starfish into the ocean.” To this, the young man replied: “The sun is up, and the tide is going out. If I don’t throw them in, they’ll die.”

Upon hearing this, the elderly observer commented: “But young man, do you realize that there are miles and miles of beach and there are starfish all along every mile? You can’t possibly make a difference.” The young man listened politely. Then he bent down, picked up another starfish, threw it out into the ocean past the breaking waves and said: “It made a difference for that one.”

I hope that’s what we’re all about in this House, that we all dedicate our time here to making a difference in the lives of British Columbians. Although we’re separated by the artificial barriers of parties and partisan beliefs, it’s my hope that we’re united in this: that we are all here to make a difference.

[3:45 p.m.]

I believe that the reality is that there is more that unites us than divides us, and moving forward, I hope that we keep all of that forefront in our minds.

It’s shameful that in this province, in this time and in this place, we do not have a poverty reduction plan. In fact, we’re the only province that does not have a poverty reduction plan. Over 700,000 people in this province live in poverty, and 20 percent of those are children.

I am proud to be a part of this government that has created a ministry and a parliamentary secretary who are tasked with finding solutions to reducing poverty in B.C. Part of that solution is to develop, for the first time ever, a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy.

We’re going to increase child care in this budget, with $20 million in new child care investments, which will increase our spending on early childhood development and child care to $330 million this year and support more than 4,000 new child care spaces.

We’re providing $681 million over three years to help our kids get the education they deserve, with smaller class sizes along with more resources and support staff. We’re already in the process of hiring 3,500 more teachers, along with providing capital funding of $50 million to ensure spaces for our kids as they go back to school.

This is a budget that ensures that everyone benefits from our strong economy. When the economy is strong, we continue to make investments in our greatest natural resource, which is the people of the province of British Columbia. This budget will reduce inequality, invest more equitably in the services that our citizens count on and support a thriving, competitive, innovative economy.

This budget addresses climate change as a tool for long-term sustainable growth and jobs in every area of this province.

This is a budget about fairness. We’re asking people at the very top to pay a little bit more. Under the previous Liberal government, the top earners in this province got a tax break. We will correct that handout to the very rich. Now the top wage earners will pay an additional 2.1 percent on income over $150,000.

We’re cutting MSP premiums in half, saving families up to $900 per year. That is real money in the pockets of British Columbians. We’re lowering the small business tax rate by 20 percent, from 2.5 percent to 2 percent. We’re increasing the corporate tax rate by a modest 1 percent to keep us competitive and in line with other provinces. We’ve eliminated the tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges. That move alone will save ordinary British Columbians as much as $1,500 a year and commercial truck drivers up to $4,500 a year.

We want and we’re committed to making life more affordable for all of our citizens by getting started on a comprehensive plan that makes housing more affordable. We will close speculation loopholes and reduce tax fraud and money laundering in B.C. real estate. We’re investing $208 million over four years to support the construction of more than 1,700 new units of affordable rental housing in various locations across this province. We’re providing $291 million over two years to construct 2,000 modular supportive housing units for people who today are homeless.

All members of this House, I’m sure, are concerned about the opioid and addictions crisis that is ravaging our province and the state of health care in this province. I am proud that this budget will increase the base budget for the Ministry of Health by $603 million over three years, with $256 million of that to go to addressing the fentanyl emergency and the remainder going to addressing other pressures in the Health Ministry.

We’ve also established the new Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions to provide strategic leadership in addressing and coordinating a blended mental health and addictions system.

[3:50 p.m.]

We will also look after our seniors by improving access to home and community care, with $189 million over three years, through our federal-provincial agreements. We’re committed to building schools, hospitals, transit and transportation infrastructure across the province and creating jobs in every corner of B.C., with $14.6 billion in capital spending over three years.

We’re creating an innovation commission to advocate for made-in-B.C. solutions, and we’ll look at how governments can encourage innovative and sustainable industries to drive economic growth in B.C. in the 21st century. We’re moving forward on phasing out the provincial sales tax on electricity, which will help businesses all across the province compete.

We’ve been a government for a short period and have accomplished much. I am incredibly proud to support this budget and its update because it demonstrates, in a very real way, our core beliefs and principles — that government should work for people.

To the people of British Columbia, I say this: this province belongs to all of you. When it comes to B.C. finances, this is your money. You worked hard for it. This is your government, and this is your budget. I commit to working every day to ensure that the choices we make every day reflect your voice, your needs and your priorities.

M. Lee: I rise in this House today to give my response to the NDP government’s budget update. I would like to first acknowledge that we are gathered here in this House in the traditional territories of the Lekwungen people, the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations.

I would also like to thank, again, the diverse community of Vancouver-Langara for the opportunity to represent them in this House. Since the election in May, I’ve enjoyed our continued dialogues, which I started with you on your doorsteps, at coffee chats, coffee meetings and events throughout the riding, including our first annual picnic at the end of August. I’d also like to thank my new constituency staff, Mackenzie Stannard and Tanya Tan, and to congratulate Dawn Escobedo, who was with me for a short period of time and now has started law school at Thompson Rivers University.

I’d also like to acknowledge and thank my new staff here in the House — Marissa Olson, Justin Brattinga and Derek Cummings — for your great assistance to me in these first couple of weeks. Thank you to my children — Justine, Graham and Andrea — for their energetic and passionate support, and to my better half, Christina, for her staying power, compassionate spirit and sense of humour, particularly when I need it most. Thank you very much.

We have spent several months dealing with the aftermath of the May 2017 election. With this budget update, the NDP government now has their opportunity — finally, after 16 years, as they would say — to move forward on their agenda. But with this budget update, we can see just how challenged the NDP are in doing that, particularly with the need for the Green Party support.

What British Columbians need is a government that deals with the pressing challenges that face us and builds a stronger province. What they need in this House is for all 87 members to act responsibly for our entire province. We come to this House to represent the people in our ridings, including from northern British Columbia and the Kootenays, travelling every week, back and forth, between this House and our ridings. Each of us cares about the people of British Columbia and our constituents. For members opposite to suggest otherwise is misguided and, in my opinion, disrespectful.

I have seen, in the last week and a half, the kind of discussions we’ve been having across this floor, and I know that when we say we represent the people of British Columbia, we do that. We do that with honour, we do that with respect, and we do that with commitment to those men and women and families in our individual ridings.

[3:55 p.m.]

The differences in this House between us are the priorities and plans that our parties present. It’s the throne speech and budget process, where tough decisions need to be made within the finite resources that government has. These investment decisions are what we should be discussing in this House.

I stepped forward this past election to do what every one of us wants to do, no matter our political stripe, and that is to keep our province moving forward as we work to build a better B.C. When some of our other new members opposite in the House speak in response to the budget — like the member for Delta North, the member for Surrey-Guildford and the member for Saanich North and the Islands — if you listen carefully, you can hear some of the same sentiments for finding a better way for our province.

In this vein, there are some elements in the budget that I agree with. These were included in the last budget of the previous B.C. Liberal government. These included, of course, the reduction of MSP premiums by 50 percent and the reduction of the small business tax rate from 2.5 percent to 2 percent. This doesn’t make up for the increased corporate tax rate, but it will be a relief for the engine of our economy.

Phasing out PST paid on electricity is another initiative from our budget, and, of course, the $3,000 non-refundable tax credit for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers. This is especially vital in light of the record wildfire season that we’ve been facing as a province, which is another budget piece from February.

Another point that I do agree with our NDP government on is the return of funding for adult basic education and ESL. We are a diverse province and a province that needs to ensure that many who move here need to learn our official languages. It makes it easier for them to find work and attend school, as well as integrate with our communities.

Adult basic education, too, is a key part of ensuring prosperity. In addition to the B.C. Liberal government’s single-parent employment initiative, this will allow those who want to further their education and improve their lives to do so. Only those who need adult basic education cannot afford to pay tuition and other costs, and oftentimes, the single-parent employment initiative is a good way to give them an opportunity to better their lives.

I’ve had the opportunity to visit with the Multicultural Helping House Society in my riding of Vancouver-Langara, and I’ve done that a number of times over the last few weeks and months. Recently they had a jobs fair. At that jobs fair, a number of the caregivers in South Vancouver were coming to find new job training opportunities for them, and for them to take care of their families and children.

I say that when we see the NDP budget, there are a number of promises, of course, that they made to the people of British Columbia. As the members opposite would say, it’s only been nine weeks, but that’s really the concern.

During the provincial election, the B.C. Liberal Party presented a fully costed platform. The NDP presented one that had billions in uncosted promises. Despite their loud cries to the contrary during the election campaign, we now see the objections we raised during the campaign were accurate. It begs the question: what kind of trust and confidence do British Columbians have in a government that does this? Is this about false hope — false hope for the people of British Columbia? This NDP government has not been able to meet its promises to these people that they’re purporting to help.

Above everything else, I believe that British Columbians want a government that we can count on to keep their promises and not to break them. There are a number of examples of promises the NDP have made but broken in this budget, as aptly summarized by my esteemed colleague the MLA for Abbotsford-Mission — promises that they made in the media, in this chamber, in our ridings; promises they made in order to win the election.

Of course, we’ve heard there’s no plan for the $10-a-day daycare, not a mention of the $400 renter rebate, nothing on the hydro rate freeze, nothing on the ICBC freeze. There are a whole lot of promises here that the NDP made to seek votes from the people of British Columbia which are not present in this budget. The NDP promised $10 million for arts and culture — not in this budget.

That’s without even going into the fact that they promised, in their election platform, 114,000 housing units. Unless they plan on doubling production over the next few years, they’re not going to even manage do that either. At the rate they’re going in this first year, with what they have promised in this year, that’s what I’m suggesting.

After years of sitting in this House and advocating for seismic and capital spending for the K-to-12 system, we’re now seeing in this budget that the NDP have failed to increase spending — capital spending, that is — for seismic upgrading for school districts.

[4:00 p.m.]

In fact, several capital projects have been delayed, such as the New West Secondary School — the largest capital project ever undertaken by the Ministry of Education. It’s been delayed.

Our fellow British Columbians spoke loud and clear during the election, and they told us what they wanted. They wanted a strong economy, one that can afford the social programs we need. They made it clear that they value our economic success, which we have built together. They want that success and prosperity to be shared and that we look after every British Columbian, including our children, our parents and those British Columbians who need our help most.

For 16 years — yes, 16 years — B.C. Liberal governments under the leadership of Premier Gordon Campbell and Premier Christy Clark, as well as, more recently, the leadership of the member for Abbotsford West as the Minister of Finance, have made the tough decisions, with British Columbians, to build a strong financial framework with low taxes and, of course, the first carbon tax in North America, a revenue-neutral one.

This budget undermines and jeopardizes this strong fiscal framework. As many of my colleagues have noted before and during the recent election campaign, and as now demonstrated by the throne speech and in this budget, the Minister of Finance and her colleagues have laid out an aggressive and uncosted spending litany. The list of expenditures is long, and it will only continue to grow. With one budget, the NDP has sent another strong signal to investors that B.C. is no longer such a good place to invest.

As a father of three children, two of whom are in their 20s, working in Vancouver and starting to build their hopes and dreams, this budget certainly makes it tougher. As well, as the MLA for Vancouver-Langara, I want to voice concerns I have heard and lay out why much of the NDP plan is the wrong way to go for families, small businesses and others wanting to have their future in B.C.

I do want to acknowledge that the NDP deserves some credit for some firsts. As I’ve spoken in the House, they probably broke a record for having the fastest retraction and apology by a minister and a Premier. We will see where this leads. They probably also set a record for the fastest exodus of capital — millions in the short term and billions over the medium term — walking away from British Columbia when we saw LNG projects announce that they’re leaving the province.

Sadly, these are just a few examples why the NDP has already started to hurt working families in B.C. and set British Columbia up for long-term economic pain.

Simply put, I don’t see a plan for the economy. Large projects are leaving or have left, and this NDP government continues to send the wrong signals to investors. By raising taxes and spending money aggressively before they’ve even dealt with all of their major campaign commitments, the economy and, ultimately, B.C. workers and families will pay the price.

The NDP government says they will balance the books. But they took a $2.7 billion surplus and have taken this down to a rounding area away from the deficit, and they haven’t even scratched the surface when it comes to their wish list of spending. They have used up most of a $2.7 billion surplus, all the while ignoring the importance of ensuring we have a diverse economy for all British Columbians.

I don’t see a strategy for technology. There is no transportation vision for the long term, just short-term, band-aid solutions that are politically motivated. What does this government say to the people of Delta, Ladner or White Rock that want a viable solution? Why is this government so silent on the needs of Prince George, Vanderhoof and Quesnel? This is bad for local communities — Indigenous peoples, small businesses in rural and remote communities looking for a way to stay in the communities that they grew up in and want their kids to have a future in too.

British Columbians are trying it make a go of it. The costs of living in the Lower Mainland and Victoria are concerning and need to be addressed. At the same time, the rest of this province is working hard to keep the economy going, and this NDP government isn’t making life easier for them.

Let’s be honest: it’s a scary world out there. With protectionism from the United States, our lumber industry is under assault. We need a plan that will deal with America’s attack on our businesses and workers, but we also need to continue to diversify our markets. The members on the other side have already chased away investment. This is bad for our province and will have a long-term impact for future generations, who will have to pay for it.

[4:05 p.m.]

We also need to set up and be ready for the conversation on how we continue to support our technology industry. Film, digital communications and information technology are continuing to evolve, impacting commerce and trade. We need to be helping create the jobs of tomorrow while protecting the jobs of today.

Sadly, this budget has little in the way of new ideas or ways of harnessing and growing this opportunity, helping B.C. workers adapt and businesses thrive. I think a lot of this is because the NDP has a hard time understanding that we’re competing for investments, people and ideas. And that competition is global.

The NDP government is raising taxes while not putting in place the building blocks for a strong and diverse economy. Ultimately, who will suffer? I believe it will be the next generation of British Columbians, who will need to deal with the higher debt loads, deficits, higher borrowing costs and loss of opportunities.

Over time, this also means less revenue to the government to pay for schools, child care and seniors care. We are already hearing warning signs that the NDP’s unrestricted spending plan is unsustainable. DBRS has said that the NDP government will likely require more revenue to cover the costs of their aggressive spending agenda and warns that an economic downturn will challenge their fiscal plan. Vaughn Palmer in the Vancouver Sun has followed suit with his prediction that there will be more tax increases to follow.

As British Columbians, we have been very proud of our triple-A credit rating, and it is at risk. Maintaining that credit rating is fundamental to this province. With just one single credit downgrade, B.C. will pay more than $500 million on debt-servicing costs.

The previous Finance Minister for our provincial government, the member for Abbotsford West, indicated in Budget 2017 last February 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 annual debt service costs.

British Columbia’s government cannot operate in a vacuum. Interest rates are going up. On September 6, the central bank raised the prime interest lending rate by one-quarter of a point, from 0.75 percent to 1 percent. This follows the first increase in seven years, on July 12. It is expected that the Bank of Canada will raise rates again in October. That means that the cost of debt will be higher. And we are facing it at a time when spending is increasing at an exponential rate.

We are also facing a President and a government in the United States, our largest trading partner by far, that is increasingly protectionist, has made threats to tear up NAFTA and has placed devastating tariffs on our softwood lumber industry.

I remind the members opposite that the largest export industry in B.C. last year was wood, and the third was wood pulp — a record year, by the way. Of course, as members opposite would know, the second-largest export industry was mineral fuels and gas, otherwise known as oil and gas.

The budget has aggressive spending. But it also lacks a plan for more revenue other than, of course, tax increases. Of course, one of those tax increases is the increase to the carbon tax.

B.C. was the leader in North America when the B.C. Liberal government introduced the carbon tax under Premier Gordon Campbell almost ten years ago. One of the reasons why people have accepted this tax is the fact that it is revenue-neutral. It meant tax credits in other areas equal to the carbon tax collected. The NDP has now abandoned this principle as part of a blatant tax grab. Abandoning the revenue-neutral requirement of the carbon tax will raise the price at the pump by an additional seven cents a litre and also increase the cost to heat your home every year for the next four years.

That revenue neutrality was an internationally acclaimed feature of the carbon tax. Just last year B.C. received the United Nations Momentum for Change Award. A key component of that award was the revenue-neutral component of the tax. It is a fundamental piece of our carbon tax’s success. The NDP have changed that, and now the carbon tax is a cash grab, with an additional $500 million added to the bill.

Businesses and individuals in my riding of Vancouver-Langara and their customers — who are also British Columbians, and their families — are all facing an increased carbon tax. Many of them are facing an increased carbon tax, and some of them are facing increased income taxes as well.

[4:10 p.m.]

With the NDP, there’s no tax relief in sight. Yet the NDP are trying to claim that this is a budget for the people. I’m not sure which people it is trying to help, but it certainly isn’t many people in my riding of Vancouver-Langara and certainly not the majority of British Columbians.

Without revenue neutrality, the increase to the carbon tax will see an estimated $500 million out of the pockets of taxpayers over the next three years, which hardly makes life more affordable. The result of this NDP tax hike is that the cost will be passed on to consumers and business, yet another cost of doing business in British Columbia.

It’s no wonder that since the NDP seized power with the help of the Greens, small business confidence has plummeted seven points, from first in Canada to near last. Raising the corporate tax rate from 11 percent to 12 percent is also a cost that will be passed on to consumers, the families that the NDP claim to care about.

Investors locally or globally consider taxation heavily when they choose where to put their investment dollars. Being a low-cost tax environment is our province’s competitive advantage. This matters when companies look to locate their operations and hire employees. Between the loss of revenue neutrality on the carbon tax and the increase in corporate taxes, it’s no wonder that PNW LNG and Aurora LNG have cancelled planned projects in B.C.

When the Premier was Leader of the Opposition, he and the now Environment Minister wrote a letter to the federal government saying no to Pacific NorthWest LNG. When he and the MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head signed their deal, Petronas cancelled that project altogether. That lost investment cost $36 billion to this province, which would have been the largest private sector investment in Canadian history. We lost 5,000 jobs when PNW LNG was cancelled — good, family-supporting jobs in the area of the province that is suffering. This government’s outright hostility towards that project made that happen.

The reckless activity and attitude towards resource development meant that 1,139 B.C. businesses missed out on contracts and employment. The cancellation of the project means that First Nations and other communities will miss out on over $156 million in contributions. That can create new life in communities. It can mean new infrastructure and new businesses. But the new government’s tunnel vision means that this will never come to pass. And now they’ve raised the corporate tax. It appears that these other investments will likely go away as well.

Another increase was the raising of the personal income tax rate for individuals earning over $150,000, from 14.7 percent to 16.8 percent. The NDP like to phrase this as raising taxes on millionaires or rich friends, but they rarely mention that the actual threshold is much lower. Attracting prime talent means having a competitive edge, and I struggle to see how the Vancouver tech sector and many others will attract key talent when taxes are higher than other jurisdictions.

What truly surprised me was the elimination of a tax credit — specifically, the children’s fitness and arts tax credit. What’s the reasoning behind that? Many parents need those tax credits for their children to be able to take part in those activities, and the NDP budget takes them away in order to pay for a taxpayer subsidy to their own political parties.

The Budget 2017 Update includes only modest increases to transportation and infrastructure investments. The list of key capital investments in the transportation sector is identical to the February budget — identical. Despite massive promises made by the NDP government across this province, there is no change to the transportation capital budget. There is nothing to implement the NDP commitments on ferry fares in this budget, which were to restore the seniors discount, reduce fares by 15 percent on secondary routes and freeze them on major routes. Not a dime.

The NDP government’s cancellation of the Massey bridge is another serious concern for the people that the government purports to care about. Highway 99 is a key corridor for provincial and national economic development, along a route that moves $25 billion worth of goods per year. By cancelling the project, the NDP government has also cancelled 9,000 jobs.

Of course, we’ve also learned that $900 million in savings could have been realized by moving ahead with a proposal that came in below the original project estimate. Instead, the costs associated with the minister’s decision to cancel the project include $66 million by the province, $25 million by B.C. Hydro and millions more to the two proponents in the RFP process.

[4:15 p.m.]

Instead of a plan to help fix the fact that the George Massey Tunnel is the worst traffic bottleneck in the province, with 80,000 people of British Columbia a day who are constantly being stuck in rush hour traffic, we now have a missed opportunity to save billions and tens of millions in incurred cancellation costs, not to mention the wasting of over 250 meetings with the municipalities of Richmond and Delta and over 50 meetings with Metro Vancouver to discuss topics such as traffic, land use, transit and air quality.

This is the kind of consultation that happened in the community, with over 14,000 pages of information available. But the Minister of Transportation claims that that wasn’t enough consultation. Project completion would have meant at least 30 minutes a day saved by commuters, a 35 percent reduction in collisions and a 13,000 tonne reduction in annual greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, commuters get nothing from this government but delays and wasted tax dollars.

The NDP says that this is a budget for the people. For it to be that, it needs to consider our province’s future and not just look to appear to address some present challenges. Is this truly their new way of governing for the people of B.C., breaking their promises and destabilizing our fiscal framework?

The NDP is putting our credit-worthiness at risk. It’s scaring off investors. It’s taxing everyone, even with an historic surplus. And it isn’t keeping many of its key promises. For these reasons and out of concern for my constituents in Vancouver-Langara, I am not in support of this budget.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak in favour of the Budget 2017 Update. It’s a great honour to rise as the MLA for Vancouver-Kensington. I’d like to start and recognize that we are on the unceded territory of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations. I’m very honoured to be returned for my third term as the MLA for Vancouver-Kensington.

In speaking in favour of the Budget 2017 Update, I’d like to start and just thank and recognize the support I had for the election. I mentioned in the throne speech, but I’d like to revisit that again and also thank the voters and folks from Vancouver-Kensington for placing their faith in me and, really, for the outstanding effort and support of my family — my parents, my sister, my cousin and relatives as well as my partner, Natalie — and my campaign team of volunteers and supporters. We had a great effort, and it was a lot of fun.

We were on the doorstep and heard a lot of the issues and concerns in Vancouver-Kensington that I think were reflected right across our province and really came out of the experience of 16 long years of the B.C. Liberals and their decisions in terms of the priorities that they had set as a government.

I’m pleased to support our budget update. It really represents a new vision for British Columbia. It’s a balanced budget update that has choices that make life more affordable and improve services, particularly appreciated by folks in Vancouver-Kensington. It’s working on behalf of and to benefit everyone in our province.

I think it’s a real shift, certainly a contrast with the 16 years of direction under the B.C. Liberals. Really, at its core, it’s characterized as investing in the people of British Columbia, siding with people, addressing the crisis of affordability, strengthening public services and also looking to keep our economy innovative and growing. These are the key themes in the budget. It reflects the key themes that I heard on the doorstep from folks in the neighbourhood.

[4:20 p.m.]

I want to start with the issue of affordability, which I’m sure that all members, right across on this side of the House and on the other side, are familiar with, having heard the stories of the squeeze of affordability. We know that this budget update really pledges to make life more affordable for British Columbians. I’m very happy that starting January 1, 2018, MSP premiums will be cut by 50 percent, saving couples up to $900 per year, and individuals will save up to $450 a year. These savings are our government’s first step towards eliminating MSP premiums, which we saw double under the B.C. Liberal government.

One of the reasons why the MSP premiums were so regressive is that it was a flat tax that really impacted families. Even if they were making $50,000 a year, they paid the same fees as a family making $500,000 or more a year. We’re looking to really address this inequality and to make a difference in people’s lives and make a difference for families.

We’ve also committed to eliminate tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges, effective September 1. Savings for commuters who use the Port Mann Bridge five times a week equal $1,500 a year, and commercial truck drivers save $4,500 annually. These savings mean thousands of drivers who use these bridges every day will have more money in their pockets to invest in British Columbian businesses.

With respect to removing the tolls, it’s also an issue of equity and fairness as well. I think it was fundamentally unfair for folks who had to use either the Port Mann or Golden Ears bridges to pay a toll, while we didn’t see other roadways or bridges with tolls on them. So this is not only an issue of affordability but also equity.

We know — and I heard, certainly — that the pocketbook issues for families, the challenge to make ends meet on affordability, also really extended to the crisis around housing affordability. That was, certainly in Vancouver, one of the areas where we saw just incredible, tremendous pressure — with difficulty, in particular, for families that had a number of children — to find affordable housing.

That really extended right across the continuum — the difficulty where homeownership was really out of reach, to rental housing, to emergency housing. It’s a very difficult situation and, certainly, a crisis that had developed and built over 16 years of B.C. Liberals not prioritizing and taking steps to address the housing affordability crisis.

I’m very pleased that we have, in our budget update, the first steps in government’s long-term strategy. We have a strategy to address housing affordability and homelessness. This is just an update. It’s not an official budget. We will be introducing that in February. But it’s making an important first step and an important commitment towards addressing the housing crisis.

We have pledged over $200 million in capital investment to help build over 1,700 affordable rental units across the province to assist low- to moderate-income renters, seniors and adults with mental health challenges or developmental disabilities, as well as 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 support services that are needed.

This is a significant step. These initial investments will support the development of a comprehensive housing strategy to partner — and what’s important in terms of a successful housing strategy is to partner — with the federal government, the municipal government, First Nations developers and not-for-profit associations to collectively look at addressing this issue.

[4:25 p.m.]

We know, and we’ve heard from both sides of the House, that British Columbia is certainly a great province to raise a family. It’s beautiful, and there are many opportunities but not for everyone. We’ve seen the impact of 16 years of B.C. government policy. British Columbia has the distinction of having amongst the highest rates of poverty in our country, the highest inequality rates and, also, the largest income gap — the largest gap between low- and high-income earners. This is no accident. B.C. is the only jurisdiction without a poverty reduction plan.

I’m very proud that we made the commitment in the election, and we’re delivering on that. It’s reflected in the budget update. We are going to implement a poverty reduction plan, a poverty reduction strategy, to address the 700,000 British Columbians living in poverty — 20 percent children. We know that half of those in poverty are the working poor. They’re not even necessarily receiving income assistance. Because we’ve seen a growth in our low-wage economy, parents and families working one, two, three jobs are still not able to be above the poverty line.

The poverty reduction strategy, which is led by the Minister of Social Development from Vancouver-Hastings, is looking at bringing in a plan that every other province has. I’m very honoured, also, to be the Parliamentary Secretary for Poverty Reduction and very proud that we finally have an increase in income assistance rates — we haven’t seen an increase in ten years — from $610 to $710 and, also, an increase of $100 for people with disabilities. This is a first step to address these very abysmal rates of poverty, to really put money in people’s pockets and to give them supports that they haven’t seen for over a decade.

We’ve also indicated that we are increasing earning exemptions by $200 a month. This will help to encourage folks to transition into the workforce and, also, when they work, be able to keep that extra money to support themselves and their families. I think that’s a very positive step. Also, we’ve made the commitment to restore the transit pass for people with disabilities, which was removed by the B.C. Liberals.

These are initial steps that we have reflected in the budget update. We have much more to do in terms of bringing in a comprehensive poverty reduction plan. We are looking, as well, at a guaranteed annual income pilot project, which was recommended and brought forward by the Green Party, and we appreciate that. Really, it’s an issue that has been discussed and debated for hundreds of years in terms of public policy. There have been a few…. Now there’s a pilot in Ontario. We’ve seen some in the Nordic countries. I’m very excited that British Columbia will be undertaking a pilot project on this.

As well, when we talk about the reality of people living in poverty — 700,000 people — it’s an astounding figure. Members can see that, really, across the province. It’s indicated by people subscribing to food banks. We’re seeing those numbers increase. As well, we see that it creates not only stresses on those individuals, but it really limits opportunities, particularly for young people, for youth and children growing up in poverty. Growing up in poverty has been proven and shown to really limit opportunities and success for young people.

We also have the upcoming sixth annual Welfare Food Challenge, which I invite members to join. I know that the Minister of Advanced Education and others have taken that. I’m going to be taking it this year.

[4:30 p.m.]

The challenge is put out to live on what people on welfare live on in one week — that’s $19 a week — for food. That’s the first week of November. If there are any other MLAs who want to really see what’s the reality of living on these levels of income assistance, there’s that opportunity. I invite them to join me to do that.

We also are addressing issues of affordability, which are really crushing, I think — a crushing impact on people, on British Columbians.

That’s one of the reasons why we saw the support in terms of the results on election day on May 9. It took a while for that to play out — certainly, unprecedented returns with respect to the election. If you look at the voters, the people who voted for both the NDP and the Green Party, you see a clear majority of British Columbians looking for change, looking for a government that speaks to them about their priorities, talks about addressing the issues they’re dealing with in their lives and makes a commitment.

The NDP, and also the Greens when they campaigned, made commitments around addressing the affordability crisis. I’m pleased that is in our budget speech.

We’ve talked about the importance and need for improving public services. Certainly, our commitment to increase to $681 million in the Ministry of Education over the next three years for our kindergarten-to-grade-12 education system is fundamental and key. It’s welcomed by parents and families in Vancouver-Kensington. Since I’ve been elected, in my first two terms, I’ve been busy working with parents, students and teachers around the issue of school closures. I heard many stories with respect to the challenges and stresses that teachers faced, with cuts that had to be made in the classroom, the growing class sizes and the cuts of specialist teachers.

The Supreme Court decision mandated the need to return to the levels of 2002. We’ve seen, really, a battle against teachers over the last 16 years of the B.C. Liberals, so the commitment in this budget update to address and to restore adequate class composition, sizes is well received. Parents are very relieved to hear that. That is certainly an important commitment.

We know that the fentanyl emergency and the opioid crisis really has impacted communities across the province, including Vancouver-Kensington. It’s very tragic. The deaths of young people in particular are very sad. Our government has committed that we will invest…. We made the commitment to bring in a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. I’m very pleased that we have a very capable minister who has been on the job and on the front lines of ensuring that we address this emergency and this crisis and make the commitment to support communities, to support families, to prioritize this issue and bring an end to this crisis. That’s a major commitment.

As well, we have new investments in child care, which is also a driving cost for families, and investment in the healthy kids program to support low-income families — particularly to improve dental supports and also expand services to include hearing aids, which are important for children to ensure that they have that support and that success in their young lives. That will make a difference in people’s lives.

[4:35 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

We also have invested in the residential tenancy branch. It will receive an additional $7 million over the next three years to make sure renters are treated fairly. We have low rental vacancy rates across the province, and the branch needs additional resources to make sure that renters and landlords understand their rights and responsibilities. We’re looking to support renters and landlords.

This season we’ve seen unprecedented wildfires across our province. It’s our worst wildfire season in the province’s history, consuming more than one million hectares of forest. The commitment has been made for $100 million in support, as well as $15 million to upgrade wildfire infrastructure and an additional $140 million to protect communities from the wildfire with projects to invest in infrastructure.

Supporting B.C.’s economy, investing in people and investing in a sustainable economy is also a big priority. We have made the commitment to lower the small business corporate income tax rate from 2.5 to 2 percent. This is key, also, in Vancouver-Kensington. There are many small businesses, and certainly, they are struggling with issues around the affordability crisis and the ability to find rental units. That is a recognition of the importance of small businesses but, also, looking to reduce the tax burden on small businesses. That would be well received.

We’re also going to be phasing out the PST on electricity for businesses. That’s been a long-standing request from businesses to help keep businesses competitive so they can create good jobs across British Columbia.

Of course, the role of every government is to invest in infrastructure, and we’re going to continue that. We have a three-year, taxpayer-supported capital spending of $14.6 billion right across the province. As well, we have committed $5 million for initiatives to look at how we move our economy forward.

We are appointing an innovation commissioner to look at innovation in the technology sector. We are also striking the emerging economy task force to look at how business in our economy is changing and really to be at the front of that over the next 25 years — and also, the fair wages commission to address the high number of working poor and the low-wage economy that we have in British Columbia.

These are three components, looking forward, in terms of how we are going to address the changing economy and ensure that British Columbia is positioned to move forward.

In terms of addressing climate change, we’ve made the commitment to increase the carbon tax by $5 a tonne, starting April 1, 2018, and to increase the climate action tax credit to help low- and middle-income families. We’re going to be ending the requirement for the carbon tax to be revenue-neutral — for those funds to be used to support families and also fund green initiatives to address our climate action commitments.

This is a budget update that I’m proud of. It addresses the key commitments that the NDP made in the election. I think that it moves forward in terms of putting in place concrete commitments that are going to benefit and support British Columbians — addressing the crisis of affordability, improving public services that British Columbians depend on. Also, it’s investing in people and investing in our economy to ensure that we have a sustainable economy that works for all British Columbians and ensuring that British Columbians have the opportunity to really have the skills to be successful in a new economy in British Columbia.

I’d like to conclude my remarks. I’m very honoured to speak in favour of the budget, and I’ll be taking my seat now.

[4:40 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: I am pleased to rise today to speak to this budget update — pleased in some ways, anyway. It was, after all, built on a B.C. Liberal framework and is full of B.C. Liberal 2017 budget commitments, which the NDP are now attempting to take credit for. Not that they can be taking credit for it all — the fact that we have one of the strongest economies in Canada, or the fact that we have a triple-A credit rating, low unemployment rates and strong job growth. They’re not taking credit for that yet, but they’re certainly relying on our good work.

However, the 50 percent reduction in MSP premiums; increases in income and disability assistance; increase to earnings exemptions; increases to education funding at all levels; seniors care commitments; small business tax cuts; waiving PST on electricity — all are commitments from last February’s B.C. Liberal budget. These are good things, which I do support. But it’s too bad that this government’s attention did waver, and it seems that the minister forgot the other side of the ledger.

There’s no mention of maintaining a strong economy, other than rosy projections and a hope and a wish. Well, I do hope and I do wish that there were another part to this budget, which seems focused mostly on tax-and-spend, study, task force and consultation paralysis.

I would have thought that there had been plenty of time over the last 16 years to make plans on how to grow the economy from that side of the House, although I suppose I must acknowledge that these last months have been somewhat tumultuous and maybe taken them off their track. It has been a fairly wild ride in the last five to six months, even by the standards of British Columbia politics.

If you can indulge me, for a moment. It is interesting, when you think about our political lives…. No matter how you look at it, there’s little or nothing in your life — in your family or your friends or your business or your job or recreations or relationships — that every four years you toss up in the air, just for a lark, and wait with bated breath to see what happens. But that is the life of politics, I have to admit, and one I volunteered for.

Even by those standards, I think that this year has been particularly odd. I wonder at what the first-time, newly electeds must be thinking. I know that as a member of the rookie class of 2013, it was a bit of a brave new world for me. Even as we came into an existing structure and existing systems, it was very foreign, and there was much to learn. But for this year’s class of newly elected, the confusion and the hyper-speculation; recounts; backroom negotiations; bargaining, both in good faith and bad; wheeling and dealing, culminating in a formal parliamentary faceoff — a re-set — and a new type of arrangement, one where three members of an 87-member Legislature arguably have more power than any three members in the history of B.C. politics.

It is extraordinary. Holding a government to ransom, telling government: “No, no, listen, this is how it is.” Congratulations. Amazing. But I guess this is a new normal, at least as far as one or two of these parties are interested in moving our system.

It’s interesting to note that in the Green throne speech…. Oh no, sorry. We didn’t…. Uh, was it NDP? The GreenDP throne speech? Anyway, in the throne speech we heard a couple of weeks ago — whoever wrote it — the government will set the term for a referendum on electoral reform in time for the 2018 municipal election. So the plan in 11 months is that government will have everything in place to prepare the people to make fundamental changes to our electoral system.

We should be wondering a few things other than how this was going to take place in such a ridiculously short period of time, especially when there are so many unknowns. At this point, we’re months from a referendum. We have no idea what’s going to be proposed. What is the question? Well, who the heck knows. What is the threshold? Who the heck knows. Will the public understand and be confident in making a decision? Well, who the heck knows.

[4:45 p.m.]

The government, interestingly, promises to actively campaign in favour of whatever is proposed, because, I suppose, the NDP can highly recommend whatever the Meggs brain trust can cook up. “Trust us,” they say. “It’s going to be good.” Well, I, for one, would like to know the answers to some of these questions before being all in, but I guess this uncertainty is the new normal.

Now, it’s not just about the NDP. They do have their senior partner or junior partner or whatever. Maybe it’s more a puppet master demanding and extracting consideration. Let’s hope that this is not the new normal. We have the NDP tentatively paying off their debts to their union masters, while outsized Green members extort — nay, nay, nay; sorry, persuade — the government to see the error of their ways.

If they want to cling to power, then they’d better pay homage to the three most powerful MLAs in the history of B.C. politics. I know how I feel: uncertain and concerned. I know that I am not alone. I know that investment, and those concerned about job security, are feeling the same. I do hope this is not B.C.’s new business as usual.

The budget update has just disposed of the entire $2.7 billion surplus but projected an ongoing rosy future and a hopeful continuation of the strong B.C. Liberal free enterprise economy. I’m not as confident. The budget is lopsided. Tax hikes and spending increases — that about sums it up. Oh no, that’s right; they did cancel the Massey Tunnel replacement project. That theoretically saved some money. But oh, it didn’t actually save any money. It will cost money.

Nobody really denies that there needs to be a Massey Tunnel fix. I suggest that the Massey Tunnel replacement project will be done — just not right now, and not for the price that’s on the table. What will happen is that this project will go ahead at a later date, at a cost dramatically higher than what’s on the table today — billions more. Mark my words: billions more.

The RFP brought in a project almost $1 billion under what was forecast. Staff even recommended that the minister try and extend the terms to give a little more time in order to make a more considered decision. But nope — cancelled. It seems that $900 million saved is neither here nor there to this government.

It’s a political imperative, of the taxpayer-funded political office of confidence and supply, that dictates all. As an aside, I’m not sure why this office, which manages a purely political agreement, should be paid for by taxpayers, but that’s one we’ll pursue at a later date. But when one partner doesn’t seem to think that prior commitments are relevant — which is a rather confounding thing to say — all bets are off, and the tail wags the dog. Of course, we all have course corrections to make, but to say, “Everything that came before doesn’t matter” seems more than is reasonable.

I was talking about the Massey, wasn’t I? I know, let’s get back to that. Not only will the NDP pay $900 million more than necessary, but there’s only so much capacity in our system, in our construction industry. There’s no doubt that concurrent projects are likely in the cards. The Pattullo must go ahead, although no one seems to know how that’ll be paid for. The Mayors Council had anticipated that it would be paid for, in part, by tolls. But evidently, that is off the table. The plan seems to not have a user-contribution component.

The current government seems to be a big fan of taxpayer-supported debt. In fact, these announcements…. Between the Port Mann toll removal, the Pattullo replacement — which, interestingly, isn’t a provincial piece of infrastructure — and the Golden Ears, another bridge which is not a provincial piece of infrastructure…. Between these projects, some $6 billion has been added to the taxpayer-supported debt burden with the sweep of a proclamation and little else. A business plan? Pssh. Any plan? Not likely.

I can imagine a scenario where Metro mayors saw these guys coming. They say: “Hey, you want to buy a bridge? Well, we have a great bridge. A great name: Golden Ears. A pretty new bridge. You know what? We’ll throw in an old classic. It’s called the Pattullo. It needs a little bit of work, but a great deal. Two for one, and you can take them both. It’ll be good.”

[4:50 p.m.]

“Okay, we’ll take them.” Yep, a good deal at twice the price — even when their Green partner called the move “reckless” and “profoundly troubling.” I guess the secretariat was asleep at the switch.

Anyway, the Pattullo will be replaced. It has to be. Surrey LRT and Broadway SkyTrain extension are in the works. These are big projects on top of Pattullo. It’s not hard to imagine that this project stacking will lead to industry capacity challenges and cost escalation as resources are stretched.

Just imagine in this environment if the minister finally, when the minister finally does anything about the Massey Tunnel replacement…. Is there a chance that B.C. will get the same price as it does today, as it has the opportunity today? No, not a chance. It won’t be $2.5 billion. It will be double that or more.

This project needs to be done in order so that it will allow transit to once again be a viable option in Delta and beyond, so that billions of dollars of goods for export can get to the U.S. in Deltaport and tens of thousands of commuters can save hours a day. Today for $2.6 billion, you get capacity and safety from Bridgeport to Highway 91. This is way more than just a bridge, and now it’s cancelled. Opportunity lost at an opportunity cost. Uncertainty, certainly.

This is the new way of doing business. We’ve heard this rhetoric for months now. Doing government differently — and “differently” is defined as spending more and getting less.

I wonder if the same principles are at work at other MOTI responsibilities, B.C. Ferries, for example, is having a record year-over-year — more passengers. I think the most passengers, actually, ever carried by B.C. Ferries.

B.C. Ferries has generated a small profit, around $27 million, the bulk of which they have rolled back into additional sailings while continuing to reduce the age of the fleet through the acquisition of new vessels, improving services, generating efficiencies, including terminal upgrades. But the intention of this government seems to be to handicap the corporation by cutting its revenues at a time when more passengers are travelling than ever in its history.

The story is the same. When the demand is at its greatest, cut fares, create excessive demands, create overloads and congestion. Cut the corporation’s revenue, so they’ll be less able to fulfill demand. Maybe with it all, a crazy-like-a-fox plan to take this B.C. Ferry service back into government and add more billions to our taxpayer-supported debt, with the added NDP bonus of swelling the ranks of government employees. Certainly, an issue of uncertainty to follow with interest.

Speaking of swelling government ranks, there was no mention in either the throne speech or the budget of what is government’s intention with regards to the impending demands for sale and distribution of recreational marijuana, as per the federal government’s intentions. In keeping with this regime’s big government and Big Brother approach, I suspect that free enterprise will not be allowed to play a part in this business opportunity.

This will be another chance for this government to swell the ranks of government and keep small business at bay. It’s surprising that the government makes no mention of this emerging issue, as there remains only nine months to implement a plan. July 1 is the deadline. Does the government have a plan? Well, I suspect that more government is the plan.

What other non-plan or uncertainty has government created? Well, one thing is certain. We should be considering returning our UN Momentum for Change Award that B.C. was honoured to receive last year. This UN award was presented to British Columbia at COP 22 for our revenue-neutral carbon tax. B.C. was globally recognized for our innovative approach and presented as an internationally forward-thinking jurisdiction with regard to carbon pricing. Other jurisdictions do have carbon set taxes, but the UN felt that revenue-neutrality, that aspect of our carbon tax, needed highlighting.

Here’s what the OECD said. “Organizations such as the World Bank and the United Nations have identified British Columbia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax as a model to follow. The carbon tax is a textbook example of how to get carbon pricing right,” says the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.”

[4:55 p.m.]

Well, no more. This is a textbook example of how government will increasingly reach into your pocket to fund its pet projects. This will become a never-ending tax grab to feed the beast of big government at the expense of good policy, the economy and your pocketbook.

This climate initiative is compromised, and another is looking precarious — Site C. This is a project that really has always interested me.

There’s no doubt that globally we’re on track to a low-carbon future. B.C.’s targets have us moving from 63 million tonnes of CO₂ production annually to 12 million tonnes by 2015 and essentially zero by the turn of the century. It’s pretty clear to me that we’ll not only need to be carbon-neutral but actually carbon-negative by that time. The current reality is that 75 percent of the energy that we consume here in B.C. every day, every month, every year is fossil fuel and therefore carbon-intensive.

To convert that hydrocarbon energy into clean electricity will require many multiples of the equivalent of Site C. As Mark Jaccard, SFU professor and well-respected energy sustainability economist, has said in numerous publications in the last couple of weeks: “In the case of our 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets…evidence shows that we must substantially increase our generation of dependable electricity. If the Site C dam is built and if we are true to our climate goals, all of its electricity will be used in B.C. soon after completion.”

While I recognize that there are many risks in making any long-term bet on our global energy future, a firm supply of power that has the capacity to be turned on and off almost at will is a very attractive proposition — unlike many of the intermittent renewable options, which need to be backstopped with a firm power source, like Site C.

B.C. Hydro has done a great job finding efficiencies in its system, moving to higher efficiencies in appliances and consumer products, but the low-hanging fruit, so to speak, has been eaten. Efficiencies will be harder to come by, and demand will continue to escalate. Even just looking at transportation, meeting those needs over the next decades will put a huge strain on our system.

Just imagine — 2030. Most car manufacturers will only be producing electric or other zero-emission hybrid vehicles. It’s the end of the day, in the middle of the winter. It’s dark, and it’s cold. Electric heaters are turned up, and commuters are getting home and plugging in their cars, firing up their electronics. All the while, run-of-river projects are at their lowest period of generation. Solar is, at best, 30 percent efficient and certainly not much use on a cold, dark winter night. We’ll be hoping there’s a storm somewhere out on the coast, where wind turbines can help out. This is where the strength and value of those big batteries…. Those stored-water generation systems can be generating clean energy at the flip of a switch.

I’ve long felt that firm power should be valued and priced into our systems differently than intermittent sources, but that’s a discussion for another day.

In terms of firm power, there are limited options right now. Clearly, thermal coal is one source of firm power, but that’s not one that we support in British Columbia. Natural gas is another option, and that’s where Alberta is going, transitioning by 2030 from coal to 30 percent renewables and 70 percent natural gas. But we can be cleaner than that, and we are.

Geothermal is really interesting and has great potential, but so far it has not proven itself here in British Columbia. We have had tens of millions spent, even in my riding — in the Sea to Sky, in the Meager Creek area — trying to make it work, but all to no avail. The heat is there but not the water, from what I understand. This is coming from a B.C. company that is hugely successful in geothermal production in other jurisdictions, but not so far here in British Columbia. Its day may come, but not today.

Nuclear is another option, but we’ve determined not to go there in British Columbia, and while fusion is 20 years away — like it has been for the last 50 years — the best we can be is hopeful there.

So far, hydro storage is our best bet, as far as I can see, and we have a long history of successful development of hydroelectric projects. In fact, this province’s economy was built on clean hydro power, and we should be building on those legacy projects. Site C will allow us to develop a more robust and diverse renewable energy future with its base load power. This is not about limiting renewables. It’s about increasing opportunities in our increasingly electrified world.

While government is playing politics with our future yet again and creating investment uncertainty, I try and remain hopeful that the Premier understands the opportunity and value that this project creates for British Columbia, not just for today but for many generations to come.

[5:00 p.m.]

I try to remain hopeful, but what we have seen so far with this government, with its Green tail wagging the dog, with minority rule and pet projects paid out to political masters…. The only reason this budget speech is not a complete disaster of tax and spend is because it is built on the solid fiscal performance of previous B.C. Liberal governments.

We will see the true stripes of this government next February. I have no doubt they will continue to dismantle the legacy of strong fiscal performance and continue to ignore the important revenue side of the ledger.

This budget did not mention the economy in any way other than as a cash cow. Given the risks that our economy faces domestically and internationally from higher interest rates, trade agreements, transfer payments and litigation, more attention must be paid to growing our economy and creating a climate for investment so that the people that this budget is about have the opportunity to succeed and thrive.

Instead, this government focuses on increasing taxes, bloating government, creating investment uncertainty and limiting the enterprise of the people it purports to represent. Not a happy prospect and not one that I can support.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to Budget 2017, the budget update presented by my colleague the Minister of Finance, and hopefully to answer some of the questions and the concerns and the errors in the previous members’ comments and debate, which I listened to with great interest.

Before I start that, this is my first opportunity since the election to speak in this House. I want to make a few comments around that, not the least of which is it’s really nice to be back on this side of the House after 12 years of sitting on that side of the House. And I can tell you that I did have a little smile when I was looking back at some colleagues on the other side who were with me way back, when I sat here and they sat there. I’m going: “The world has come full circle, and that’s kind of cool.”

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Exactly. Everything that’s old is new again, except I’m probably a little older than I am newer.

Having said that, I also want to thank my constituents for placing their confidence in me on election day. It was very satisfying. I can tell you it really is a great sense of pride, whether it’s your first time or second time, to be a member of this body. It really is a unique…. It is the most exclusive club in the province of British Columbia.

We get to speak on behalf of our constituents. We get to bring their issues forward, whether you’re in government or whether you’re in opposition, whether you’re in a third party. That is truly a unique privilege and a unique honour, and it’s something that I never forget.

I want to thank my campaign team. I want to thank my partner, Doug. I want to thank the hundreds of people and the people of Port Coquitlam for placing their confidence in me. As I said during the election campaign, I intend to do my best.

Part of that is standing up on this budget speech and talking about what it means to my constituency, what they voted for, what I heard on the doorstep and how this budget deals with many of those issues.

Clearly, front and centre of this campaign, certainly in my riding, were the issues of affordability. We’ve seen it in skyrocketing property values that have made housing affordability out of reach for many people trying to get into the housing markets. I mean, house prices in the last 11 years have trebled in my community.

We have traditionally been an affordable part of the Lower Mainland. Increasingly now, kids who’ve grown up in Port Coquitlam can’t afford to live there, or their dream of owning a house means that they have to go further and further out. And that’s not good.

We have seen people on social assistance watch their rates stay static and have to deal with increasing costs. We have seen tuition fees climb. We have seen affordability for people — through increased fees, whether it’s ICBC or hydro, make life more and more unaffordable.

[5:05 p.m.]

One of the big ones in our area has been the issue of tolls. The fact of the matter is that tolls are often, when you listen to the media, presented as a south of the Fraser issue.

The fact of the matter is that it’s not. It’s just as much north of the Fraser, in the ridings of the Tri-Cities and eastwards into Maple Ridge. A third of the people who leave the Tri-Cities every day cross one of those two bridges. The cost to them — for a single person, $150 a month, potentially, in tolls, forgetting pleasure trips or family trips over the bridge — is a significant amount of money. It’s $3,000 a year for a couple. That’s after-tax money. Nowhere else in the province does that happen.

That’s why I listened with interest when the hon. member was saying that we had done this and that this was not a good thing, as I discerned.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: He said, “looking for a plan,” and he was going: “I don’t know how they’re going to pay for things. How are they going to pay for the Pattullo Bridge? How are they going to pay for this?” It’s funny, because I was thinking there: “You know, I never heard that member or any of the other members stand up and go: ‘How are we going to pay for the Sea to Sky Highway.’” It was okay when it was in his neck of the woods to have a brand-new highway. It’s okay when it’s in their neck of the woods to…. “We don’t want tolls on the Sea to Sky Highway.”

I also noticed that the member from the Okanagan, from Penticton, probably didn’t complain either when the tolls came off the Coquihalla Highway. That’s okay.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it had not been paid for. It had not been completely paid for. No, no, that was okay. We can take the tolls off the Coquihalla, and we can make sure there are no tolls on the Sea to Sky. But when we follow through on an election campaign promise to remove the tolls, oh my god, the sky is falling.

They also don’t want to mention that they were going to take two-thirds of the tolls off themselves. So it’s okay to take two-thirds of the tolls off. It’s okay to take the tolls off the Coquihalla. It’s okay to make sure the Sea to Sky has no tolls, but God forbid that we should take the remaining one-third of the tolls off the Port Mann and the Golden Ears and make life more affordable for people, because if we do that, somehow the sky is going to fall.

Well, I can tell you that the reaction since we have done that, in my constituency, has been phenomenal. I have had so many people coming up to me saying: “Thank you for taking the tolls off the Port Mann. Thank you for taking the tolls off the Golden Ears.”

I had someone come up to me, and he goes: “You know what? You’ve just saved a lot of arguments in my family.” I said: “Why?” He said: “Well, because one son has just got engaged and goes back and forth to see his fiancé, who lives in Surrey, and then the other has just got a job and goes over there. They’re trying to save for a house, and guess what. They’re now saving at least $150 a month — for one of them. And the other…. The two of them are saving $300 a month, and they’re able to put that away for a down payment. They’re able to put that away for things that they need to raise a young family.”

That’s what this government was elected on — a promise of making life more affordable, a promise of putting people and families first, as opposed to a few well-connected people that that side of the House wants to deal with.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, now we’re hearing about hospitals.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Member…

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …I would have thought that after question period today, you would have stayed from wanting to make comments or ask questions about hospitals. If there was one thing I learned today, it’s that when it comes to hospitals, and in the case of the one up in Terrace, the member for Skeena should be asking the former Finance Minister for an apology for not approving the concept plan after they had a press release and a photo op saying it was going to go ahead.

[5:10 p.m.]

What we have said…. What we have laid out in this budget is a plan forward that deals with affordability. We said during the election campaign that we were going to eliminate MSP premiums, but we were going to start doing it by a 50 percent cut. Well, that’s going to be going ahead. That’s going to be saving people all kinds of money. That’s going to be saving families a great deal of money.

When you put that in the context of also removing the tolls on the bridge, that means a lot to families in Port Coquitlam. That means a lot to families in the Tri-Cities and up the valley into Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows and Mission. People have waited 16 years for a government that puts their interests first, and that’s what we are doing.

Another issue that I was wanting to talk about because, again, I heard the member opposite…. I found it interesting that he said: “There’s no plan for cannabis. The government hasn’t put anything in place.” Well, I’d like to remind the member that it’s only been since July 18 that we’ve been able to access the briefing books and find out what the government has or has not done in terms of work on that issue.

I would also note that the government failed to even mention it during the election campaign. One of the biggest public policy issues this province and, indeed, this country is facing is the legalization of cannabis by the federal government. One would have thought that the government would be wanting to say what they have done, that they would want to say that members on that side had, in fact, gone down to see the experience in Washington or Oregon or Colorado, for example. The problem is….

Unlike us in opposition, who understood that this was going to be a pressing public policy issue that we were going to have to deal with, my colleague the Finance Minister and myself did go down to Washington and Oregon to get a good understanding of the challenges and the opportunities that we were going to have to deal with, with the legalization of cannabis.

When they were government, they didn’t do that. They didn’t send a single elected representative down to see what the experience was, and they’d got all the resources of government to do that. They could have put together a committee of the House. They could have sent backbench members down. They could have sent cabinet ministers down. But no, they did none of that.

Well, I can tell you that there has been some work done since April, but we are building on that work, and we are building on the experience of my colleague the Minister of Finance and myself on what we found out in Washington and Oregon.

There are a number of things that need to take place. The member talked about free enterprise and that we’re going to be opposed to free enterprise. I can tell the member this. We haven’t decided on our retail model because we’re going to be talking to local government, unveiling a strategy of consultation with local government, who are critical. And I can tell the member this. There is a range of options when it comes to retail. There can be public enterprise. There can be free enterprise. There could be a mix of public enterprise and free enterprise.

I’ll tell you one thing there’s not going to be. We will not have a system where criminal enterprise participates in the legalization of cannabis in British Columbia. That is one of the priorities that we will ensure in the introduction of the framework that is going to exist in British Columbia around the legalization of cannabis. One, it will protect children, and two, we will make sure that the criminal enterprise element is out of it. Those are two key priorities, and we have been working closely with the federal government and other provinces on those issues.

We have had a recent joint meeting with the federal government and other provinces on that — a federal-provincial-territorial meeting — and those issues were discussed. It’s important because this budget is going to allow that work to continue. It’s going to allow the development of the framework, the regulatory framework that needs to be in place for July of next year, to happen. We are committed to that, and we are working very hard and diligently on that.

[5:15 p.m.]

Again, the member is complaining that that’s not there. “What’s the government doing?” Well, it will be there. It will be thorough. There will be consultation, and it will deal with the issue in a way that meets the needs of the province of British Columbia but that, as I said earlier, ensures we’re protecting kids and we’re getting organized crime out of it.

Other issues that the opposition have talked about…. It’s really quite funny, because prior to the election, they talked about the $2.7 billion surplus. The member referenced the $2.7 billion surplus — that that is gone. That is true. It’s gone onto the operating debt, as current legislation says that it must. It’s not been spent on anything. It’s gone to pay down the operating deficit, which is how the legislation in the province of British Columbia works.

At the same time as they have been going on about and complaining, “Where are the hospitals? Where’s this? Where’s that?” and tax-and-spend this and tax-and-spend that, something has kind of…. I’m flummoxed, as former Premier Dan Miller used to say. I am flummoxed because their election platform didn’t really talk about any of that. Yet after the election, when they found themselves, as Dickens would sometimes have said, “in somewhat reduced circumstances” compared to before the election, all of a sudden they have a throne speech which literally was our election platform.

It was okay to criticize us prior to the election as tax-and-spend and spending money that we can’t afford and then all of a sudden, after the election, come in with a throne speech, in a desperate attempt to hang onto power, and go: “Oh, we need to spend money on education. There are too many portables. We need to get rid of portables. We need to spend money. We’re not spending enough money on child care.” A month earlier it had been: “You know what? Oh my god, the NDP’s budgetary plans around child care are going to bankrupt the province.”

People saw through that. What the public wanted was a government that wasn’t concerned about holding onto power at any cost to protect its own interests, but rather, a government that looked after the public interests, the family interests, the community interests, the interests of British Columbians first, and that’s what this side of the House is committed to doing. That’s why I’m so pleased to stand and speak to this budget.

Now, I know that my time is limited. I could go on for a lot longer, but I won’t. I just….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: My colleague the Minister of Finance says that I should keep going.

Well, I would like to address another issue that was raised. Again, I do find it somewhat puzzling, because all of us here understand — or I think we understand — how the Westminster parliamentary system works. They seem to be upset that three members — the third party, the Green Party — didn’t pick them to support, in terms of being in government. They think that there’s something wrong with that, that they should have gone with them and that it’s not right that they went with the second party.

Again, I am, as Dan Miller used to say, flummoxed by that. Surely they know the way our parliamentary system works is that a government is formed when it can command the confidence of a majority of the members of the House. It’s not the largest party. You don’t “win the election” because we won the most seats. You get to form government because you can command a majority of the seats in the House.

[5:20 p.m.]

It is a fundamental principle of the Westminster system of governance under which we have operated, and it is not something new. It is not something that just happened. It’s something that has evolved over centuries, not just here but in many other Westminster parliamentary jurisdictions around the world.

Again, when the members opposite are upset and they go, “Oh, that’s not right. That’s not right….” Well, no. Sorry, it is. It’s how our system worked.

When the Lieutenant-Governor made her decision, despite the pleadings of the Premier — or the former Premier — to dissolve the Legislature and call fresh elections, which nobody wanted…. Now, having said that, secretly, had they decided to dissolve the House, I wouldn’t have been upset because I think that the public were so sick of this government after that throne speech that there would be nowhere near as many of them on that side of the House as there is today.

Hon. Member — and I can think of a few on there — you should thank your lucky stars that in fact (1) we didn’t go to the polls and (2) that we do have this as our system of government and….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, I hear some grumbling. It’s okay. It means they’re paying attention, and that’s a good thing. If they’re paying attention, they may learn something.

What they may learn is that the public understands our electoral system. The public knows that it’s not healthy for one party to control the levers of power for election after election after election. The public knew, after 16 years, it was time for a change in government. The public knew, after 16 years, it was time to put in place a government that would deal with issues of affordability around housing.

My constituents knew it was time for a change in government that would remove tolls and save a two-member family crossing over one of the bridges to work in Surrey or Langley $300 a month of after-tax money — that it was time for a change to put in place a government that would look after their interests.

The public knew that after 16 years of watching the Wild West of fundraising in British Columbia, where, at a time when Donald Trump was front page news on every newspaper around the world, the New York Times took time out to go: “There’s something rotten in the state of British Columbia when it comes to fundraising….”

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Give me some licence, hon. Member.

When that is happening, the public sees that. The public understands that it’s time for a change, and that’s what they did.

With this budget, the initiatives undertaken in this budget, the initiatives that we have already taken — whether it’s reducing tolls, investing in health and education, reducing MSP premiums, campaign finance reform — we are making change in this province that will make life more affordable for British Columbians and will reform the way that politics is conducted in British Columbia.

That is why I am extremely proud to support this budget and this budget update. I look forward to supporting and voting in favour of more budgets over the next four years.

M. Polak: This being my first opportunity to speak in this House after the election, I also want to offer my thanks to all of those who worked so hard on my re-election campaign and those who have worked with me for many years in my constituency office — and also, of course, my family.

Those who have heard me speak in this House before will probably be tired of the stories I tell about my father, so I won’t inflict those on you again today. Suffice to say this. My family is extremely important to me, and I try to spend as much time as I can with them when I’m not engaged in the duties that I’m called to perform as an MLA, as the representative for Langley.

[5:25 p.m.]

There will be a bit of my dad, my family, in this speech, because I got to thinking as I was listening to various members outlining either their support or their concerns about the budget. I was reminded of a lot of the old sayings that I heard growing up. Those who know me know that I’m well known for delivering old sayings — also, sometimes, bad jokes.

I was reminded, first of all, in thinking of the past record of the previous government, of the old saying: a penny saved is a penny earned. There’s a tried-and-true saying, one that probably most of our parents or maybe grandparents instilled in us.

It’s very challenging in government when you want to help people. You want to do more for people. Your constituents are asking for more. It is really difficult to say no sometimes. It can be extremely difficult for a Finance Minister, when there is lots of money in the kitty, not to fall to the temptation of growing government expenditures too quickly and then not being able to afford to deliver on those promises, because the costs rise. If the revenues don’t come in, the best of intentions still leave you with having to reduce and cut in a way that was never intended.

I want to start from the get-go by saying that I accept that members on the government side — and, indeed, I think all members of this House — run for election and get elected. Why? Because they want to do good things for their constituents, for the people of British Columbia. They have different ideas of how to do it.

One of the reasons that British Columbia is in such a magnificent fiscal position right now, as outlined even by the current Finance Minister, is because we held to the principle of a penny saved is a penny earned, knowing that as we grew government spending, we had to do so responsibly. We had to have ways to pay for it.

We couldn’t engage in what amounted to record increases in spending in health care, in education — particularly capital spending. We couldn’t have done that and still left the books in such good shape if we hadn’t been very deliberate and very thoughtful about how we grew the permanent, ongoing costs of government. Certainly, we couldn’t have done it if we had not paid attention to growing revenues through growing the economy, through increasing investment.

Right now what we see in this budget is an NDP government that is busy raising the cost of government. We keep hearing that there’s more to come — nothing wrong with that. Nothing is wrong with that, except that in order to do that, you have to have a plan to grow the revenues associated with that, not simply hope that magically, the economy will grow on its own. Government plays a role in setting forth a plan that will create the environment for growth, and that’s what we have done.

I’m also reminded of another old saying, one that my mom used to like, one that was said to me very often when I was in my foolish youth and wanting to do things on my own that maybe weren’t so wise. Act in haste. Repent at leisure.

Well, we have already seen a few interesting examples of this. Here I am, to a certain extent, looking at what’s happening now but also looking ahead and anticipating what we are going to see down the road as a result of the actions already taken by this government in this budget. One of them that the member just prior to my speech was talking about is the removal of the tolls on the Port Mann Bridge, or perhaps I should say it more clearly: the complete removal of the tolls.

It is extremely popular for people not to have to spend money on something. Absolutely. Everybody would like to have something for free. No question. I’m telling you what isn’t popular. What isn’t popular is growing incidences of gridlock on the Port Mann Bridge again.

Interjections.

M. Polak: Well, those who are laughing on the other side clearly don’t live south of the Fraser.

[5:30 p.m.]

Since the tolls came off, that is actually what we’ve been seeing. Story after story from my constituents, from my friends, who are now back to spending sometimes an hour and a half to make the trip that, when the tolls were on, often took them less than 45 minutes.

Now, there is actually, if they care to go and look at it…. I hope that the Transportation Minister looked at this before the decision was made. There is ample analysis by those in the Ministry of Transportation, who are expert at this, that shows that if the bridge was operated without any toll at all…. By the way, this is the reason that the Green members oppose removing the entire toll. There is ample analysis that shows that without a toll of some kind on that bridge, it will only be a few short years before we are back at the gridlock that we had before.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

That is a fact. It is in evidence in the Ministry of Transportation’s analysis of the project. I predict — we’re already seeing it — that as time goes on, those who are happy about not paying any kind of toll at all will be very unhappy as it takes them longer and longer to reach their destination.

There is also what happened with the carbon tax revenue and revenue neutrality. Here I want to talk about risks to the budget. Again, remember: “Act in haste; repent at leisure.”

The budget documents lay out what we would ordinarily expect to be listed as the risks to the budget. There are unforeseen things that happen in government, things a government couldn’t have predicted, and there are plans within every government’s budget to deal with those.

There are some risks — I will talk about them in terms of the carbon tax — that government has not accounted for, yet again, plenty of evidence, plenty of analysis by those who designed the tax and also those who worked on the climate leadership team to back this up. Removing the revenue neutrality from the incremental increases in the carbon tax has the potential to have a significant impact on the economy.

One of the reasons that the British Columbia government won so many awards and acknowledgments about the revenue-neutral carbon tax is that by keeping the revenue neutrality in place and reducing taxes at the same time that one was increasing the carbon tax, it maintained those same dollars in the economy. It reinjected them back into the economy.

It meant that although the carbon tax was introduced — I should say implemented — in the same year that we faced an unprecedented financial crisis around the globe, nevertheless, British Columbia’s economy continued to thrive, unlike other jurisdictions. It was one of the reasons. We were cutting taxes, because the law demanded it, at a time when other governments around the world weren’t able to.

The other risk to the economy in the approach that the government has taken with the carbon tax…. One of the areas that the climate leadership team analyzed in great detail was the potential impact on traditional industries in British Columbia with a rise to the carbon tax. I know, because I met with them over and over again. Those who were climate activists on the team came to the conclusion that to raise the carbon tax without putting in place some method for protecting emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries, there would be a significant detrimental impact to the economy.

So there are some risks. There are some risks just with this government’s new approach to the carbon tax. There are some risks to the economy that they have not taken into account.

Another old saying: “Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you care about.” It’s easy to talk about what you care about and say, “I care about this. I care about that,” and what have you. It’s easy to do that. But as the old saying goes: you can say all that, but show me your budget. Show me your budget. I’ll see what you’re spending on. I’ll see what your plan is. Then I’ll tell you what you care about.

[5:35 p.m.]

Well, we know what isn’t there. You’ve heard many of the members on this side rise in this House and talk about the money that isn’t there for many of the promises that have been made — for $10-a-day daycare, for help for renters, many of those things that we don’t see. Well, as the Education critic, another thing that we don’t see, in spite of the rhetoric, is an increase in spending on education beyond what would have been necessary for the teachers being hired. There’s not anything additional to that. There is no great injection of funding.

So for all of the bluster that says that somehow the B.C. Liberals’ budget around education was wanting, in fact, there’s no additional money that has been added here beyond what would have been in the B.C. Liberal Budget 2017.

I’m sure, again, that the intentions are good. The execution, however, in this budget is lacking if they want to show that, truly, education is their top priority, as they have said many times.

There’s another old saying that I try to take to heart: “If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.” For this illustration, I’m going to go back into my past, because I’m seeing some similar themes occur to a time when I was a school trustee on the school board in Surrey.

This has to do with portables. Prior to the election, during the election campaign, much was made by the now Education Minister and by the now Premier with respect to a commitment to get rid of all the portables in Surrey. Now, Surrey is a fast-growing district and has been for many years. It’s always a struggle to try and manage that demand with student enrolment growth and a growing community around it. Always is a challenge. No question. A challenge for any government. But in the budget that has been proposed, I don’t see the kind of injection of funding that would be necessary to deliver on the promise to rid Surrey of all its portables in four years. It’s not there in the budget.

What does that remind me of? Well, this is why I’m starting to get concerned. It reminds me of the circumstance we had back when I was on the school board. Many commitments were made, and at that time, they spent so much of the money to get themselves elected in 1996, what did they have to do? They had to put in place a capital freeze. It wasn’t just a capital freeze on projects they were going to announce. No. They literally had to stop projects that had shovels in the ground, shut down projects that were already being built. That was at a time when there were enough portables in Surrey to form the tenth-largest school district in the province.

Now, it wasn’t because when they made the commitment, they didn’t intend to fulfil it. I don’t believe that. I think they did intend to fulfil it. The problem was they didn’t plan for growing the revenues necessary so that government could continue and fulfil their promise. That is something that I see about to repeat itself as we look at this budget.

That brings us to, I guess, the final old saying. It has do with those efforts to try and grow revenues, to expand the revenues that government takes in so that government can expand the services. That is counting chickens before they hatch. We see some very, very positive projections around the growth of revenues for government — interestingly, at a time when, in the budget, there are projections for all sorts of industrial activities to decline. Nevertheless, here is this extremely optimistic projection as to how the revenues for government are going to grow. Couple that with pretty modest allowances for forecast and surplus.

[5:40 p.m.]

The forecast allowance is set at $300 million and the budget surplus at a projected $246 million. Pretty modest, on a $51.9 billion budget. Nevertheless, credit for having those things in place. But fairly modest. And modest, especially when there is so much potential risk that you aren’t going to meet that very optimistic target.

In fact, here is, again, the spectre of what might be to come. In this budget, we’re seeing taxes increase to the tune of about $1 billion. If there was ever a budget year in British Columbia when it shouldn’t be necessary to raise taxes to be able to afford the budget, this would be it. This would be it.

I mean, by anyone’s estimation, a budget surplus delivered in the neighbourhood of just under $3 billion…. The idea that in that kind of fiscal situation, running government isn’t affordable without a rise to taxes has to cause everyone to pause and wonder what will happen in future years when we don’t see budget surpluses of that size. If you have to raise taxes to afford to govern at a time when you’ve got close to $3 billion in surplus, how on earth are you going to manage not to raise them when you have a surplus of $246 million? That should make all of us concerned.

Now, I like a good movie sequel just like other people. Some do better than others. I mean, Star Wars has stood the test of time, except maybe the clone one, which people weren’t keen on. But I have to say, given my experience and looking at what we see in this budget repeating itself and what I anticipate to be further problems down the road, I really, really hope — except I don’t think it’s going to come to pass — that this isn’t the movie that I’ve seen before.

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s a privilege to rise as the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca and participate in the debate on the budget update presented by my colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill.

It’s an honour to have been returned by my neighbours and my friends and my constituents in Langford–Juan de Fuca for a fourth time to this place. For those who have just arrived for the first time, you’re in for one of the most extraordinary experiences of your life — the opportunity to serve your community, the opportunity to stand up and ensure that the things that are needed in your towns, in your villages and in your cities are delivered by the provincial government here in British Columbia.

As circumstance would have it, we find ourselves, for the first time in my 12 years in this place, on the government side of the Legislature. I want to take a moment or two to talk about how that came to be. In order to do that, I want to give thanks to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and his colleagues in the Green caucus. Two of them are new members to this place. Without their foresight and genuine desire to make this a minority parliament, the first one we’ve seen in decades…. Were it not for their commitment to make this place work, we wouldn’t have had the change that so many British Columbians voted for on May 9. So I want to give particular thanks to my Green colleagues.

It is an historic time, as a result of the CASA agreement that we signed. We will be testing that agreement later in the afternoon when we have a vote on this budget. But the people, in their wisdom, sent us all here, 87 of us, to represent the interests of all of them — not just Liberals, not just Conservatives, not just Greens, not just New Democrats but all British Columbians.

[5:45 p.m.]

I want to say at the outset, in my first opportunity to stand as Premier to address this chamber which means so very, very much to me, that I’m going to do my level best to meet the test and to meet the challenges that are ahead of us. There are many challenges that we inherited, coming to power.

There were serious challenges at ICBC. We have heard, from the Attorney General, upon receiving a report commissioned by the former government, that there are serious, serious issues at ICBC that are going to have a material impact on drivers right across our province.

Runaway rates at B.C. Hydro have been canvassed over and over and over again in this House over the past number of years. Well, now we have an opportunity to actually get to the bottom of it. Why is it that our rates have gone up so significantly? Why is it that affordability has become a crisis, not just in urban British Columbia but in rural British Columbia as well?

Long wait times for surgeries, clogged ERs in urban centres, closed ERs in rural centres. Going through the Interior; through Thompson and Nicola; going to Logan Lake, an industrial town where you have industrial accidents, you don’t have a functioning emergency room. You’re told on the note on the door to go to Ashcroft. But if you’re going to Ashcroft on a weekend, you’re not going to find a doctor either. You’ve got to go from there on to Kamloops.

That’s what we inherited when it came to addressing the health care crisis in British Columbia, and the challenges ahead are significant. We also inherited, and all of us in this House understand, the challenges of the opioid epidemic that is wreaking havoc through our families and through our communities right across this province. Hundreds and hundreds — in fact, thousands — of our citizens have lost their lives over the past number of years with more dying every day.

These are challenges that would have been the responsibility of those on the other side or those who are now on this side of the House. We need a unified approach if we are going to drive this scourge out of our province and help those who put their hand up and say: “Please, please help me.” I’m committed to running a government and leading a government that will help those who need it. When they put their hand out, they’ll get a hand up, not a hand to push them away.

The wildfire season, again, for many members on that side of the House, had a significant impact on families and on the economy in rural British Columbia. At the start of that fire season, we were in a transition from the former government to the new government.

I want to pay tribute to the member for Prince George–Nechako Lakes. Yeah?

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: No, no, the one beside you. That one. Nechako Lakes. Thank you.

To the member for Nechako Lakes, who was, during the transition period between the old government and the new, responsible for the wildfire service. I want to pay tribute to him and his accessibility and openness to me and to my colleagues so that we could have a seamless transition for people who were struggling on the ground.

Now, there have been some challenges along the way. I know my colleagues from Cariboo-Chilcotin, Cariboo North and Lillooet…

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: Fraser-Nicola. Thank you.

…are on the ground with communities and friends and families who are in distress. I appreciate their concern. I hear their concern. I want them to know and, most importantly, the people in their communities to know this government is going to be there when the fires are out. We’re going to be there for the rebuilding. We’re going to be there to ensure their businesses, their homes and their properties are there for them in the years ahead.

This crisis, this tragic summer of fire, will end soon. But the challenges for the people in those regions will go on for some time. I want them to know their government will be with them, working with their elected representatives, regardless of what flag they carried in the last election campaign.

I also want to talk about a secondary challenge in rural British Columbia, and that’s the expiration of the softwood lumber agreement, which threatens forest workers and forest communities. We have a significant loss of standing timber as a result of the fires, but more critical than anything is that we have a protectionist government in the United States that is playing their hand, I believe poorly, and putting jobs and economic activity in British Columbia at risk.

One of the first things I did upon being sworn in as Premier is I went to Ottawa to meet with the Prime Minister and trade representatives to put the case forward that British Columbia stands with fellow Canadians who are interested in softwood lumber and who are dependent on softwood lumber. We’re prepared to work together to get a deal, but we are not prepared to take any deal. Softwood lumber is too important to British Columbia. We are fair and free traders, always have been, always will be. I say to the coalition in the United States: “We’re prepared to reach an agreement but not any agreement.”

Again, in my opportunity to visit the United States, I met with the Secretary of Commerce as well as the U.S. trade ambassador and made that quite clear to both of them with the assistance of our softwood emissary, Mr. David Emerson, who has worked for both sides of this House and is well known in the forest community and, in fact, right across British Columbia and Canada as a former international trade minister at the federal level. We have all the cards. We are fair and free traders. We will work toward a deal, but we will not accept any deal.

[5:50 p.m.]

I also want to talk a little bit about the challenges that we face as an incoming government. I’ve heard, over the past number of days, members on that side of the House, who oversaw 16 years of what we characterized as — and I will say again — neglect of many areas of importance to people in my community and people right across the province.

It is difficult, I know, to operate on that side of the House, and I wish all members of the opposition well as they adjust to a new way of doing business. Opposition is critically important in our British parliamentary system. We need to have you holding us accountable, but we also need to have you being reasonable.

What we want to do, on this side of the House — my Green colleagues and those in the NDP caucus — is we genuinely want to work with you to make sure that we are realizing the full potential of your citizens in your communities. I’m not at all interested in your commitments during the election campaign. I’m interested in making sure that you hold us accountable, but within reason.

To have some of the questions that we’ve had today…. My colleague the Minister of Health responded, I think, quite ably. We have been in government for coming on ten weeks now, and the fact that a hospital has not been built in Richmond in that time is a surprise to no one anywhere.

My advice to you is — and I appreciate the advice is worth what the opposition is paid for — on those days when you’re struggling to find questions, I urge you, as I heard the member for Kamloops–South Thompson do, to raise issues that are important to your constituents. You know what? As luck will have it, we’re going to be ready to answer them and work with you to make sure that we’re helping people in your community. That’s why all of us came here.

We did not come here to yell and scream at each other for a half an hour every day, although that, regrettably, is part and parcel of the process that we have inherited. We all came here to make life better for British Columbians. I can’t wait to get started. Our Green colleagues can’t wait to get started. I welcome anyone on that side of the House who wants to work together to make life better for their communities to join with us in that regard.

We ran on a campaign to make life more affordable for British Columbians. We ran on a campaign to make sure that we are providing services for people where they need them, when they need them. We want to make sure that the dynamism and the prosperity in British Columbia is shared by all British Columbians, not just a select few. British Columbians expect us all to work together to meet those goals, and I’m committed to doing that.

This most recent financial update, tabled by my friend and colleague the Finance Minister and Deputy Premier, member for Victoria–Beacon Hill and general all-round spectacular person…. I have to say for the record. Sorry about that. I know I’m blushing. I’m sure she is too.

I want to say that the budget update goes some distance towards achieving some of those commitments that we made during the election campaign, but I’m sure, again, the public has an understanding that we have just got started. We have much to do, but we have accomplished much. I just want to inventory some of those things in my remarks today before I turn the floor over to other members.

The first thing we did is we increased income disability assistance by $100 for the people who need it the most in British Columbia. This budget invests $500 million towards purpose-built rental housing and modular housing for the hard-to-house and homeless in our streets across British Columbia.

We’ve hired 3,500 more teachers to make sure that our kids realize their full potential and that classrooms are easier to learn in and easier to teach in. That’s a commitment we made during the election campaign, part and parcel of a 16-year fight between parents, teachers, school trustees and the former government. We are going to look at the Supreme Court ruling, and we’re going to go beyond the Supreme Court ruling, because our kids deserve nothing less than that.

For those who could not learn at the same rate as others in their cohort…. I was one of those who had a rocky patch in the middle there, between grades 8 and 9 and into grade 10. I managed, by good luck and the help of others, to secure a master’s degree over time, but it didn’t happen on the regular: “You’re graduating at 17.”

[5:55 p.m.]

That’s why it was so critically important to me that we eliminate the B.C. Liberal costs for adult basic education in British Columbia so everyone, regardless of when they get to that point, has opportunity and access to greater opportunity through the wisdom and the power of a good education.

On affordability. MSP premiums were doubled by the people on that side of the House — doubled — since 2001. On January 1 of this year, we will be cutting them in half. The average individual will save $450 a year; the average family, $900 a year. Those are dollars that are going to go into the economy. They’re going to create new businesses. They’re going to make sure that families have what they need, when they need it. It’s going to make life better for British Columbians.

We’re taking new dollars and investing in home care. We’re taking new dollars and investing in creating a child care system that will work for every family. Every woman who gets pregnant and has a child, every family who needs two incomes to survive — in one of the most unaffordable jurisdictions in North America — will have access, at the end of our term, to quality, affordable, accessible child care. We’re committed to making that happen.

I heard the member on the other side talk about the congestion on the Port Mann Bridge, and I regret that the member has not taken a look at the relief that people are seeing on the Pattullo and the Alex Fraser. But I also want to talk about that road hockey rink that was the Golden Ears Bridge. You put the tolls at Golden Ears, and you put the tolls at the Port Mann. We eliminate those, and the average commuter will save $1,500 a year. That’s putting money back into people’s pockets.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The people on that side of the House — regardless of how they feel now that they’re settling into their opposition benches — increased medical services premiums, increased hydro rates, increased ICBC rates and put tolls on people, preventing them from getting home faster so that they could be with their families. We’re going to be putting money back into people’s pockets. That’s what we campaigned on. In fact, in ten short weeks, that’s exactly what we’re doing.

It is a true honour to stand before you as Premier of British Columbia. It is a true honour to lead a group of people who I know are committed to making life better for their citizens, wherever they may live — on the north coast; in the Kootenays; on Vancouver Island; in the heart of our metropolitan centres in Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster and Surrey; out into the suburbs, into Coquitlam, into Port Coquitlam, and into Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, my two new favourite places on the planet; and, lest I forget, North Vancouver–Lonsdale, where I had the pleasure of using Dave Barrett’s SeaBus to travel back and forth, talking to voters on that side of the Burrard Inlet, who need the same services that people need in Vancouver.

We’re going to deliver those services by working hard and making sure that the precious dollars that the public sends to our treasury are distributed back to them to make their lives better, to make their lives more affordable and to ensure that the services that they depend on are going to be there for them — not just today, not just next year but for the next four years.

I’m committed. We’re committed. We should all commit to making life better for British Columbia. By voting in favour of this budget update, we’ll take a huge step in that direction.

T. Redies: On behalf of my constituents of Surrey–White Rock, I’m pleased to wrap up this side of the House’s debate on the 2017 budget update.

Before I commence my remarks, I would also like to congratulate the new Finance Minister on her role, which is a really critical one. While I’m new to government, it’s clear that the Finance Minister’s role is very important to government finding the appropriate balance between creating the right environment for economic growth while at the same time meeting fundamental social needs. I wish her well, truly, in this very important endeavour.

Also, as I’m new, I’d like to take the opportunity to say how privileged I feel to be here in the House, working as one of 87 MLAs for the 41st parliament. I think each of us wants to make British Columbia an even better place to live, even though we may have fundamentally different beliefs as how best to do that.

[6:00 p.m.]

For myself, it’s a tremendous honour to be here in this place, with all its history, representing the great riding of Surrey–White Rock. My predecessor, who I know is well known to this House, Dr. Gordon Hogg, represented the riding from 1997 to 2017, and he made a substantial contribution to public life in British Columbia. So I have a high standard to live up to, even though I’m not going to be wearing any of his suits. Thank goodness I’m female.

I hope I can return my riding’s faith in me by helping this wonderful community that has shaped me and my family so positively. I’d also like to acknowledge the many volunteers that helped me. I’d also like to acknowledge two people who have joined our riding, my two CAs, Anne Bonner and Alex Barberis, and for having the courage to come with a political newbie in this whole journey. I’m very blessed to have that type of support.

I commence my remarks with the caveat that I come from a background of 30 years in business and finance, not politics. Politics, in many respects, is very foreign to me. During my career, I spent a lot of time with businesses and individuals, hearing their dreams for their companies and their families. I was very lucky to work with many British Columbians, to help them invest and build their companies, create new jobs and grow communities across this province and, indeed, across the country.

I feel very strongly, therefore, that it is the businesses and entrepreneurs that take risks that truly create jobs in an economy. Government’s job is to make sure they create a supportive environment where companies want to invest and create jobs. It’s also government’s job to create an environment where people want to live and raise their families. It’s a balance. It’s critical to all British Columbians that government gets this right.

Since the government delivered its budget update on September 11, I’ve reviewed this document in great detail with my experienced colleague, the hon. member for Prince George–Valemount. As my background is in business and finance, as I said, it’s fair to say that numbers matter to me.

On the face of it, this government is inheriting some great numbers: the best-performing economy in the country, as confirmed by the Auditor General’s latest report on August 22; five consecutive balanced budgets in a row; a $2.7 billion budget surplus and a debt-to-GDP of 15.8 percent; importantly, a triple-A credit rating — the only province in Canada other than Saskatchewan to enjoy the highest possible credit rating; and, finally, a province that has created over 250,000 jobs since 2013. Those are great numbers.

Given the strength of this inherited financial position, one has to ask: “With a $2.7 billion surplus, why would a new government immediately raise taxes?” Yet this is what this government intends to do. It will increase spending this year alone by a whopping $3.1 billion, or almost 7 percent over 2016. On top of that, it will introduce new tax increases of almost $2 billion over the next three years.

Now, while we would all like to be able to provide more support to help those in need, we must also ensure that economic growth is sustainable. It’s economic growth that creates jobs and drives tax revenues, which in turn fund social services. Get this equation wrong, and the government’s ability to fund even basic services can be threatened.

Because it’s the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs, we must ensure that the economy remains attractive to business. We need businesses to invest and create jobs. Yet with this business, I feel that we’re starting to choke that proverbial goose, and I’m deeply troubled by what this means. We see this in the rise of corporate taxes from 11 percent to 12 percent. Maybe the government thinks that this increase is insignificant, but we compete for investment with jurisdictions all over the world. Any tax increase sends the wrong signal, especially in light of the current U.S. administration’s plan to substantially reduce corporate taxes. It sends a message that B.C. is not open for business.

To maintain profitability, corporations will just pass on any increase to tax to consumers. That’s the reality. So the current government is really just increasing prices for consumers and, worse, threatening jobs for B.C.

[6:05 p.m.]

Moreover, the minister said this increase will bring B.C.’s corporate tax rate in line with other western provinces, such as Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, like this is a good thing. But it really isn’t. In effect, this budget update is chipping away at British Columbia’s comparative advantage to attract investment.

Big companies like Amazon, which is looking to set up a potential second headquarters in Canada? They’re going to question locating to B.C. if we don’t have a competitive tax rate.

We also see the choking of the poor goose in government’s plans to dramatically increase the carbon tax. Under the previous Liberal government, there was a law in place to ensure the carbon tax was revenue-neutral. We’ve talked about this. Any increase in the carbon tax would be offset by a decrease in personal income taxes or other forms of taxation.

Now the NDP and Green Party coalition is striking down that law. Instead, they will significantly increase the carbon tax each year for the next four years. This is going to sharply increase prices at the gas pump — I’ve looked at the numbers — for businesses, truckers, taxi drivers and consumers.

A sharp increase in the carbon tax is also going to make it more expensive to heat homes in the winter. The north and the Interior face colder winters, and my colleagues are already receiving complaints from constituents who are going to be paying higher taxes almost immediately.

Has the government even thought about the consequences of a carbon tax increase for the tourism industry in B.C.? It was a B.C. Liberal government that delivered on its promise to eliminate the aviation fuel tax on international flights. This tax cut attracted new air carriers from all over the world to come to YVR.

Last June, for example, the hon. member for Richmond North Centre hosted Jackie Chan to celebrate the North American debut of Hong Kong Airlines at YVR, one of many new airlines. Now we’re going to lose that competitive edge.

We see it in the raising of personal income tax rates for individuals earning over $150,000. These people are very mobile and may choose to leave this province if they’re being unfairly taxed. That’s the reality. Taxing corporations and higher-income earners — it may seem like good politics right now, but I fear it’s not very good for the longer-term economy.

Let’s look at the tech sector here in B.C. That’s a very crucial sector, as we’ve all been discussing. It supports innovation and productivity across all industries. Under the previous Liberal government, we supported the tech sector with investments in venture capital, establishing tax incentives and lowering tax rates. Our purpose was to create an environment conducive to the creation of tech companies and rich enough in capital and talent to give them the best opportunity to become large, anchoring their companies here in our province.

Today there are more than 86,000 jobs in the tech sector, over 9,000 companies. It produces $23 billion in annual revenue. Yet the government’s budget update mentions, really, none of this — only tax increases and the establishment of an innovation commission, which I don’t think will give this sector a strong sense that the government really understands what the tech sector needs.

If highly mobile tech companies leave the province, then high-income earners will follow and take their skills to other more tax-friendly jurisdictions.

With this budget update, this government is also saying B.C. is closed for business. The loss of Petronas and Aurora LNG investments — almost $70 billion in investment; the cancellation of the George Massey Tunnel replacement; the sending of Site C to review; the promise to fight the Trans Mountain pipeline at all costs. I reckon that we now have almost $100 billion worth of projects and tens of thousands of good-paying jobs for British Columbians now cancelled or at risk of cancellation. This is all within the first ten weeks of the government’s tenure.

Now, I have noticed — even being new — how sensitive this government is to references about the 1990s. And I get that. It wasn’t a great decade for the NDP, and it wasn’t a great decade for the province.

Why, after all this time, after 16 years in opposition, has this new government not learned from its past mistakes? We’re all wondering that on this side of the House.

[6:10 p.m.]

The proverbial golden goose is about to be choked. This is deeply troubling for me, as it should be to all British Columbians. Even more troubling is that the NDP are not finished yet. Many more promises have yet to be funded: $10-a-day daycare. I’ve seen estimates on that of $1.5 billion a year.

The NDP election promise of 114,000 more social housing units — they’ve got 4,000 units in a four-year plan. I wonder how they’re going to deliver 110,000 in six years. And with their numbers, it represents a $14 billion investment, if you believe the government’s own highly suspect projection of $122,000 per unit.

And what about the $400 annual renters allowance, at a $265 million cost per year or $1 billion cost over three years? Or the plan to completely eliminate the remaining MSP premiums in four years — that’s almost another $1 billion-a-year promise. Or the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge — how much will that cost? A new hospital for Surrey, Terrace, Richmond — I’m guessing $500 million each.

And yes, the so-called George Massey Tunnel replacement — $3.5 billion. Or rather, it could have been $2.6 billion, if we’d actually taken the bid that was on the table not too long ago.

I ask you: where is the money coming from to pay for all these promises? Does this government have a plan? Are they willing to share with us? I know they’re consulting, but I ask: what were you doing in those last 16 years in opposition?

This is really concerning to me. Not only do I see a government that seems intent on spending a lot of money but also a government that doesn’t seem to have any plans on how to build the economy. If I had a business come to me — when I was in banking — without detailed plans, I would have politely said no to any loan request. Yet the people of British Columbia can’t do that now.

They have to hope that this government knows what it’s doing — taxing businesses, introducing uncertainty, cancelling critical infrastructure projects, proposing to fight already-approved projects, not coming clean on how they’re going pay for unmet promises. This is giving the business community and many citizens of British Columbia a queasy feeling. As my colleague from Langley mentioned, we’ve seen this movie before, and it didn’t work out that well for the province. It’s not on Netflix.

Let me say that I am happy the government did retain some promises of the former B.C. Liberal government. The reduction of the MSP premium by 50 percent, the reduction of the small business tax rate from 2.5 to 2 percent, phasing out the PST paid on electricity and a $3,000 non-refundable tax credit for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers — these are all important to British Columbians.

All of them represent a tax break, especially the reduction of MSP premiums by 50 percent. This was a significant tax break, amounting to almost $1 billion annually that government will essentially forgo in revenues. The difference here is the previous government had planned for reduced revenues.

The B.C. Liberal plan was to use part of the budget surplus and return it to the taxpayer in the form of a $1 billion tax break. A reduction and gradual elimination of MSP premiums was the fairest way to ensure that every British Columbian benefited.

Interjection.

T. Redies: I did not. You have to listen. I think the other members of the House are asking that we listen. I would hope that the other side of the House would listen, too.

This plan was based on a whole other set of assumptions, including conservative growth forecasts, a balanced budget and a much smaller set of expenditures. What I find alarming is that the new NDP and Green Party coalition will be adding a lot of new spending with no appreciable plan to pay for it. I fear the real answer is the government will continue to increase taxes to pay for all the promises they’ve made that are yet unfunded. Brace yourself, British Columbian taxpayer. I’m afraid winter is coming.

I truly do believe that we actually have to help those who are less fortunate. But I also believe that government should treat taxpayer resources as scarce resources to be used wisely, judiciously, and to be managed carefully. Governments, like households, have to balance spending with their ability to take in revenue. Just like a household or a business, if they spend beyond their means, they get into trouble.

[6:15 p.m.]

This government’s early actions have not gone unnoticed. When the government cancelled the tolls and transferred $3.4 billion from self-supported debt in TIC to the balance sheet of the province, almost immediately the credit rating of Moody’s issued a warning to the NDP-Green coalition. According to analyst Adam Hardi: “The government’s plan, as an isolated action, is credit negative, as it will increase taxpayer-supported debt and remove a dedicated line of revenue for debt repayment.”

The warning came from Moody’s prior to the September 11 budget update, and there has been a new warning from the Dominion Bond Rating Services, which has also issued their own statement. “While the NDP’s platform has committed to maintaining balanced budgets, the government may be challenged to do so given the extent of its policy commitments. DBRS believes that the province may require further revenue measures to fund its ambitious social agenda.”

In other words, unless the government finds a magic pot of money, which usually means more taxes, British Columbia stands to lose its triple-A credit rating. That translates into paying much higher interest costs, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars more in interest. That will not only prevent the government from fulfilling its promises, but it could also crowd out the government’s ability to pay for basic services.

As I said before, numbers do count, and so do risks in any plan. Rising interest rates are one of them. The central bank announced the first increase in seven years by a quarter point last July. Earlier this month there was a second increase, by another quarter point, raising the prime to 1 percent. Most analysts agree that there will be a third increase in matter of weeks.

When capital becomes more expensive, the amount of debt you carry also becomes more expensive. Higher interest rates also mean reduced spending by consumers and businesses, and that can mean reduced sales.

Mr. Speaker: Member, a moment please.

Members, there seems to be a significant amount of noise on both sides of the House, and it’s difficult for the Chair to hear. Thank you.

Continue, Member.

T. Redies: The concerns I have are that this all poses a threat to government’s ability to finance its promises. An extra quarter point or two costs the government hundreds of millions of dollars.

The threat of decreasing credit ratings, rising interest rates, the softwood lumber dispute and the NAFTA renegotiations, which the Premier was speaking about, all create uncertainty for government budgets and, more importantly, uncertainty for business. In all my years of working in the financial sector, I can assure you that the one thing that businesses really don’t like is uncertainty.

Why then would this government further sow the seeds of uncertainty by threatening or cancelling major infrastructure projects designed to support economic growth — like Site C? By throwing the future of this vital….

Interjection.

T. Redies: I can assure you my numbers are quite logical, sir.

By throwing the future of this vital infrastructure project into doubt, the government is not only threatening to issue pink slips to the 2,200 construction workers that are currently on site. It’s also shrinking the capacity of the economy to expand.

Don’t we owe future generations the same legacy of a clean, renewable and reliable source of power that does not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions? As a matter of fact, Mark Jaccard at the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University recently published an opinion in the Vancouver Sun last week. His team of researchers believe all of Site C’s capacity will be used up soon after completion in order to meet the province’s and country’s commitments to reduce carbon emissions through the increased use of electric vehicles and other carbon-saving initiatives.

Cancelling Site C makes little sense to me. Nor does the cancellation of the George Massey Tunnel. Again, this creates uncertainty. We’ve talked about this. We’re looking at the largest traffic bottleneck in the province. I can tell you I have commuted up and down Highway 99 on and off since 1981. I’m just giving you an indication of my age. I would dare say I’ve logged more commuting time up and down this highway than most people in this House.

The cancellation is very, very disappointing. It’s a slap in the face to voters in these areas who have to traverse Highway 99, and frankly, given the seismic risk of the collapse of the tunnel, a shocking disregard for the safety of commuters.

Now, before I conclude, I want to raise an issue contained in the budget update that nobody has really talked about, and that is this government’s plan to hold a referendum on proportional representation. This week we saw yet another example of disconnect between the NDP minority government and its Green coalition partners.

[6:20 p.m.]

The Premier flip-flopped on his promise not to use tax dollars to subsidize political parties, and the Green Party leader quickly retreated and said, “It wasn’t me,” and pointed his finger towards the Premier.

That leaves British Columbians confused. During the election, we had an NDP campaign platform and we had a separate Green Party platform. Then, last May, both parties signed a manifesto, which both the NDP and the Green Party leaders hailed as a leap forward for British Columbians. But now, that all seems to have changed. The Green Party leader says all of the NDP promises, including $10-a-day daycare and a $400….

Interjections.

T. Redies: These are your quotes, not my quotes. They’re your quotes.

The leader of the Green Party said that these promises were irrelevant, which I thought was quite surprising. So it’s kind of hard to say what the people of British Columbia should expect.

On the subject of electoral reform, a well-known commentator, Bill Tieleman — some of the members of the NDP, I think, are quite well-acquainted with him — said in an article this week: “The Greens’ blocking of NDP promises is a very troubling example of how a proportional representation electoral system would work if adopted by referendum next year. That’s because proportional representation practically guarantees no party will ever be able to form a majority, leaving every government dependent on small parties like the Greens to retain power.”

Let me be clear. The B.C. Liberal Party welcomes electoral reform. It was a B.C. Liberal government that held two referendums, in 2005 and in 2009. But we handed the question over to a group of 161 ordinary citizens called the British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.

Do we have public input contained in the NDP–Green Party plan? Apparently not. The NDP and Greens already have that wrapped up, with legislation all drafted up and ready to go in time for municipal elections in the fall of 2018. This is not democracy. This is a scheme being cooked up in the Premier’s office under the guise of the taxpayer-funded confidence and supply secretariat.

Why not put electoral reform in the hands of the people? The government seems to like sending everything to independent reviewers setting up commissions. Why not something so fundamentally important as electoral reform? This is disturbing, to say the least.

Finally, this is a government that is fond of saying they want to make life more affordable, but this government assumes that they know how to spend your money better than you do: raise taxes, increase spending faster than revenues, and now, by the way, we’ve already decided how electoral reform will take form in this province.

I fear this province is in for a rough ride. We have a minority government that pretends to command a majority. But the reality is the NDP and Green minority coalition faces the strongest official opposition in B.C. history, and we intend to hold them accountable for their actions and their promises.

Hon. C. James: I’m pleased to rise to close off the debate on the budget and to thank all the members in this Legislature for their remarks. I admit I did not agree with everyone’s remarks. I did not find all of them really helpful. But many of them were very interesting debates, and many ideas came forward. That’s what democracy is about. Democracy is about this discussion and debate and dialogue and opportunity for us to agree to disagree and have a chance to be able to talk about the issues and the ideas. That’s what’s happened during this process, so I want to say thank you to all members. I hope this is the beginning of more engagement on more issues to come.

[6:25 p.m.]

I do want to talk about a couple of the comments very quickly, though, just to correct the record. I think there were two themes that I saw as we were going through the debate. One was the theme from many of the members that the budget update did too much, and another theme that the budget update didn’t do enough. So I believe that we probably hit just the right tone, when you take a look at those.

I heard a number of the members ask questions about spending on housing, about spending on tenants, about spending on education, child care and health care. I want to say how proud I am that the members on that side of the House have finally recognized that those issues are important and should be in the budget.

It’s going to be wonderful when we get to the debate of those issues, when they’re in future budgets, to see everyone in this House standing up for child care, for tenants, for education, to make sure we do that in this Legislature.

Now, I just want to direct…. I’m not going to go through every individual member in this House and the things they said. But I do want to just give a shout out to the former Minister of Education, because he actually made a challenge during his speech. He challenged the members on this side of the House, any one of us, to just stand up and say how much they’re investing in education, “because I believe there are no new investments in education.” I’m proud to stand up and say $681 million is going into education in three years. New investments, new money, and we’re proud to talk about it.

The last area that I heard a number of members talk about was asking questions around where the investments were in the economy and jobs. Well, I think those questions in particular highlighted the difference between that side and this side and highlighted the difference between this budget and the throne speech and the direction that this government is taking.

The budget and our government recognize that a strong economy does not exist in isolation. The budget update recognized that investing in our greatest resource, people, is our way to grow a strong economy in British Columbia.

We are committed. We’re committed to strengthening our economy, to seeing our province as a great place to invest, a place of thriving businesses, large and small; of entrepreneurs; a well-educated workforce; and jobs in every corner of this province. We will do that — as we show with the key steps taken in this budget — by investing in the very citizens who helped build that strong economy.

With that, I move, seconded by the hon. Premier of British Columbia, that the Speaker now do leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

[6:30 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive the time?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

Motion approved on the following division:

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move the motion whereby the House authorizes the Committee of Supply for the session to sit in two sections, designated Section A and Section B.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
TO SIT IN TWO SECTIONS

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will read the whole motion just so that everybody, new people in particular, understands what’s taking place here.

By leave, I move:

[Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in two sections designated Section A and Section B; Section A to sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time, and Section B to sit in the Chamber of the Assembly, subject to the following rules:

1. The Standing Orders applicable to the Committee of the Whole House shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of Supply save and except that in Section A, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.

2. All Estimates shall stand referred to Section A, save and except those Estimates as shall be referred to Section B on motion without notice by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be decided without amendment or debate and be governed by Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation.

[6:35 p.m.]

3. Section A shall consist of 17 Members, being 8 Members of the New Democratic Party and 8 Members of the BC Liberal Party and one Member of the Green Party. In addition, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his or her nominee, shall preside over the debates in Section A. Substitution of Members will be permitted to Section A with the consent of that Member’s Whip, where applicable, otherwise with the consent of the Member involved. For the second session of the Forty-first Parliament, the Members of Section A shall be as follows: the Minister whose Estimates are under consideration and, Jagrup Brar, Mitzi Dean, Bob D’Eith, Mable Elmore, Anne Kang, Jennifer Rice, Ronna-Rae Leonard, Rachna Singh, Simon Gibson, Jane Thornthwaite, Peter Milobar, Coralee Oakes, Joan Isaacs, Mike Morris, Teresa Wat, Ellis Ross and Sonia Furstenau.

4. At fifteen minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of Section A will report to the House. In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial Estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the Government shall have a maximum of eight minutes, and the Official Opposition a maximum of five minutes, and all other Members (cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to summarize the Committee debate on a particular ministerial Estimate completed, such summaries to be in the following order:

(1) Other Members;

(2) Opposition; and

(3) Government.

5. Section B shall be composed of all Members of the House.

6. Divisions in Section A will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells four times.

7. Divisions in Section B will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells three times at which time proceedings in Section A will be suspended until completion of the division in Section B.

8. Section A is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during consideration thereof in Section A, and for all purposes Section A shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to Section A shall be made upon motion without notice by the Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals.

9. Bills or Estimates previously referred to a designated Committee may at any stage be subsequently referred to another designated Committee on motion of the Government House Leader or Minister responsible for the Bill as hereinbefore provided by Rule Nos. 2 and 8.]

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:37 p.m.