Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on Bill 2. In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and, subsequent to that, the estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2017

(continued)

Hon. A. Dix: It’s great to rejoin the debate on Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

I think the measures contained within this act, which are essentially the taxation measures of the budget, demonstrate the good sense of the Minister of Finance and the good sense of the government in guiding the economy in these times.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I would say — and members of the House will know this — if you look at the taxation measures contained overall in the budget and you include the changes to MSP premiums, which the distinguished opposition Finance critic mentioned in her speech, you’ll see, hon. Speaker, an annualized reduction of $1.245 billion.

If you understand how MSP premiums are paid in British Columbia, that means a reduction in taxes for many individuals, particularly middle-class individuals, and a more affordable economy for them — more for them in a time when it’s less and less easy to find housing in many parts of our province. It makes life more affordable for them. It’s part of a commitment our leader, the Premier, made in advance of the election campaign, and it’s an important commitment.

It is true that at the last minute there was an effort in the last Liberal budget — one not passed by this Legislature — to reduce MSP premiums. This measure, the measure introduced by the Minister of Finance, is $374 million more generous than that. That measure, which was put together at the last minute, was ineffective, impossible to implement and would have caused serious problems in the economy for business and for individuals alike.

So they put forward a measure that couldn’t work and wasn’t going to work. We put forward a measure that was fundamental to our commitment. I’m very proud of that. It means savings for people across British Columbia, not just individuals but small businesses, medium-sized businesses and, indeed, big businesses. That is the most significant tax measure in the budget.

What it suggests and what it indicates, when combined with all of the other measures — those that increase taxes and those that cut taxes — is that there’s a net tax reduction in this budget of $389 million in this fiscal year and $881 million in the next fiscal year. That is plain. One can try and separate the tax increases from the tax cuts and claim something else, but if you take all of the measures, if you take the budget as a whole, that is what the budget is. That’s what the budget does.

To argue that the MSP reduction of 50 percent doesn’t count, doesn’t matter and doesn’t affect people is to misunderstand how important it is in people’s lives. It’s $900 in savings for many individuals who are struggling with affordability but also significant savings for many small businesses and other businesses who, in British Columbia, pay MSP premiums and don’t in any other jurisdiction. So it’s a significant change.

Equally, in the budget, you’ll see the extension, through 2022, of the science and tech tax credit — $175 million annualized, a tax reduction in this budget. You’ll see a 20 percent reduction in the small business tax. It’s $81 million but a 20 percent reduction in the rate, which is a significant advantage to small businesses who live on Kingsway and throughout British Columbia.

The government has also brought in tax changes that benefit credit unions all around British Columbia and that extend the previous tax treatment of credit unions to allow them to fully participate in the community. It’s something that’s an advantage to the economy in every region of British Columbia.

We’ve seen the benefits of the tax credits for apprenticeships, the tax credits for digital industries, the tax extension and supports around extending the thresholds for the homeowner grant — all of them, significant tax changes.

[1:40 p.m.]

People like to talk about what the numbers are. The budget that was introduced in February contained a surplus of approximately a quarter of a billion dollars, $250 million. This budget contains approximately the same surplus. That’s the base from which government was making its decisions. I think that the Minister of Finance — by reducing costs on business, by reducing costs on individuals, by making life more affordable — has done absolutely the right thing in this budget.

The minister has also, in the context of a very significant overall tax reduction, made some changes to bring about tax fairness — in particular, for people earning over $150,000 a year. It’s on the amount they earn over $150,000 a year that the tax changes come into effect. Those changes are very, very significant, of course. We have to consider them seriously, but they bring a modicum of fairness.

Members will recall that a tax cut was introduced under the last government to essentially give those individuals, the wealthiest 1 percent in British Columbia, a significant tax cut at a time when MSP premiums were going up during that period, and so on. Those were the choices made, and government is about choosing. That government chose tax cuts for the very wealthiest, and we’re choosing a 50 percent reduction in MSP premiums in this budget. Those are the choices, and people can judge those choices. The member opposite is welcome to disagree with those choices, and I expect that she will in her statements.

Those are the changes that have been brought in. We have brought in changes to the carbon tax. We’ve ended revenue neutrality so that those carbon tax revenues can be brought into force to support the government’s overall environmental and carbon agenda. We’ve made those changes. Again, this is a subject of debate and choice, but these are the choices that this government has made and that this Minister of Finance has made.

It is indisputable, if you look at all of those changes, including the increase in taxes around the Tobacco Tax Act, that this budget dramatically reduces the costs on British Columbians and does so in a more progressive way than the previous government did. This is indisputable. I encourage people who want to read about it and see the actual facts, not the rhetorical debate on either side, to actually read the budget. I recommend that people listening to us do — pages 59 and 60 of the budget. They’ll see what the tax changes are in this budget.

Those tax changes have been made, including a $374 million increase in the tax cut on the MSP premium, compared to the failed Liberal plan from before the election — the one that couldn’t work, that couldn’t be implemented, that would have been a disaster for business and that they introduced at the last minute. There’s that and all of the other things. They’ll see what the actual net tax change in the budget is. In this budget, that’s a $389 million tax cut in 2017-18, and it’s a $881 million tax cut in ’18-19. Those are the changes that are actually in the budget.

I think it’s important, when you look at the budget overall, where we’ve taken a budget surplus that we inherited and that we acknowledge, of about $250 million…. We introduced, in this budget, a budget surplus of about $246 million. In other words, we’ve maintained the surplus in this budget.

It’s a balanced budget, introduced by the Minister of Finance, beyond dispute. We have to, of course, throughout the fiscal year, take care on these questions. But that’s what the Minister of Finance introduced — a balanced budget that is more progressive, that ensures that life is more affordable for small business and that ensures that life is more affordable for individuals who need that.

It also introduces, as you know, the other measures in the budget: the elimination of tuition fees on adult basic education, amongst many other initiatives, including raising income assistance rates, which is something that the previous government had, I think, wrongly failed to do over a long period of time. It’s a disagreement between our side of the House and their side of the House.

Our priorities are expressed in the budget. Those priorities — to support housing, to support low-income people, to support small business — are reflected in the budget measures that we’ve taken. I think, on balance, this is why I disagree with the opposition’s no vote on the budget. They said no to this budget, which did reduce these costs on people. They have a different view, and it may be their view that we should have cut other taxes or we should have made other changes. That’s their view, and that’s a legitimate view to hold, I suppose.

[1:45 p.m.]

Our view — it’s the view that’s clearly expressed in this budget document — is that life is going to become less and less and less affordable for people. The level of inequality in our province has grown over time, and we needed to take measures to ensure and to protect some people in society and to give them more opportunity in society.

That’s precisely what my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings has done with the initiatives that he’s brought into place. That’s precisely what my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education has done with respect to adult basic education. It’s precisely what the member for Vancouver-Hastings has done with respect to bus passes.

These are the changes that needed to be made. If life was unaffordable for most people, the people who were paying high MSP premiums that had doubled under the previous government…. If life was unaffordable for them, it was for many people in the province unendurable. That’s why the government has taken the measures they have.

What we have here in the Budget Measures Implementation Act is a series of measures, balanced measures, measures taken in the whole budget that reduce the overall burden on people, particularly with respect to MSP premiums. They’re in the context of a budget that protects people and that increases supports for some people in a way that I think is consistent with the values of British Columbians, and it’s a budget that will encourage and support economic growth in British Columbia.

I encourage all members to support Bill 2.

P. Milobar: It’s my pleasure to rise and give my comments on Bill 2. I must admit that I was struggling at first, thinking how I would fill the time, but there have just been so many things said after the first two speakers from the other side that I think I might be able to muddle my way through.

Over the past few years in B.C., we’ve made incredible steps forward, leading the country in economic growth and development, and we’ve done that second to none. We’ve had a clear vision on how we planned to create that economic growth. We’ve seen the highest job numbers, the strongest economy. That has been verified even as we headed into this budget update with the public accounts being brought forward, where even the Finance Minister acknowledges that we had a very strong financial situation and that we were the envy of all of the country when it related to what our financial state was at and our $2.7 billion surplus.

Now we’re faced with this budget update. It does have several concerning aspects to it. As we just heard, there seems to be a change in the math. I’ve heard the expression. I didn’t quite understand it, I must admit, before I came to Victoria. I would always hear this NDP math phrase used, and I’m starting to maybe understand it a little bit better.

When we read through the budget documents, what we see is about $2 billion more of taxation with this budget update. Now, I will agree with the Minister of Health that you cannot just talk about that without the cuts. So let’s look at MSP. I agree. There’s about $1 billion being removed from what we were charging people for MSP premiums out of that and being paid for by that $2 billion worth of taxes. That does correlate.

Now, I come from local government where, when you give people their property tax bill, you can’t pretend that the water bill isn’t some form of taxation. MSP is much the same way. It’s a form of taxation. Let’s give the benefit of the doubt, and let’s do the math and say: “Okay. Out of that $2 billion of new taxation that we see in this budget update, $1 billion of that is actually being used to offset the change in MSP.” You’re taking from one tax to a different tax. It’s the same taxpayers, but you’ve just reformulated it. I will agree to that premise.

However, that still leaves $1 billion. I struggle to understand how only the members opposite could convey that $1 billion of new taxation, on strictly a budget update, is somehow making life more affordable in British Columbia. It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t stand the test of “are the numbers accurate or not, and are the statements accurate or not?” You say that you’re taxing an extra $1 billion, yet somehow people will feel that life is more affordable.

[1:50 p.m.]

I say that…. The public has to have faith and confidence in the numbers when they are presented, especially by representatives of the Crown, back out. We’ve just been hearing about several hundred million dollars worth of tax cuts, when, in fact, we know it’s about $1 billion of net new taxation that’s going to happen.

In the comments before the break, the minister had indicated that a 50-plus-one was used in the referendum for proportional representation in 2009, which is not, in fact, accurate at all. I went back and looked on the break. This goes back to: how can you trust numbers when they’re bandied about? In fact, the last proportional representation referendum needed a 60 percent overall approval and 50 percent approval in at least 60 percent of the ridings — unlike the current option that we are being presented for the public, which is a flat 50-plus-one, full stop, no counterbalance with the number of ridings needed.

I say that because…. Again, it’s about building trust around how we are looking at the numbers. As they say, everyone can look at the percentages and numbers and make them tell a tale that they would like. In this case, as we stand here today, between my interpretation and several economists’ interpretation of $1 billion of new taxes in this budget versus the $389 million of tax cuts that the previous speaker spoke of…. That’s almost a $1.5 billion difference. It seems to be more than a rounding error.

Now, I was very happy to hear both the previous speakers talk about supporting the credit unions. I think that’s a good thing. They obviously hold credit unions in very high regard, as do I and, I think, as do most people around the province, especially in the smaller communities. I would note, though…. Hopefully they take a page from the credit unions, because credit unions, themselves…. When they’re going to make a fundamental and large change to how their membership functions, they need a 67 percent threshold, not a 50-plus-one. Maybe a bit more of the credit union can rub off on the members opposite.

When we look at the increases, there’s an increase to the corporate tax. It goes from 11 percent to 12 percent. To the average person, that might not seem like a very big increase. Now, if you’re a large corporation, however, it is. That’s the difference between us being a leader in the country and us being in the middle of the pack as a province in the country. That can make the difference between someone choosing to invest here or not. That investment, in turn, brings hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs when you’re talking the types of corporations that these tax increases would take effect on.

Again, with my local government background…. You sometimes have to look at the overall budget, and you say: “How does this all make sense?” It doesn’t. I know that within British Columbia, the level of inducements you can provide companies, frankly, as a municipality is very, very limited because it’s illegal. Yet here we think that a $50,000 bump into an Amazon bid, while we’re raising corporate income taxes by 1 percent, from 11 to 12 percent, is somehow going to make the difference for us, on a North American stage, to land the Amazon headquarters.

I fully applaud the attempt to try to land the Amazon headquarters. But honestly, if the members opposite feel that a $50,000 inducement for a company that’s looking to locate its next headquarters, with 50,000 employees, is what’s going to make or break the difference for a corporation of that size…. I would suggest that the 1 percent tax hike — and it is an increase, not a decrease, as we’ve been hearing about all these great tax decreases — will be way more detrimental than a $50,000 inducement to try to attract an employer that would create 50,000 direct jobs.

In other words, the government seems to feel that the way to attract Amazon here is to offer them $1, a single loonie, per employee as a one-time charge, and that will get them here over every other jurisdiction in North America. When all the other municipalities in B.C…. I’m not familiar with the Vancouver Charter, and Vancouver wouldn’t have the land mass, necessarily, inside their boundaries. They may have. Every other municipality would be bound by the Local Government Act, which would say they cannot give an inducement to Amazon.

[1:55 p.m.]

Again, what could the province do to try to get Amazon here? Well, I would suggest $1 per worker as a one-time inducement probably wouldn’t get Amazon here. Perhaps looking more aggressively at our corporate tax structure and making sure we stay as the leader in the country on the corporate taxation side…. That’s something a company like Amazon and other companies will actually pay attention to. That’s really how we’re going to keep growing our economy.

That’s the concern. When you look at year 2 and year 3 of this budget and this budget update, it’s fine to just say, “This is an update,” but there’s a reason we ask for, and every government has to provide, a three-year budget window and a view. Again, with my local government background…. We had to provide a five-year window. Why did we ask local governments to do five years, and why do we ask the provincial government to do three years? It’s so that people get a good sense of where you’re trying to head as a government, and there’s a sense of whether your goals are realistic or not.

The reason the following years in the budget are concerning to me is because here we already have $1 billion of new taxation. We have almost zero of the bigger-ticket election promises made by both the NDP and the B.C. Green Party in this budget update. Yet all the money in the following years in this budget update has already been spent.

We already know this. We know this by looking at the budget document. We can see that in year 2 and year 3 of a three-year document here, there is no extra money. There are contingency funds, which is a good thing, but as we saw this year, unfortunately, with the fire, those contingency funds can be gone in a heartbeat.

So, again, why is this concerning? Because the projections that we see on this budget update for future growth in this province, albeit slightly lower than what other agencies are projecting for growth for British Columbia over the next couple of years…. That slightly lower difference does not cover the gap of what they’re hoping to do as a government in implementing and spending in the future and what would actually come in. In other words, they’ve already projected very optimistically for what the growth revenues are going to create for British Columbia, and they have not shown one dime of new spending of their promises of things like $10-a-day child care, of things like the $400 renter rebate, and other issues like that.

Where would that money possibly come from? If you’ve already shown, in your future look, maximum revenues coming in under our current, existing taxation regimes, your new policies you’re bringing in, as well as your growth for the economy, where possibly could all those extra revenues come in for all of these election promises that we’ve heard so much about?

Well, one can only surmise they’re going to come from taxation, which means, moving forward, that for every new election promise that gets presented after this budget update, that has to come from a new form of taxation. Somewhere within there, they have to find the money, because I’m very confident that the new ministers do not want to see the 10 percent holdback of their salary if they ran into a deficit, and I’m sure they wouldn’t want to see the other 10 percent holdback that their salary is subject to if their own ministry comes into a deficit.

Moving forward, it will be very interesting indeed to see how this is going to happen without any new taxes. Why that’s concerning to me is that then we look at the budget update and the proposal around the carbon tax. We’ve now gone, again, from a leader in terms of revenue neutrality with carbon tax back to the middle of the pack, and that seems to be a recurring theme. It seems to be: “Let’s figure out how we can make British Columbia mediocre.” I’m not going to do a play on the famous down south slogan, because I find that to be entirely inappropriate in terms of that.

This, though, is truly what seems to be happening in British Columbia. We seem to have a government right now who is trying to find ways to intentionally make us middle of the pack — not because of outside market forces, not because things outside of their control are happening in the global economy but because they actually are purposely setting out, and their actual stated goals are, to have us in the middle of the pack, to make us average, to make us just kind of fit into the rest of the country, instead of being where we have been over the last five years, leading the country.

[2:00 p.m.]

I think people in British Columbia want us to be leaders. I think they want us in this House to be leaders, and I think they, as residents of British Columbia, want our province to be leaders. This budget does anything but that. This budget takes us back into the middle of the pack.

Back to the carbon tax and why that’s concerning. We now see a carbon tax that’s no longer going to be revenue neutral. In fact, it’s going to increase, as every province would have to increase, to the threshold the federal government is mandating. That is a given. However, we were the only province with a revenue-neutral stance that we had already implemented and, once again, were leading the pack with. Now we’re talking about removing that.

There are a few things that are concerning about that. The government has been very unclear as to whether or not the existing funds, long term, that we’re currently collecting from carbon tax will also no longer be subject to revenue neutrality. We know that the added funds that will start taking effect in April 2018 aren’t going to be revenue-neutral. We know that those funds, over 2018 and 2019, are going to generate almost $700 million more for this government to spend.

Normally, one might think: “Well, that’s because they have to pay for those promises that they talked about in their campaign that they haven’t funded yet.” I would understand that except for the fact that $700 million of revenue has already been accounted for in existing programming within that three-year budget. Again, we’ve seen an increase in carbon taxation of almost $700 million over the next two years — net profit to the government — but that money has already been spent before an election promise has been delivered upon.

Where will the other money come from? Well, there’s all that other carbon tax that, now that the rules are changing, suddenly isn’t revenue-neutral anymore. I guess they might be able to dip into that. But we’re not really sure.

Even more concerning is that industry still cannot get an answer from government on what revenue-neutral means or doesn’t mean. The greenhouse industry, as an example, currently receives about an 80 percent subsidy back for greenhouse gases and their carbon tax. There’s no commitment whether this new $5,which is no longer revenue neutral, will be subject to that 80 percent.

Are we now going to disconnect with trying to buy local, trying to be good for the environment and trying to make sure that there’s a stable agricultural industry by being punitive with the carbon taxation on the greenhouse industry?

If that happens, the end result is that not only will taxes go up for a short time until the greenhouses inevitably close…. The reason they would close is because then we’d now have made it economically viable for stores to even buy more produce out of California than they currently do. We would be directly impacting our own industry. We’d be increasing trucks on the road, driving all the way up the I-5 from California. For what? Because we cannot get a clear answer as to what an increase in carbon tax will actually mean.

The greenhouse industry is not the only industry. There are lots of other industries. They’re hearing the right things, but no one’s actually able to point to any policy or even attempted policy that the government is bringing forward around this new-found slush fund of taxation.

It’s a three-year budget so you only see the next two years of carbon taxation. What they don’t show you is years 3 and 4, which still are subject to another $5-a-year increase. It means you would now be going from — rough math — $700 million collected over two years to closer to $1.5 billion to $2 billion by year 4. Where is the plan? There isn’t one.

It seems that when it comes to taxation, there’s a great plan on how to pull money out of the economy. There doesn’t seem to be a plan to put money back into the economy, although I guess I could stand to be corrected. In all credit, the members opposite have committed to try to put the princely sum of $50,000 back into the economy to lure Amazon here.

As I say, I’m sure if a company the size of Amazon…. It’s valued at, I think, $486 billion. I’m sure a $50,000 inducement should just really…. Their HR department, I’m sure, is sitting there…. Their human resources department is sitting back with their accounting department and saying: “My, do you know what this would do to our labour costs if we could get a one-time, one-dollar-an-employee out of the province of British Columbia? Stop talking to every other jurisdiction because that’s going to make the difference to us.” That’s the disconnect that I have with this budget and this budget update.

[2:05 p.m.]

Now, I mentioned coming from the local government side a few times. The carbon tax is very punitive when you start looking at school districts and at municipalities. There’s a saying in local government, and a very common saying, that there’s only one taxpayer. We say that in local government a lot because local governments collect about eight cents on every taxation-generated dollar collected in this country.

In this budget, because of the carbon tax no longer being revenue-neutral — and because municipalities, even though we’ve just had UBCM, have no clear understanding how this is going to impact them moving forward…. Or school districts. What we see is to two jurisdictions that have been doing everything possible to find efficiencies in terms of building retrofits, fleet management and fuel consumptions…. In spite of all that, they will now be faced with increased fuel costs to heat their public buildings and to fuel the fleets, for the garbage trucks and the fire trucks and the police cars that we all need to have properly running cities.

Why is that important? Well, that goes straight to your property tax bill, because there’s only one taxpayer. It’s fine for the members opposite to say, “Well, we’re cutting taxes,” when in fact they’re actually increasing taxes by $1 billion net, but they’re also increasing property taxes in a roundabout way by increasing the carbon tax.

Not only are they going to pull some money out of your pocket on the carbon tax every time you go to the pump to fill up your car, and they’re going to pull it every time you turn your furnace on…. I have to say, it’s a little balmy down here still, but even though I’m from Kamloops…. Furnaces are being turned on daily and nightly in Kamloops already. We already would see those types of carbon taxes impacting your home heating costs.

Not only are homeowners going to be paying that; their municipalities are going to have to turn around and say: “Oh by the way, we had to increase your property taxes because we need to pay a little bit more carbon tax on our fleets and our heating costs for buildings.”

Energy consumption, for municipalities, is a huge percentage of their budget. Most municipalities have done everything they can do to try to be good citizens and lead by example, as government, to try to reduce emissions as much as possible. Now they’re being faced with increased taxation from this government because they no longer want to have carbon be revenue-neutral.

That, again, is a contradiction on trying to make life affordable, and affordable housing for people, when you’re essentially telling municipalities: “Please raise property taxes because we need more money in our coffers provincially.”

You’re also doing the same with this budget to the school districts in terms of carbon taxation — school districts that are looking for money. On the one hand, they’re heralding some of the new money that may be coming their way, and then it’s going to get clawed back right away with carbon taxation. Again, a very interesting shell game, because there is only one taxpayer. That’s the problem with this.

When you look at, saying that carbon tax is good and we’re going to do more transit…. Well, coming from one of the larger cities outside of the Metro area, I can tell you there’s not a lot more that can be done with transit. We could add a few more hours here and a few more hours there, but the bottom line is that people need their vehicles to get around. They need them to drive 70 kilometres out into the bush to work. They need them to be able to drive to get their kids to school and back, to their after-school activities, because the bus system just won’t quite cut it for them.

That’s the reality of living outside of the Metro area. Though I applaud efforts to increase transit in the metro areas, and I’m a staunch supporter of transit throughout the province, and I’ve always supported every minute of transit service offered to our city, it’s not the final answer for large geographic portions of this province.

Instead, we’re going to take those large geographic portions of this province and we’re going to tell the people who need to drive the most, out of necessity: “You know what? You should pay more for the privilege of doing that, with carbon tax, so that people in metro areas can pay less for transit.” That doesn’t sit well when people look at the budget — not in my area anyways.

[2:10 p.m.]

To sum up, we have a budget update which was predicated on numbers from when we were government. We were verified by the now Finance Minister to have had the leading economy in the country, the strongest economic growth, the strongest job growth and an unheard-of surplus to work with. And what we’re now faced with, instead….

Interjection.

P. Milobar: I’m glad the fan club showed up finally.

What we’re faced with instead now is we’ve gone from that to a budget that is increasing $1 billion, net, in new taxation. That is adding taxation to municipal governments and school districts. That’s adding taxation every time somebody goes to a pump and tries to put gas into their car. That’s adding taxation every time somebody moves the dial on their thermostat, because: “How dare they stay warm? Everyone can just put on an extra couple of layers of sweaters. That’s the better way to go.” That’s what we have for a budget.

We have a budget here…. And this is only an update. Then we look at the forward-looking, as I referenced earlier, and there were none of the grand promises in that. But all the money has already been spent — all of it. When you look at it, there’s no grand surplus sitting at the end of year 2 and year 3. There’s none of that.

We have growth projections that are already close to what the outside agencies project to be growth of our economy. Out of all of that, we still have ministers saying that there are actually tax cuts, that things are actually getting to be more affordable for people. Now, I agree that things like the extra money for people on disability and people on welfare…. Rates will help them and ease some of their pains around affordability in terms of their monthly lives, absolutely. So there are some people that this budget will be helping.

We’re talking about the global dollars. And the global dollars in this right now would suggest that there is no money in there for any of the NDP promises or the Green promises. However, as the Green leader has so fondly pointed out, promises really are irrelevant when it comes to an election. I guess that’s maybe why there’s not as much worry about how to find the funding for moving forward.

After all, what’s the point of worrying about those pesky campaign promises and the expectations that people may have? Now, I can say…. I’m on the Finance Committee. We’ve had a few meetings already. They’re all public meetings. Nothing I’m saying here today is not already on the record at Hansard or has been recorded or broadcast. I can tell you, Madame Speaker, there’s a whole lot of expectation by a whole lot of groups out there that expect to see those campaign promises in the budget, yet there’s no money in future budgets for any of those campaign promises.

So where oh where is this going to come from? There are either going to have to be significant cuts to services and a reallocation, simply…. I applaud going through the ministries to make sure the money that is being spent is being spent wisely. I think that’s always a prudent course for any government of any political stripe to do.

Thinking that finding the loose change under the cushions is going to somehow magically pay for all of your promises…. I don’t think that’s going to happen. Again, I know I’m going to sound a bit like a broken record. I’ll go back to my local government history. Every election, you have people that run and say: “You know, if we just purchase our paper a little bit more effectively and make sure that we reuse the paper clips, we won’t have to have a property tax increase.” I think we all are aware of people that run in campaigns around that.

The taxpayers are never fooled by that. I don’t see why they’d be fooled by this budget update. There is $1 billion of new taxation — bottom line — in this. It’s a little from here. It’s a little from there. There are some groups, absolutely, and some of the most vulnerable that are going to benefit from this. I don’t hear people complaining about that. I don’t. I don’t hear it in my riding. I don’t hear it around the province. I think people, generally speaking, all recognize that those types of supports are needed and they’re critical and they should be there.

That’s not the type of supports we’re worried about. We’re worried about the rest of the billion dollars of taxation and, more importantly, where all the money for future promises is going to come from.

[2:15 p.m.]

As I say, there’s a reason you’re supposed to show a couple of years in advance for your budget. And when you look at those couple of years in advance, not only is there $1 billion in new spending with this budget update, but when you look at that whole document, there is no money for future promises that were made in this most recent campaign. That’s the most troubling and concerning part.

Thank you for allowing me this time, Madame Speaker, to speak on Bill 2.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s a pleasure today to rise in support of Budget Update 2017, but before I actually begin to talk about the budget….

As we all know, it’s a very special day today. It’s World Teachers Day. I want to say what a pleasure it was to be on the steps of the Legislature, having young children singing and teachers there to celebrate this day.

Today I’m reminded of all the teachers who touched my life. Mrs. Brown, who welcomed me, at the age of nine, into my elementary school in England and was stuck with a young girl in her class who didn’t speak a word of English and who was really scared about being in such a foreign place and in such a foreign environment. Mrs. Roe, who inspired me to fall in love with history — and I would say that she is responsible for me becoming a teacher eventually. And to all the kids who inspired me while I was teaching.

A huge thank you to teachers, not only across this beautiful country but around the world, who take up this noble profession and devote so much more of themselves into this than the hours they put in, in front of the classroom. They move for social change. They become activists, and they look after our children. Thank you, teachers, wherever you are.

I’ve heard a lot about Budget 2017 Update from my colleagues across the way. People have asked me: why is it called an update? I want to start with that.

First of all, the reason it’s an update is because we all know there were some difficulties in the transition from one government to the next. It took longer than it would have done normally, but we’re living in, I would say, different times, and as a result, the time only permitted for a Budget Update 2017. The full NDP budget will be coming up in March.

This was all because of time restraints, etc. In this Budget Update 2017, I am absolutely proud to say that this is a prudent budget. This is a balanced budget, with reasonable surpluses at the end of each of the three years, as predicted in here.

It’s a budget that actually is focusing on people, where the priorities are about delivering services and making life better for those who live in B.C. It’s a budget that is not only about making life more affordable but about improving services to British Columbians and growing decent-paying jobs right around this province.

For the last 16 years, people have faced cuts, whether it’s been in education, whether it’s been in health care, whether it’s been in many, many sectors. What we heard from people loud and clear was that when their government spoke about the budget in the past, they did not feel themselves reflected in that budget. The budgets and the numbers that the previous government talked about did not reflect the life that British Columbians were living.

[2:20 p.m.]

It did not talk to the young couple who live in my riding who, despite having gone through a university education and having good jobs, still could not afford to buy a house. It did not speak to another couple who could not afford to find child care — not only affordable child care but just child care, period. It didn’t talk to so many people who live in Surrey, and in other parts of British Columbia, who are working in precarious work and to many who are working two or three jobs just to make ends meet.

When this budget was built, it was built to address the needs of British Columbians. It was built by putting British Columbians at the centre of the budget. Government is always about choices, choices that those sitting in this House make to best serve British Columbians. After 16 years of badly thought-out choices and neglect on this side of the House, we’ve found that there’s a lot of work to do. We’re ready to do it, and we have begun.

What that means.... It means starting to invest in people. Choosing to invest in people means we’re investing in a strong, sustainable British Columbia. For British Columbians, they have to feel and they have to live the experience that their government is working for them. We’re going to put people first. We’re going to make sure that they have the services they need so that they can raise their families.

We hear a lot about taxes. I’m not going to get into too much detail, but you know, we had a government, now sitting in opposition, that has decimated ICBC. We’ve seen the rate increases, and we’ve seen what would have happened if they had been re-elected. Once the report came out, it showed how much money had been taken out of ICBC in order to give payola to some of their friends and by giving a tax break to the top 1 percent.

What we are going to do as a government…. Taxes are about fairness. It’s about paying progressive taxes. It’s about paying taxes that then provide services for people.

I have never, ever complained about paying taxes. As teacher, I paid my taxes then, and I pay my taxes now. I’m willing to pay those taxes, so that the governments that are elected will make sure that we have the services we need as British Columbians — hospitals, education, highways and freeways — and make sure that we look after those who cannot look after themselves.

Because of fairness, we are going to be reversing the top-income-earners tax break that was given out by the previous government. Those people will now be paying an additional 2.1 percent on income over $150,000. That’s what a progressive tax looks like. It shouldn’t be that those who earn over $150,000 should keep getting more tax breaks, while the rest of the people keep getting cuts in services. They get to the stage where they can’t afford to buy a house, can’t afford to feed their children. That just is not acceptable.

We’re also increasing our corporate taxes, which used to be the lowest, by a modest 1 percent. You know, the sky is not going to fall. What this will do…. It still keeps us competitive with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Our corporations that make huge profits, it’s only fair that they should pay their fair share of taxes to support infrastructure and to support services in British Columbia.

We’re also cutting another tax by 50 percent. This is a tax, by the way, the Liberals, when they were in government, doubled. That’s the MSP premiums. MSP premiums are going to be cut by 50 percent, and that is a tax break.

[2:25 p.m.]

It always puzzled me, both when I was a Member of Parliament and now, and even before that, why it is that British Columbians are the only ones who have an MSP tax when no other province in this country has one. That is totally unfair.

Under the Liberal government, we watched the MSP premiums double. Well, one of the first actions we’ve taken is that we’ll be reducing those MSP premiums by 50 percent. That means the average person is going to save $900 per year, $900 that’s going to go back into people’s pockets so that they can spend it on a roof over their head, on food, on clothing and maybe even a small holiday. Not very much, but a beginning.

These MSP premium cuts will also help to support some of our businesses. There are many businesses that do pay MSP premiums on behalf of their workers, and this will give them a little bit of a break there as well.

Something else we’re doing, which hasn’t got a lot of attention, so I really want to emphasize this: we are actually reducing taxes for the small and medium-sized businesses. Small businesses are going to see their taxes reduced by 20 percent. That is right, Members — 20 percent, from 2½ to 2 percent. That is a tax break we’re giving in recognition of the fact that it is our small and medium-sized businesses that do grow our economy. During this time, they’re going to get this tax break so that we can grow more jobs in communities right across this province.

As we’re looking at the budget, this budget is also about making life more affordable in other ways. Housing. Under the previous government, we’ve seen house pricing escalate to a point where, I would say, many members sitting in this House, if they did not already own a house, would find it difficult to qualify for one, at least in the Lower Mainland. That is a major, major issue, so we have a minister who has started on developing a comprehensive plan to make housing more affordable for people, to close speculation loopholes and reduce tax fraud and money laundering in B.C. real estate.

The opposition had an opportunity to do this, to address these very, very serious issues when it came to affordable housing. But do you know what? They decided just to look the other way, and now British Columbians are paying the price. In this budget update, we’re taking first critical steps. We’re investing $208 million over four years to support the construction of more than 1,700 new units of affordable rental housing in communities right across this province.

Supportive housing units. We’re providing $291 million over two years to construct 2,000-plus modular supportive housing units for people who are homeless. These are the kinds of things British Columbians expect from their government. But that’s only the beginning. We have far more to come yet.

Poverty reduction. For years and years, we’ve been asking my colleagues across the way, when they were in government, to come up with a poverty reduction plan. We know that unless you have a plan, have targets, it’s very, very difficult to address this issue. We’ve seen other provinces very successfully address the poverty issue, especially children living in poverty, because they had a poverty reduction plan and could deliver on their targets. Now we have a minister and a parliamentary secretary tasked with finding solutions to reduce poverty and to develop a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy.

[2:30 p.m.]

We’ve increased, within days of being sworn in, income and disability assistance by $100 per month. For over a decade, those living with disabilities on social assistance hadn’t seen a significant change in their income, and this was the right thing to do to address that.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Minister, here is another example of mean-spiritedness that confounds you when you sit in this office or you are out in our communities. That was when my colleagues across the way took away bus passes from those living with disabilities. That was just an all-time low.

It absolutely gives me pleasure to announce that we have reinstated an allowance for bus passes. We know that mobility and the ability to get around is so, so significant for those living with disabilities. It is part of their wellness plan, but it’s also an essential part of going to pick up your groceries and doing some other things that need to be done, which many of us take for granted.

We’re moving forward with a $20 million investment in new child care spaces. We are so pleased to say that our goal is to support more than 4,000 new child care spaces. This is only the beginning. I know I keep hearing: “Where is all of it?” But my colleagues across the way know, when they were in government, that things don’t just happen by snapping your finger. You have to plan. You have to have targets. I’m proud to say that our Finance Minister and the cabinet and the government has put into place a budget that absolutely has targets and has goals. We’ve begun to work on that, and we will deliver.

K-to-12 education, Mr. Speaker, as you know, is a topic that is very, very close to my heart. I am so delighted that in this budget, we are adding $681 million over the three years to help our kids get the education they deserve. Instead of fighting with teachers and educational partners, this government is going to work with teachers, work with parents, make sure that we have the resources we need and make sure that the additional teachers — 3,500 of them — will be hired so that they can deliver the quality education every child needs.

We’re putting additional money into capital funding to make sure that we have the schools we need and, also, that the kids have the resources they need in the schools to learn. After 16 years of cut after cut after cut to key services for some of our most vulnerable students, also impacting every student in the school system, we now have a government that is committed to a quality, public education that is the foundation of our democracy.

I want to say that I am so looking forward to having our kids in Surrey move out of portables and into classrooms. I’m looking forward to the schools actually being built instead of announcement after announcement of promises that never were quite realized.

Also, I’m delighted that for those who leave school and later on realize they would like to go back and go for post-secondary or finish their high school graduation, we have made that tuition free.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, in Surrey, we are very, very concerned with the whole drug issue — opioids, addictions, health care and the gun violence that we have experienced. I’m so pleased that our government has a ministry devoted to mental health and addictions but also that we are making investments to address those issues.

[2:35 p.m.]

We are not only raising them at the national level, working with our federal government, but also working with municipalities as to how we are going to handle these, working with schools and the police and community organizations to make sure that we address this.

This is a very, very serious issue, and all of us on both sides of the House know that safety and protection of our citizens is a top priority. And there is nothing more disconcerting for a community than to have gunshots going off almost every week.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, we’ve made a commitment to building a sustainable economy. I always say, if you want to get the nod test, run it by a kindergarten student. If you were to talk to a kindergarten student and say, “What should we be taking care of?” they would say their surroundings. They would talk about the planet. And they actually do. They teach us so much, because they are so in tune. If you were to say to them, “Should we be looking after our rivers? Should we be looking after our ocean? Should we be looking after the air we breathe?” their answer is going to be yes, every single time.

It’s really good that we focus on a sustainable economy and that we support innovation, and our government is absolutely committed to that. And we’re so delighted that we’re supporting job creators, like Fortinet, which announced just recently a large expansion in Burnaby with 1,000 new jobs. We are so, so delighted with that. And Mr. Speaker would appreciate that because, as he knows, that’s in his riding, and he must be very proud of that job growth.

People deserve a government that works hard to control costs and spends public money to benefit British Columbians, and that is our goal. Our budget update includes record levels of capital investments — $40.6 billion in capital spending over the next three years. We’ll build the schools, hospitals, roads and transit that people rely on.

Coming from Surrey, I have to take a few minutes to talk about public transit, because in Surrey we know what gridlock looks like. And by the way, a huge thank-you is heard right across Surrey and south of Fraser as people do a little dance when they find out — well, they experience it now — there are no tolls on those two bridges.

We’re looking forward to working with the federal government as we work on improvements to the transit for Surrey. Because it’s not just about bridges; it’s also about getting public transit down our major arterial routes so that people are not spending hours and hours in gridlock.

Colleagues in this room don’t have to be told that getting people out of the cars and out of gridlock is a huge saving, not only to the health sector. Actually, mental health issues are greatly related to that, but so is output when people get to work. If you spend two hours sitting in a gridlock, watching your watch and shaking your hand and head and having some unpleasant thoughts in your head, your focus when you get to work is not going to be 100 percent on your work. So all around, it is an economic urgency to get people out of gridlock and to get people moving.

Also, I’m so proud of the fact that we are creating an innovation commission which will both advocate and be an ambassador for B.C.’s tech sector, which has been too long ignored by our colleagues on the other side.

Our budget update presents a strong, responsible fiscal plan that puts people first. As I said at the beginning of my speech: government is all about making choices. We’re going to do this while helping to ensure the long-run fiscal sustainability of our province.

[2:40 p.m.]

Our balanced budget for 2017-18 includes total spending of $51.9 billion, total revenues of $52.4 billion and a budget surplus of approximately $246 million — and record levels of capital spending, which creates good-paying jobs around this province while maintaining a debt-to-GDP ratio that is affordable.

B.C.’s economy is strong. Employment is growing. Retail sales are strong. Housing starts and exports have all exceeded expectations. The outlook for this year’s real GDP growth is 2.9 percent, which is prudent compared to the outlook provided by the independent Economic Forecast Council.

I am so proud to be a member of a government whose Finance Minister has put forward such a well-thought-out budget that has people as its focus, that delivers services, that addresses affordability and that is focused like a laser on growing decent-paying jobs in communities right across this province.

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in this debate on Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2017. As we know, this bill before us is a bill that sets the stage — the measures put forward in the budget, in the required legislative changes — to implement those promises in the budget.

Now, there is some precedent here for there to be unanimity in supporting a budget measures implementation act. I take you to March 24, 2015, when the member for Abbotsford West said, after division was called: “In glorious unanimity, we move to Committee of the Whole House.” That was after the Budget Measures Implementation Act was supported unanimously by members of opposition at the time and members of government at the time.

There is precedent, even though a budget was voted against, to vote in support of a budget measures implementation act. I’m not so sure, actually, that the official opposition at the time meant to do that, but the reality is that there is precedent.

I am interpreting that as a sign of good faith. So I look forward to this government, who had the bold claim, the audacity to state, speaker after speaker after speaker, that the B.C. NDP budget is largely based on what the Liberals had already…. If they truly believe that, then I look forward to hearing them stand and speak in support of each and every one of the measures that they had in their original budget.

As we’ve seen yesterday, as we’ve seen here in the House, it’s a game for the official opposition. This is not about the formation of good public policy. It’s about a game. It’s about the quest for power and the game of politics, not about doing what’s right for British Columbians.

This is a budget, as reflected in this Budget Measures Implementation Act, that is people-focused. It’s one that recognized that after 16 years, it’s time to take a look at what is happening to everyday British Columbians.

We had — I admit, and I support — a strong economy in British Columbia. There was a strong economy in British Columbia. Things went awry in about 2010. It was in 2010 that members opposite, those of them who were here, decided that they would take this province down a direction and a quest for the impossible, with promises of, as I’ve said before, unicorns in each and every one of our backyards.

[2:45 p.m.]

They began the quest and journey to the unimaginable, of bringing to B.C. a $100 billion prosperity fund, a $1 trillion increase in GDP, 100,000 jobs, elimination of the PST, debt-free B.C., thriving schools and hospitals because of an LNG industry that was going to bring wealth and prosperity to all.

I wish I had written down the quotes of the then Minister of Natural Gas. When I stood in this Legislature and questioned the logic, questioned the facts, questioned what earth they were living on to think that this was going to happen, I was told, in essence, and I paraphrase: “The member opposite doesn’t know what he’s saying. He should do his research. He doesn’t know what he’s doing. I meet with the companies. I know what’s going on, and I’m looking forward to the member opposite eating his words.”

Well, two years later…. It’s almost three years now. I think it’s the former minister of hot air — sorry, Natural Gas — that should be eating his words.

The danger of this, which was created by going down this quest, is it sent a signal to the market — now, I’m going to use good free enterprise language — that if you want to do business in B.C., it’s LNG or nothing. I’ve had tech leader after tech leader after tech leader after developer after business leader after CEO tell me that they were frustrated since 2010. They were frustrated because in B.C., it was all about LNG. University presidents, schools — re-engineering our education system, all for LNG.

For the members opposite, it was a big game. They knew they had no chance of winning the 2013 election, so they had to throw a Hail Mary pass, a Hail Mary pass of hope that British Columbians would hang their hats on. Well, they failed to deliver, and they have the gall to stand here and suggest that our economy is thriving because of their fiscal mismanagement.

The reason why our economy is thriving is single. No, it’s not because of a burgeoning resource sector. Frankly, it’s ironic that members opposite suggest that they support rural B.C. when communities in rural B.C. are hurting right now precisely because of their fiscal mismanagement, because they seem to think that, in British Columbia, we’re going to compete with Indonesia in just digging dirt out of the ground. No, we’re not. We compete by being innovative, by bringing broadband to these communities, by bringing the tech sector to the resource communities, by working on the value-added — precisely the measures that are reflected in the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

It’s ironic. I say to rural British Columbia: “Take a look at what you’re doing voting in the B.C. Liberals, who have put you in precisely the position you so want to get out of because of their fiscal mismanagement.” This is an opportunity we have here today to reinvigorate rural B.C., whether it be the Cariboo, the Kootenays, the northwest, the northeast, central B.C., southeastern B.C. or southwestern B.C.

We get it over here. We get it over here that resource industries are precious, but we have to compete in a modern economy. That means we have to bring together the tech and the resource sectors and work and support the value-added, which that government seemed to think didn’t need to be done because it’s all about LNG.

Hon. Speaker, you wonder why they’re sitting in a time-out. You wonder why they’re sitting in a time-out and why so many British Columbians are so delighted by the arrangement we have now. It’s because of their reckless fiscal management. They have the gall, as I say, to try to paint themselves as good managers of this economy.

Our economy is booming. We have strong GDP growth. The reason why is simple. It’s not resource. It’s because of an out-of-control speculative housing market, largely driven in Metro Vancouver, and the construction market associated with that. The members opposite bemoan the loss of construction jobs. We can’t meet construction job demand right now because of the irresponsible policies or the lack of stepping in to deal with an out-of-control real estate market. Condos are being built and presold to offshore buyers before they’re even built so that when they’re built, they remain empty because people across the world recognize, in today’s turbulent times, that they need to find a safe haven for their capital.

[2:50 p.m.]

There are 7½ billion people on this planet and under five million in the province of British Columbia. If we talk about the 1 percent, it’s still an awful lot of millions of people, hundreds of millions of people. When you’re looking for a safe haven in tumultuous times and you see a jurisdiction, the Wild West, that has no rules, you look to park your capital in this jurisdiction. You park your capital in one of the safest investments a person could ever make — real estate, land, agricultural land.

What is the consequence of this? That British Columbians who have lived here, were born here, can’t even afford to live and work in the place where they were born. That’s not good economic management. That’s reckless mismanagement that many jurisdictions around the world have dealt with, years ago, through the introduction of policy measures to deal with foreign speculation in their market.

Today I introduced another bill. I can’t speak about another bill here, but today before the House…. As we know, measures have been proposed by the B.C. Green Party and by the government when they were in official opposition.

The now official opposition, sitting there in a well-earned time-out, are going to do so for a very long time, because they looked at this problem like deer stuck in a headlight and refused to take the necessary steps. Even when they did, introducing the so-called foreign buyer tax, they botched it. They botched it by essentially taxing you if you own a passport. But agricultural land was excluded, so you could actually move speculation into the ALR.

A foreign entity wasn’t actually described as a partnership, so in fact you could find a loophole to get away from it there. A foreign corporation isn’t going to invest. A foreign individual can’t invest. But if a foreigner gets together with a Canadian or a British Columbian and forms a partnership, that’s exempt from the foreign buyer tax.

You can’t make this stuff up, except under a B.C. Liberal government that has no idea about managing the economy, despite the fact that they have excellent communications staff — or they did; they used to — who were able to try to convince or, frankly, con British Columbians that they are good managers of the economy.

They tried to paint the opposition here as fiscally reckless, based on the tired narrative of what happened in the 1990s. We talk about the fast ferry scandal, but instead, we should be talking about Site C.

Just today we hear — as, again, predictable, and we’ve been saying for a long time — there will be cost overruns on Site C because the river diversion is delayed by a year because of the fissure on the north bank and the geotechnical instability there. Was that foreseeable? Yes. Is it $8.8 billion now? No way. We’re pushing over $10 billion now, and it’s going to end up closer to $15 billion, a number — $13 billion to $15 billion — that I’ve been saying, again, for four years.

The people of British Columbia need to take a hard look at this government’s record. A government that’s investing their money, taxpayers’ money, to build a project that’s going to produce power at something like 13 cents a kilowatt hour, which they have to do to deliver into contracts to LNG industries that don’t exist. So they’re going to have to sell it on the U.S. spot market for four cents a kilowatt hour.

What sort of business model is it, other than a B.C. Liberal business model, to invest capital — your capital, taxpayer — to develop a business plan that’s going to lose ten cents for every kilowatt hour of energy produced?

At the same time, what are the lost opportunities? The lost opportunities involve things like the collapse of the clean energy sector in British Columbia, the partnerships with local First Nations across B.C. that wanted to get going. We’ve got Borealis wanting to get going near Valemount. We’ve got solar projects in the Kootenays. We’ve got wind projects on Vancouver Island. We’ve got a Prince Rupert wind project. But they can’t get going.

This is foreign capital, industry capital, private capital that wants to be invested in B.C. now, where the industry takes the risk, not the taxpayer. But again, this is B.C. Liberal economics — use taxpayers’ money, put the taxpayer at risk to subsidize corporations that, in the case of LNG, don’t even exist. It’s remarkable that they have the gall to suggest that they’re good managers of the economy.

If we go through the Budget Measures Implementation Act, there are a few transitional provisions. There are a few changes that need to be made with the cancelling of tolls. And there is a fundamental change.

[2:55 p.m.]

I must admit that there is a sense of irony here. An irony that I’m delighted with is that, again, we’re going to hear speaker after speaker on the other side rail against the opposition, or the now government — it’s hard to get used to; it’s very refreshing to say, I might add, but it’s hard to get used to — about the leadership being shown on the carbon pricing.

Leadership. That’s what this budget shows. Ironically, members opposite used to have that leadership. It was their government, under a leader, somebody who had a vision, that understood the direction and the opportunity that climate change had, a leader who recognized that by putting in a carbon price, it was sending a signal to the market — there’s that free-market, free-enterprise language again — that was telling business that we want to be clean and green here and we want to show the world that we’re leaders, and it blossomed.

Again, we’re going to hear this. I’ve already heard one person say it: “Oh, the carbon tax. Oh, it’s going to kill rural communities.” Again, fear, fear, fear, when in fact it is precisely those rural communities that are going to benefit from the carbon tax, as they did when it was introduced the first time by the B.C. Liberals. How do I know that? Because I served on the climate action team with the B.C. Liberals then.

I don’t know how many times I went to communities across the province and listened to B.C. Liberals talk about the importance of the carbon tax and how it was not going to hurt rural communities and how it was going to incentivize innovation in these communities and how First Nations across the province are going to see the opportunity with clean energy. And they did.

Now they switch their tone, because there are zero principles over there — zero principles. It’s all about the game of politics and the quest for power. So we’re going to hear them rail about carbon — fear to the taxpayer — when in fact what’s happening here is British Columbia is once again recognizing that mitigation of climate change is the world’s greatest economic opportunity, just like other jurisdictions in Taiwan, in China, in India, in Quebec, in Europe, across the world are recognizing. They’re not chasing LNG. They’re chasing the new economy, and this budget sends a signal to market that it’s time to do that again in B.C.

I can’t tell you the number of people who have been so excited about this development. I have a never-ending stream of clean energy folk coming to my office, dismayed by what they’ve had to deal with since 2010 and excited about the potential now. I’m sure they’re opening champagne bottles tonight as we find out that the fissure on Site C is going to create cost overruns. With 70 percent of the contingency already used up — and we’ve just got the project going — this is going to be a very, very expensive project, and the evidence we need to stop it is coming in right now. So to the clean energy industry, I’m excited that you are going to get the opportunity to actually see your projects start to move forward again.

I’m going to come to the tolls again. Now, I spoke against the tolls. We were the only party in the election to say we would not remove tolls because we thought it was bad policy. We thought it was bad policy because it sent a message that we’re not willing to toll transportation. No future infrastructure projects will be built with tolling. The Pattullo Bridge, which was supposed to be built as a toll bridge, will now have to be built by other means.

We didn’t think that was good public policy, but we understand that we were in the minority there because both the B.C. Liberals in the throne speech — the clone speech, I think it’s being called — and the B.C. NDP in this throne speech and in their election platform were consistent in promising it. So we understand it’s going on.

We understand, though, and we’re pleased about the recognition that mobility pricing in British Columbia at least is going to have a conversation. The mayors in Vancouver are commissioning reports on this. The government has said they’re interested in exploring and working with the mayors.

That’s how policy is built. You gather information, you build it from the bottom up, you seek support from mayors and communities, and you move forward. That is why the Massey Tunnel cancellation, or on hold for further review, is something that we too are so excited to support. Now, the reason why, of course, is if we just flash back to 2012 — oh, that magical year 2012 keeps coming up — we were supposed to be moving forward with a plan to twin the tunnel. But no, no. The Liberals nixed that and have the gall, once more, to tell British Columbians that somehow this government is irresponsible by saying that spending $4½ billion on a ten-lane mega-highway that’s going to put the traffic jam….

An Hon. Member: It’s 2.6.

[3:00 p.m.]

A. Weaver: It’s 2.6? We can challenge the numbers. A member opposite is saying 2.6. I’ll go check afterwards. The number in my mind was 4.5. I will withdraw it and correct it to 2.6 if that is indeed the case.

The reality is that twinning a tunnel is a fraction of that cost — one. Two is it kicks the traffic jams down to the Oak Street Bridge. Three, every mayor in the region, except Delta, said: “Let’s not do this, because we have a transportation plan. This isn’t part of it.”

The members’ opposite’s response, or at least one of their responses, was to take out some billboards, in and out of the Massey Tunnel, thinking that somehow the picture of my face and the Premier’s face saying…. It’s scary. I admit it’s scary. There are some good smiles there. Have you seen it? It’s pretty impressive. They say: “Thanks.”

The members opposite have no idea how many people have written, phoned, emailed — Facebook, Twitter — and have thanked us for doing this. I put out a Facebook post, just quickly, and I would look….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: It’s interesting. I’m glad that I got a reaction now. I’ve got a reaction now. I’m so excited.

In fact, most of them live south of the Fraser, if you read the Facebook comments. They want a twinning of the tunnel, because they’re fiscally responsible.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

A. Weaver: The councillor Harold Steves from Richmond pointed out, through a series of social media posts yesterday, about the plan that was already approved, which was moving forward to twin the tunnel, which the B.C. Liberals nixed, which was supported by the Richmond council, which was supported by the people there because it was cost-effective…. Again, the gall of members opposite to suggest that somehow it’s fiscally irresponsible to be fiscally responsible is unbelievable. It’s unbelievable.

Coming back to the budget measures act. I wish I could look at electronic devices, because then I’d have my Facebook post here, and I could tell you that there are more than 20,000 impressions on the post that I made. In 24 hours, there were more than 500 likes. There was no boosting of posts. It was just all organic. There were more than 100 comments. It was shared I forget how many times. The overwhelming response was, “Thank you,” just like the sign said.

It’s pretty clear that since things have changed, there’s been some suffering in the communications department for the members opposite, because this has got to be one of the most hilarious failed smear campaigns I’ve ever seen. I thank the member for Delta South, I believe it was. I thank him sincerely for, I understand, his role in putting up the billboards, because it has given us enormous support from across Metro Vancouver and, in particular, those people who live in and around Richmond and Delta. Thank you, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart.

Moving forward, there are a couple of other important measures here. You know, it’s hard to actually see…. I’m very grateful to the minister and to the civil service who provided briefing opportunity on this. That’s section 15, on the homeowner grant changes, and coupled to changes later, as well, in terms of the assessment authority’s ability to allow some exchange of information between these organizations — the province, essentially, and Ottawa, the CRA, Canada Revenue Agency — for the purpose of being able to track capital gains.

This is important, because this information was not shared. It was information requested by the CRA in order to be able to track to see whether people were paying — based on the assessments, based on the homeowner grants, claiming that as your principal residence — the capital gains when they’re supposed to pay the capital gains under present federal law.

For example, if you claim the homeowner grant under the homeowner grant and then you sell the property and claim it was suddenly an investment property and you try to write some of that capital gains off in one way or another or, if you didn’t claim the homeowner grant and you claimed that this was your primary residence and you sell that residence and you don’t pay any capital gains, now the CRA can get you, because now they have access to that information.

That’s important for putting a clamp on speculation. It’s the same with the assessment authority. These are really good pieces of legislation that are being added, in my view.

[3:05 p.m.]

The small increase in tax for the wealthy and the slight increase in corporate income tax, to 12 percent from 11 percent, obviously, are supported by the B.C. Greens. We campaigned on precisely these things.

What it translates to is asking those who can afford it to pay a little bit more. I’ve talked to thousands of British Columbians over the campaign, over the years, and let me tell you, this neoliberal idea that somehow “if tax, then bad,” is not supported by the vast majority of British Columbians. What they don’t like is a waste of taxpayers’ money. They don’t mind paying taxes, provided taxes are used efficiently, appropriately and for helping the better good. Not for helping your donors but for helping everyone.

People realize that we need to have people go to schools. People realize that without education, what sort of society are we? People realize that taxes going to hospitals are important. They believe in transportation. They don’t think that we should be using public money to subsidize corporate donors, though. That is why I am so very thrilled with the budget, as illustrated in some of these measures. It actually focuses on people in terms of helping them get the help they need at the stage they need.

The one thing that I caution on, but we do support, of course…. Caution not because it’s not that good policy; caution because of what’s happening as we increase corporate and reduce small business tax. We are beginning to create a disincentive for growth. Why I say that is we now have a step function tax change when you go from small business to corporate. I believe it’s $500,000 net earnings — correct me if I’m wrong, someone — and that jump now, from 2 percent to 12 percent, is a 10 percent increase in tax.

We have to be careful, because that says to corporations that are earning just under the threshold that you don’t necessarily want to get above the threshold — you don’t want to earn more — because then you’re going to be taxed more. So this is a caution that I think we need to start exploring. We need to start exploring about making, perhaps, a more graduated change so that we don’t disincentivize small businesses becoming bigger businesses, at the same time recognizing that something like 98 percent of businesses in British Columbia are small businesses and they need a break, as they are the engine of our economy.

Coming to some of these bizarre boutique tax credits: the child fitness tax credit, the B.C. back-to-school tax credit. Now, the B.C. Liberals laud the praise of these tax credits. Let me tell you what they actually are.

The back-to-school B.C. tax credit, if you claim it, is $12.65 a year per child — $12.65. You’re going back to school on $12.65. You know, with the cuts to education, you might have to take the bus, and this $12.65 might get you three round trips on the bus. That’s a great tax credit. How much was it to administer a tax credit of $12.65? I bet if you look at the numbers, it’s probably costing more to administer than you’re bringing in.

What about the B.C. children’s fitness equipment tax credit? Guess how much that was. I’ll see if anyone can guess how much a year you’d get on the B.C. children’s fitness tax credit. It’s $12.65. The member for Vancouver–West End has got incredible insight. It’s $12.65. If you buy a hockey stick, you get $12.65 back.

Now, first off, most people don’t even know that you can do this, unless you have an accountant. But the government has to actually budget as if every child is claiming it, so what we create is bizarre systems where the government’s budget is basically budgeting in a known surplus. They know that a large number of people aren’t going to collect it, but they have to have it in the budget. And you have to administer…. It’s just silly. It’s just silly, and this money could be better used elsewhere. Obviously, I support those.

Also with the B.C. children’s fitness credit and B.C. children’s arts credit. Now, I know that those were much more than the $12.65 tax credit. They were $25.30 a year more. Those are being eliminated because they’re being eliminated federally. Again, this legislation is consistent with federal legislation.

[3:10 p.m.]

What’s interesting about the Budget Measures Implementation Act is the means and ways this is being done. They actually have it entered into legislation, so the legislation before us brings these credits into place and then removes them, because they’ve already been claimed in last year’s tax submissions.

I see that we’re winding down in time here, but please let me say that I’m absolutely thrilled with this budget. I think British Columbians are thrilled. I’ve seen it in emails. I’ve seen it on social media and in phone calls. Everywhere I go, across British Columbia, people come up and say thank you: “Thank you for putting us first. Thank you for working with the government to ensure that these people opposite are put in a time-out.”

They have forgotten what it means to be a hard-working person in British Columbia. They’ve forgotten what it means to try to make ends meet. They’ve lost touch with the people. They lost vision. They lost ideas. They didn’t know their direction. And here they stand in opposition, trying to suggest that somehow they were good stewards of the economy.

I think there needs to be some hard soul-searching over there. I look forward to when their true colours emerge, when we see the new leader, Ms. Watts, emerge as the new leader of the B.C. conservative party opposite. Honestly, there’s nothing liberal about the B.C. Liberals.

T. Wat: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2017.

I find it so intriguing to listen to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head be so critical of the fiscal policy of the previous Liberal government. I respect his position. Yet I don’t understand why, in the last four years, when I was in this Legislature…. I remember — correct me if I’m wrong — that he supported most of our budget.

I wonder why he changed his position. Did he change his position because he wanted to pursue his aspirations to be part of this NDP government? I wonder when he will change his position again, when we become the government. Just wait and see how he changes position.

On this particular Bill 2, I must say that there are certain components that I support, such as the cut in MSP and the cut in the small business tax. Those two tax cuts were included in the February B.C. Liberal budget. There’s nothing new by the NDP government in introducing this initiative. They just copied what we had and put it into their budget.

I have to say that there are many components of the bill that concern me greatly. There are a lot of young families in Richmond, and these parents all work so hard to provide for themselves and their children. We all want to be able to give our children everything in life, but some families have to do away with the extras if they are facing financial challenges.

That’s why I cannot understand the changes being made to tax credits that benefit families, things like — I know that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head does not support this — the children’s fitness tax credit, the children’s fitness equipment tax credit and the children’s arts tax credit. They will be eliminated for 2018 and the following taxation years. These are tax credits that help local kids stay active and engaged in sports and the arts. Why on earth would this government want to get rid of them, despite the fact that the NDP is inheriting the best performing economy in Canada?

What’s more, the B.C. back-to-school tax credit, which was introduced in February 2017, is continued for the 2016 taxation year only and eliminated thereafter. It was supposed to be available for the 2016, 2017 and 2018 tax years, as per the February 2017 fiscal plan. It helps parents with the costs of purchasing school supplies, but the NDP are getting rid of it. Another questionable decision.

[3:15 p.m.]

Next I want to touch on the hike to personal income tax. The Income Tax Act is amended to include a new top personal income tax bracket with a higher rate of taxation, starting in 2018. The income threshold for this bracket is set at $150,000 and is subject to a provincial income tax rate of 16.8 percent. Before it was 14.7 percent. So there is a big jump for those individuals.

I want to present a quote from the Fraser Institute, which is raising concerns about this tax hike. The organization said: “Put simply, the personal income tax rate hike will make B.C. less competitive for attracting and retaining highly skilled workers such as entrepreneurs, business professionals, engineers” — or the high-tech people — “and scientists, as the evidence shows higher tax rates play a role in the decision-making of high-skilled workers on where to live and work.”

We already see signs of highly skilled entrepreneurs, business professionals, engineers, high-tech professionals, doctors and scientists leaving B.C. for other places that are offering more competitive income tax rates. The other side is talking about promoting our high-tech industry. How are we going to attract all those skilled professionals to the high-tech industry?

Keeping taxes low is an essential part of maintaining a competitive tax environment to attract investment, create jobs and continue to grow B.C.’s economy. Unfortunately, we see more and more examples of the NDP chipping away at B.C.’s competitive advantage.

The Income Tax Act is also amended to increase the general corporate income tax rate from 11 percent to 12 percent. That means B.C. is going from having the lowest corporate income tax rate across the provinces to being tied with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba for the fourth-highest general corporate income tax rate. Perhaps most troubling is that it sends a message to investors and business that it’s going to be more expensive to do business in British Columbia. And again, it means we risk losing our competitive advantage over our western provinces.

Alberta and Saskatchewan will now be attracting B.C. business to their land. I’m deeply concerned that B.C. workers might soon lose their jobs and have to leave B.C. for other provinces. Remember what happened in the ’90s, the so-called ten-year disaster. Thousands and thousands of British Columbians had to leave B.C. because they didn’t have a job.

The corporate income tax rate increase is also not good for consumers because we know that higher taxes are always passed along to them. And you know where else the consumer will feel the pinch? At the gas pump, because the Carbon Tax Act is amended to increase carbon tax rates substantially. Starting April 1, 2018, the carbon tax rates are increased by $5 per tonne of carbon dioxide–equivalent emissions annually until rates are equal to $50 per tonne on April 1, 2021.

Under the previous B.C. Liberal government, British Columbia was the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a revenue-neutral carbon tax. British Columbians are so proud of such an innovative initiative. In November 2016, the United Nations awarded B.C. one of the 13 Momentum for Change Awards in recognition of our revenue-neutral carbon tax. In a December 2014 speech, World Bank president Jim Yong Kim praised B.C.’s Carbon Tax Act as one of the most powerful examples of carbon pricing.

Now Part 2 of the Carbon Tax Act is repealed. That means the principle of revenue neutrality and the requirement to prepare the carbon tax report and plan will no longer apply. So the act will essentially be silent on any requirement for reporting, as no other requirement for reporting is substituted. Although the Finance Minister insists that taxpayers will receive a reporting out and know how their additional dollars will be spent, we will see about that.

The result of this NDP tax hike is that the costs will be passed on to consumers and business. The increase, through 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.

[3:20 p.m.]

When we consider all of these different tax increases, you have to wonder why they are even needed, considering the NDP are so lucky as to have inherited the best-performing economy in Canada, as confirmed by the Auditor General’s latest report near the end of August: five consecutive balanced budgets, a $2.7 billion budget surplus and a triple-A credit rating — the only province other than Saskatchewan to enjoy this rank.

I worry because the NDP have no concrete plan to grow jobs or to grow the economy, and they simply do not know how to create jobs or to grow the economy. The only thing they know how to do is to hike the tax to pay for their expensive promises. I think that’s a dangerous direction for us to be heading in, and that’s why I cannot support this bill. It puts all of the things we’ve been so proud of in the past at risk.

As a result of the B.C. Liberal government’s strong fiscal discipline, B.C. families generally have one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada, yet already we see the NDP raising taxes for those making $150,000 or more, and from the September budget update, we already see that any room that has been created by the number one economy in Canada has been used up. So if the NDP intend to keep the rest of their promises, and they have no plan to grow jobs or to grow the economy, we are left to wonder if there might be further tax hikes along the way.

Another point of pride for the previous government was keeping business taxes low, which is an essential part of maintaining a competitive tax environment to attract investment, to create jobs and to continue to grow B.C.’s economy. But that’s clearly not a priority of this NDP government, especially when the now Premier said in 2011: “The lowest tax jurisdiction in North America is not something we should strive for. Why wouldn’t we strive to be the middle tax jurisdiction in North America?”

As my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson stated so eloquently, I don’t understand why the Premier wants to strive for the middle of the pack. Why he doesn’t want to be the top, the number one? It seems that the Premier doesn’t get it.

Finally, B.C. received global recognition after being the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but now the ending of revenue neutrality is a move that will absolutely harm business and consumers in our province. I know that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Citizens’ Services kept saying that this is a choice the NDP government has to make. That’s a choice they make to drive away business, to drive away investment. That will eventually lead to job losses, and that’s what happened in the ’90s. I have to remind British Columbia about what happened in the ’90s — the ten-year disaster.

All of these measures are sowing the seeds of uncertainty in this province and sending a negative signal to investors. So with all of this in mind, as the critic for Trade, I reiterate once again that I cannot support this bill or the tax hikes and the negative impacts on consumers, on business and B.C.’s reputation that come with it.

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s my pleasure to get up today on my feet and speak to this bill, speak to the budget implementation act. I think it’s just really important to remember that we just came out of an election, and people were really clear. They were really clear that they were seeking a government that represented people. It’s really important that we as a government respond to what people want. It’s really important to have people at the centre of our politics and to actually have people at the centre of this place. I want to remind all the members of this House that this is the people’s House.

The bill that we’re speaking to speaks to making sure that people have the kinds of things that they need to have a life that works for them. So we’re making life more affordable. We’re improving the services that people can count on and creating good jobs for people throughout the province.

For too long, people couldn’t get the services they needed. They couldn’t, and can’t, afford to live here. It’s time to fix some of those problems by putting people first, because that’s what is good for families, that’s what is good for the communities, and that’s what is good for the province.

[3:25 p.m.]

We do know that there was a Liberal government here for 16 years, and life had gotten harder and harder for people over those years. So it’s time for us to really pay attention to what’s good for people and what’s going to make a difference. This budget update is just some of the first steps — the first steps to change the tide, to change the tide on affordability, to change the tide on services and to make sure that the kinds of jobs that people need to live a robust and full life are available for them, that they can participate in the economy.

Our economy needs to be a place where everyone can participate — not just a few people can participate, but everyone can participate. We know that when everyone can participate in the economy, the economy itself is better. People who have the kinds of jobs that allow them to pay the bills, to pay for their housing, to pay for their hydro, to pay for their car insurance and to pay for the kinds of things that they need to have lives, and to have some money left over at the end of the day — that money is going to go right back into the economy, and that’s good for British Columbia.

When we talk about this bill, we’re talking about taxes and tax fairness. We’re asking people at the top to pay a little bit more, because it’s really important that we have an opportunity for everyone to get the services they need, for everyone to have affordable living and for everyone to be able to participate in the economy. When you have your top income earners paying a little bit more, it provides us with an opportunity to do just that.

We know that the previous government gave those top earners a break. That was important to them because those are the same people who were also funding their election campaign, so we know what that was about. This is really important — that we make sure that we have a tax system that is fair and a tax system that works for everyone.

We’ve also increased the corporate taxes by just a modest 1 percent. This is keeping us competitive with the western provinces.

We’re also cutting MSP in half. Now, remember, the previous government kept increasing MSP every year. It just kept going up and up — ten times.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the Minister of Education for reminding me. I lost track of how many times that tax kept going up.

Let’s be really clear. It’s a tax, and a flat tax at that. It didn’t matter if you were making $40,000 a year or $400,000 a year. You paid the same tax. Well, those days are over. It’s time to roll it back so that we have an opportunity to make sure that’s addressed, that the unfairness…. That’s what that was. That was an unfair tax. We’ve addressed that unfairness in this bill.

The other thing we’re doing is lowering the small business tax rate from 2½ percent to 2 percent, because we heard from small businesses that they needed some help. So we’re responding. We’re responding, because we know that they work hard. We know that they put in long hours, and we know that they want to be able to pay their employees a living wage. So we’re making it easier for them to thrive, because it’s really important to us.

It’s really important to the people on this side of the House that they have a government that is on their side, that is working for the people, because it’s time that we put people in the centre of politics.

I want to take a few moments to talk about making life more affordable for British Columbians. It’s so critical. It’s so hard. I mean, I certainly remember when my kids were younger, and I was getting started in my career. There were so many difficult decisions to make about making sure that I could pay my mortgage, that I could pay my taxes, that I could pay for child care, that I could pay for all those things that I needed.

Sometimes, at the end of the month, there was nothing left. It was a time in my life when I didn’t even get haircuts. I didn’t get new clothes, because there just wasn’t anything left. That’s so hard. That’s so hard on the psyche.

It’s also really hard when you have to start making other kinds of choices, where you have to start saying, “Do I get all of my medication this month? I don’t know if I’ll be able to also pay my property tax bill,” or, “I don’t know if I’ll be able to make rent.”

That’s part of what we’ve seen. We’ve started to see real challenges, where people are making very, very difficult choices that affect the quality of their life, and I’m not talking about whether or not they’re going to take their third vehicle and be able to get insurance for it. We’re talking about whether or not they have enough money at the end of the month to pay for transit that’s going to get them to their doctor’s appointments.

[3:30 p.m.]

We have a serious situation here, particularly around housing affordability. I just want to say that our government has taken some initial first steps to address some of those challenges. I’m very proud that we’re working on a comprehensive plan to address housing affordability.

We know that we need to address not just supply but also demand and what’s creating some of those challenges on the demand side. The previous government chose to play a sort of whack-a-mole. They would see some challenge around some speculation, so rather than take a comprehensive look, they would just throw something on that hole where the speculators were showing up. Then, lo and behold, they would show up at another hole and another opportunity, so you’d jump in on that one. You’d just play this game of whack-a-mole.

Our government is taking a more thoughtful approach and a comprehensive approach. We are putting together a comprehensive housing strategy and making sure that we pay attention to all of the levers and to all of the opportunities to address speculation, to address tax fraud, to reduce tax fraud and money laundering and to address the speculation loopholes so that we can stop playing whack-a-mole and actually just sort of cover off the holes.

We’re also taking a look at the supply side. We’ve already started the first critical steps in addressing some of those challenges. We have made an announcement of $208 million over four years to support the construction of more than 1,700 units of affordable rental housing in communities right across this province. I know that that’s welcome news to many renters and to many people in our community who are really struggling to find housing and to make sure that they are living within their means.

We know that many, many renters are paying more than 50 percent of their income to housing and that that’s not sustainable. It’s not sustainable for them as individuals, and it’s not sustainable for an economy. We know that when people are pouring all of their resources into housing, there is nothing left at the end the month for them to do the things that keep our economy going. We’ve also made an announcement to provide over $290 million over two years to construct 2,000 modular supportive housing units for people who are homeless.

I know that the hon. Speaker is well aware, and I know that everybody in the House is well aware, of how homelessness has sort of taken over many communities. Here in Victoria, it’s a significant challenge. Throughout Vancouver, we see those challenges. But we’re also seeing it in Maple Ridge, in Surrey, in Terrace and in Smithers. There are communities all throughout our province.

This has been happening for many, many years. Our government is committed to addressing the problems now. These 2,000 units of modular housing are going to make a significant difference in the lives of those people. But what’s really important to acknowledge is that what’s coming with those housing units is not just a roof over someone’s head. It’s an opportunity to have a home.

Someone asked me, as I was describing them…. They said: “Will they be able to bring their buggies, their shopping carts, with them?” And you know what? They won’t need them anymore, because they’re going to have a place to put their stuff. That’s what the difference is between having a shelter system, which is what the previous government preferred, and our preference, on this side of the House, to give people a home. That’s really what they need.

What’s more is that we’re wrapping it with services. People are homeless not because they don’t want to live in a structure or they don’t want a roof over their head. We know that more than half of those people are living with mental illness and addictions. They need services. They need supports. If we don’t provide those, we’re not going to be able to get a handle on this.

It’s really important that we have the opportunity to wrap services around people, to support them so that they can stabilize, so that they can get the medication, the counselling or the opportunities to participate in the economy, the opportunities to have a stability that will allow them to find some work and allow them to move into other kinds of housing that will better meet their needs as they stabilize. That’s what it means to have a comprehensive housing strategy. It’s to take a look at the whole picture, — not just piecemeal, not just to throw money at something to see what sticks, but the whole picture.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

That’s something that I’m very proud of. It’s something that we have to do in order to get a handle on this.

When it comes to improving services, which is something that has been a real challenge over the last number of years…. I see my colleague over here, the new Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

[3:35 p.m.]

I want to just tell a story about why it’s so important that we improve services. I want to tell the story about a young man who came into my office and who was high on fentanyl. This was a year ago August. He was desperate for service, and his mom was desperate for him to get service.

He came to my office because I had spoken to his mom earlier that week, and I’d said: “Listen, in my previous life I was a counsellor. Maybe he’d be willing to come and talk to me.” Lo and behold, he showed up. He showed up pretty fidgety and then sort of sleeping and slumbering, because he was high. I was like: “Okay, we’ve got to get him into service.”

He said: “I hate myself. I hate my life. I hate who I’ve become.” I have to tell you, hon. Speaker, he smelled a little ripe. It’d been some days since he’d had a shower. And he was talking about picking up cigarette butts off of the ground and smoking them and how disgusted he was. His self-loathing was palpable.

I said: “Okay. Well, when was the last time you ate?” He said: “I don’t know.” So we got him some food. The first thing we did was we got him some food. As he was eating, we called his mom. I got her on the phone, and I said, “I want you to know that your son is here in my office,” and this woman wept. She just wept with relief, because she had tried to find services for her son. She tried, and she tried, and she couldn’t get the system to work for her. She couldn’t get the system to work for her son.

Now, this young man had been a good student. He’d graduated. He was an athlete. He was a cyclist, mountain biker. His introduction to painkillers was when he broke a leg, and he liked the painkillers. They were really good. A doctor prescribed 250 of them, and he became addicted. It destroyed their family, and it destroyed this young man. Here he was four years later, full of self-loathing and full of self-disgust.

I thought: “Okay. Well, it can’t be that hard to get him into the system. I used to be a counsellor. I’m an MLA now. I’m going to find him a resource.” So I went on line. He was dozing now. He was fed and satiated, and his mom was fine. I said: “We’re going to find him something.” I went on line, and I couldn’t find anything. It wasn’t clear.

I thought: “Okay. I’m a resourceful person. I’m going to pick up the phone. I know people in the counselling field, and I’m going to make phone calls.” I managed to reach out to our local addiction services provider, and I said: “So, how do we get this young man, who is high in my office, who needs a shower, who needs a safe place to be, who is saying, ‘I want to change. I want this to be different….’ What do we do?”

She said: “Well, you need to get him on the list for detox.” So I said: “Okay. Well, how do we do that?” It’s like, okay, let’s call detox. So we called detox, and they said: “We don’t have any room.” I was like: “Okay then. So what are we going to do?”

He couldn’t go home, because he was high and it was too disruptive to this family. There were younger children at home, so it wouldn’t have been appropriate, because he lashes out when he’s coming down and gets really itchy for finding something to use. So we strategized, and we said: “Okay, well, let’s get him on the list.” They said: “Well, you can get him on the list. It might be the next day or the day after.” So what are we going to do? If we’ve got two days, what are we going to do for two days?

We managed to the contact the youth shelter downtown. The name eludes me right now, if anyone remembers.

S. Chandra Herbert: Covenant House.

Hon. S. Robinson: Covenant House. Thank you very much, Member from the West End.

Covenant House said: “Well, our doors open at eight o’clock” — or ten o’clock — “so he can come then, and we have a space for him.”

It was like, oh, thankfully, we could get him somewhere. By this time, it was, I don’t know, one o’clock in the afternoon. So we needed to keep this young man busy and keep him from using until about ten o’clock that night.

I called up his mom, who is a teacher. It turns out this was summer, so she wasn’t working. She said, “You know, I could come and get him. We’ll get him a shower. We’ll get him some fresh clothes, and I will drive him around” — just drive, for eight hours; keep him in the car, keep moving, so that he can’t bolt — “and get him to Covenant House.”

That was five hours of my day to make all of that happen. Now, I don’t think anyone would call that good service. No one would call that good service. So this….

Interjections.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Sorry? Oh, good MLA service. But it wasn’t good service, and I’m doing the job that I would like to believe that anybody here in the House would do.

This is not a story about me. This is a story about people needing services, and they were just not around. Our government is committed…. This budget is about making sure that those services are there. I’m very proud to be the first province in the nation that would have a minister dedicated to mental health and addiction. If we don’t get a handle on this, our children are going to continue to die. They’re going to continue to die.

I would love to tell you that this story has a happy ending. We did manage…. It took a lot of work, a lot of effort and a lot of phone calls to get him from Covenant House and into detox, to get him into a treatment centre. It wasn’t seamless. I had to intervene at every step. I had to push. I had to challenge. I didn’t threaten, because I don’t believe in threatening, but it just got to the point where…. This is a young man who has his entire life ahead of him. He’s 22 years old. He has an opportunity to grow up to be an old man. If we don’t get services to him, he will be a dead man.

Having to fight every step of the way is not right. I’m proud of the steps that we’re taking to make sure that we are a seamless system. It is critical for young people like this that we make sure they get the supports they need when they need them.

I’m going to just finish off that little story because I think people need to understand that this is hard work, and it’s going to take a lot of effort on behalf of a lot of people. It’s another example of where the system is incomplete. Even though we were able to push through and get him things that he needed and he was stable for eight months, that still wasn’t enough. When he got out…. He was on Suboxone, and Suboxone was working for him. He was working. He’s a strong man. He has a good work ethic. He was working. And he’s charming. That’s the thing that was, through all of this…. A charming young man.

What was heartbreaking was that there were no follow-up supports for him after. When he wanted to go into a recovery house — and there’s no plan, no system of recovery houses — he was told that he couldn’t be on Suboxone because they’re clean houses. So he said: “I’m not ready to go off Suboxone. It’s working for me. I am not craving fentanyl. I’m not going out on the street. I am not engaging in that self-loathing behaviour. I’m not picking up cigarette butts off the floor. I am eating properly. I am doing good self-care. I am working. But I need to have people who aren’t using around me.”

He was looking for community. Everywhere he turned, they were what they call “clean houses.” Suboxone was not considered a medication in those houses. So he didn’t stay, because he wanted to stay on the Suboxone. Things fell apart because he didn’t have community. The system failed, and I would argue that we failed.

Here we have a new government, and this new government is taking on the challenge of making sure that services are there for people. This budget is about that. It’s about making sure that young men like this one have the opportunity to become full adults and to become old men.

I’m very proud of the fact that we are making sure that we have a $265 million increase to the Ministry of Health that’s going to address this fentanyl emergency.

I’m very proud of the fact that we are providing $681 million over three years to help get our kids the education they deserve. It’s the education that they need. People will think of this as a social investment, and I agree. It’s absolutely a social investment. It’s also an economic investment. If our children can’t learn, if our children can’t read, if our children can’t think critically, then they’re not ready to participate in the economy.

Why would any government ever hold back on education? Why would any government ever hold back on adult basic education, like the previous government? I just can’t understand that. I’m still agog at that decision. Our government has made a different decision, a decision to invest in people. It’s people that drive the economy. It’s people that make life better for their families. It’s people that actually strengthen our communities. That’s what this budget is all about.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’m also proud of our investment in child care. Again, while many people will think of child care as a social investment…. And it is. I do believe that it’s good to have child care that meets the needs of children, that provides them with the opportunity to learn. It absolutely has to be safe and accessible, and it also needs to be affordable. But it’s also an investment in the economy. Because when we have both parents participating in the economy, the economy is more robust, and it’s also more resilient.

Certainly, in my life as a family therapist, I come across families that are struggling, where they have one parent staying at home. They’re struggling financially. It creates tension in the relationship, because they could only manage one income because child care just isn’t available or it’s unaffordable, so it creates these financial pressures. If they had access to affordable child care, then they would have two people in the economy. It would reduce some of the pressures on the family, and they would have more money to spend in the economy. So it really is a good investment for our community and for our province.

The other thing that I think is really interesting to speak to is the non-traditional support for investing in child care and non-traditional support for investing in housing. I want to give kudos to the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. About 18 months ago they came out with a very good report about the importance of investing in these things because it’s good for the economy. And I’m very proud of having a government that’s making these investments, recognizing their social value but also recognizing the importance of investing here so that the economy is more robust going forward.

These investments are going to be playing out not just immediately, but they’re going to be playing out for the next 20, 30, 40 years, and if we don’t make those investments now, our children and our grandchildren are going to be the ones that pay the price. So I’m very proud of our government’s commitment to start that process now so that we have these good investments in the long term.

Our government is also going to be building schools, hospitals, transit and transportation infrastructure because not only will they create healthy communities, but they also do create jobs, and those infrastructure projects are very important. The other thing I really like about this — and I’m just going to go back to the fact that I’m a family therapist, and you don’t really ever walk away from your first career; it sort of stays with you — is that these are projects that are going to happen throughout the province.

What that means is that there are going to be jobs throughout the province. It always breaks my heart when I work with families when dad or mom, but it’s usually dad, has to go away for three weeks and comes back. Three weeks out, one week back. It’s hard on the family. It’s hard on the kids. It’s hard on the adults, as a parent. We have many in this House who have to leave our children, and that’s hard. I mean, you get used to it, but it’s hard on families, and I’m proud of our commitment to build infrastructure projects throughout the province so that there are local jobs, so that people can go home at night. That’s good for people, and that’s good for families.

I’m also very proud of the fact that we’re creating an innovation commission, which will advocate and be an ambassador for the B.C. tech sector, and an emerging economy task force. They’re going to be looking at made-in-B.C. solutions to look at how government can encourage innovative and sustainable industries to drive economic growth into this current century.

It’s really interesting. I believe that government’s job here is to facilitate the growth of the economy, to be at the forefront and to bring the players together to make sure that we’re ready, that we’re poised. When you invest in communities, when you invest in families, when you invest in children, and when you invest in the initial steps, then the rest of it follows.

It’s really interesting that everyone’s all atwitter about Amazon and the fact that they’ve got 50,000 jobs to bring to a community. I would really like to see it come to B.C. But when you don’t make sure that you have your housing affordable, when that’s out of whack, then it becomes a barrier to that economic investment. It becomes a barrier to that opportunity. We have to make sure that we address these pieces to make sure that we’re ready for the next phase, whatever that might look like.

[3:50 p.m.]

I’m really proud that we’re paying attention to all of these pieces, because each of them is another lever, another opportunity for us to grow as a province, to make sure that we are ready for what comes next.

We are also moving forward to phase out the provincial sales tax on electricity. That’s going to be helping B.C. businesses compete while also encouraging a transition to low-carbon energy sources, like electricity. This is a real opportunity. We’ve been hearing really good things. We know that it’s a good thing not just for our environment, but it’s really good for business. It provides them with an opportunity to transition over, and it allows them to invest those dollars that they would normally be paying. So that’s another opportunity to move forward.

I’m really very pleased about the steps that we’re taking — this initial budget update. It presents a strong, responsible fiscal plan that really does put people first. It also helps to ensure, in the long run, that we have fiscal sustainability and responsible investment — investment that makes us better.

I’m proud of our balanced budget for 2017-2018. It’s a total spending of $51.9 billion, total revenues of $52.4 billion, a forecast allowance of $300 million, a budget surplus of $246 million and record levels of capital spending — all while maintaining a debt-to-GDP ratio that’s affordable. Our economy is strong. Employment, retail sales, housing starts and exports have all exceeded expectations. The outlook for this year’s real GDP growth is 2.9 percent, which is really prudent.

I look forward to the years ahead. The future looks bright.

J. Yap: It’s my honour and privilege to rise and join the debate on behalf of my constituents in Richmond-Steveston. I’ve had an opportunity to listen carefully to comments from fellow members, both sides of the House.

I listened carefully to the most recent speaker, the Minister for Municipal Affairs. I heard her say near the end of her comments that she believes that the role of government is to — I believe she said — facilitate the growth of the economy. I think that is something that we can agree on, that our role is to facilitate the growth of the economy.

Now, how we get there, how we facilitate the growth of the economy, of course, is a matter of making choices. I believe other members have framed it in terms of “governing is about making choices, and on the specific choices, we would have our disagreements.” On this side of the House, we believe that there are many elements in this budget plan that we simply disagree with and believe will set us on the path that no one in British Columbia wants to go towards.

It is worth reminding ourselves what this new government has inherited. When you think about where British Columbia is today, we are the number one economy in Canada, with GDP growth last year of 3.7 percent — the leading economy in our country. We have achieved, thanks to the hard work of British Columbians and the fiscal prudence of our government, five consecutive balanced budgets and, most recently, a healthy, confirmed surplus of $2.7 billion.

Now, some may suggest that achieving with this a triple-A credit rating…. My colleague and friend the member for Prince George–Valemount, in her comments earlier today, said something like when people hear that British Columbia has maintained a triple-A credit rating, for some people, not all, their eyes would glaze over, not understanding that while it may not be something we’d think of on a daily basis, it actually is a mark of achievement.

[3:55 p.m.]

That means that the bond-rating agencies in major financial centres, certainly in the major investment centres, have given the best possible rating and judgment to British Columbia. A triple-A credit rating means we enjoy the lowest borrowing rate, and that means savings of hundreds of millions of dollars over the years, thanks to the lowest possible borrowing rate. And those savings go directly into providing needed services that all British Columbians expect and demand.

We also have, in British Columbia, record employment. We’ve heard other members talk about this, but it’s worth repeating: record employment with the lowest unemployment rate in Canada, more than 250,000 jobs created since the launch of the B.C. jobs plan five years ago.

With this, it is a mystery and it is so disappointing that a choice that the new government has made is to increase taxes by a net amount of over a billion dollars. One may ask: why is this a problem? Well, by doing this, the government is starting us on the road to eroding B.C.’s competitive advantage.

As has been said by my colleagues during this debate, B.C. has advantages that include a competitive tax rate —not middle of the road, middle of the pack, but a competitive tax rate. It’s a signal to investors, domestically and internationally, that British Columbia is an important place and a great place to do business, to invest, to create jobs. By increasing taxes, the new government is sending a signal to the rest of the world that we’re really not interested. We’re closed for business.

B.C.’s strong financial position is now going to be in danger of being eroded, because we know that international investors value governments that are stable and have their fiscal house in order. Balanced budgets make this possible by keeping taxes low, which is also attractive to investors, which generates more economic activity, more job creation. Furthermore, through the job creation, through the increased economic activity, businesses will attract the best talent if employees see that they will be paying a competitive tax.

On the flip side, on the other side, governments that pile up deficits and burden future generations with mountains of increasing debt are definitely not seen as places to invest. So it’s imperative that the government have a plan to grow our economy and to grow jobs. I would submit, as others have, that raising taxes and driving away investment is not what the people of British Columbia voted for.

Bill 2 includes a number of taxes. I’ll spend a few moments covering a few of the specific taxes. For example, the children’s fitness tax credit, the children’s fitness equipment tax credit and the children’s art tax credit will be eliminated for 2018 and following taxation years. Why would the NDP get rid of these initiatives which helped kids stay active in sports and help arts in our communities? Why? Why would they do that?

What about the B.C. back-to-school tax credit, which helps families with the cost of school supplies? That would be gone too. Now, that was introduced in 2017 — and eliminated. It was supposed to be available for 2017-2018, but it’s no longer the case.

[4:00 p.m.]

Under the B.C. Liberal government, our province was globally recognized as a leader in climate action. We introduced North America’s first revenue-neutral carbon tax. This innovative solution helped to address emissions while making sure that the people and businesses of B.C. did not experience financial hardship from the higher taxes. Revenues coming in from carbon taxes were offset by reductions in other taxes.

This made-in-B.C. revenue-neutral carbon tax was praised around the world. In fact, the United Nations gave an award to British Columbia for this groundbreaking tax. Unfortunately, the NDP is cancelling the revenue neutrality of the carbon tax while increasing the carbon tax. Despite inheriting the best-performing economy in Canada, the NDP is choosing to hike taxes, with no real plan to grow the economy or create jobs.

A few specifics. The Income Tax Act is amended to include a new top personal income tax bracket with a higher rate of taxation starting in 2018. The income threshold for this bracket is set at $150,000, subject to a provincial income tax rate of 16.8 percent. The new measure is estimated to bring in $67 million in 2017-18, $273 million in 2018-19 and $287 million in 2019-20. Previously, the income tax rate for individuals within this bracket was set at 14.7 percent.

I know how the members on the opposite side like to frame this, but a bit of background. In 2013, the B.C. Liberal government introduced the same income tax bracket and rate for the 2014 and 2015 tax years only.

The Income Tax Act is amended to increase the general corporate income tax rate from 11 percent to 12 percent — a 1 percent increase, which, as others have said, may not seem like much, but it is a signal to businesses that the tax burden is increasing.

Previously, with the 11 percent tax rate, British Columbia had the lowest general corporate income tax rate among the provinces — the lowest. Now we will be on par with provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and we will lose our competitive edge. We will be tied with Alberta and Manitoba for the fourth-highest general corporate tax rate.

Now, it’s worth repeating, for the record, again that the current Premier was quoted, saying this: “The lowest tax jurisdiction in North America is not something we should strive for. Why wouldn’t we strive to be the middle tax jurisdiction in North America?” That was in March of 2011.

As my friend from Kamloops–North Thompson said during his comments, why would we aspire to be non-competitive, to be in the middle of the pack? Why wouldn’t be want to try to be as competitive as we can be to attract the investment, domestically and internationally, to come to British Columbia to invest, to create businesses, to hire people, create jobs and support communities? Why wouldn’t we want that? That’s a choice that we fundamentally disagree on with the current government.

Another change. The Income Tax Act is amended to reduce the small business corporate tax rate from 2.5 percent to 2 percent, effective April of 2017. Now, this was a cut that was already announced with the budget introduced when we were in government, in February 2017, so it’s one that we agree with.

[4:05 p.m.]

Small business, as we all recognize, is fundamental to our communities and our economy. Over 95 percent of businesses are small businesses, so this is a choice that we agree with.

There are a few others here. The B.C. back-to-school tax credit, which I mentioned earlier — cancelled. The tax credit for volunteer firefighters, search and rescue — that’s retained. We agree with that.

The interactive digital media tax credit is not expanded to include augmented reality, virtual reality products as had been promised in the February 2017 B.C. Liberal budget. That’s disappointing because all of us support the digital media sector, the creative and film sector. We had thought that the new government was also very supportive.

The training tax credit is extended for one year only, to the end of 2018. Previously, in the February fiscal plan, it was supposed to be extended to 2020. The book publishing tax credit is extended for a year only, as well, to 2018. Previously, it was extended for two years, until 2019.

The Income Tax Act is amended to cancel the phase-out of the preferential tax rate for credit unions. It’s a good thing. Our B.C. Liberal government extended the benefit for three years in 2014 and planned to phase it out over five years, beginning in 2016. All of us agree that credit unions, very often, are the pillar of a community and the only financial institution in communities around the province, typically in smaller communities. They play a major role in our economy in British Columbia.

The international business activity program is eliminated. This includes Advantage B.C., with registration effectively cut off as of September 2017. Again, this, by itself, may not seem like much, but it is another signal that we are, as a province, not open for business.

One more comment: PST on the electricity changes. This was announced by our B.C. Liberal government — the plan to phase out PST on electricity — and will be completed via regulation. This is, of course, something that will make a difference for business.

Overall, this is a budget plan which we believe makes wrong choices. In regards to the implementation, when we go to the next stage of debate, in committee stage, I look forward to further debate and comments from members. But as I said, this budget and this budget implementation act, I believe, does not serve British Columbians, is not what British Columbians, overall, voted for, and I will not be supporting it.

Hon. K. Chen: I’m very thankful to have the opportunity to be here and speak in favour of Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

Before I became an MLA, I was always working on the front lines in the community, mostly in my home community in Burnaby, as a community organizer, a volunteer, a constituency assistant and later as a school trustee.

[4:10 p.m.]

I’ve witnessed firsthand how government policies can make a huge impact on local residents’ everyday lives — from the tax we pay, the schools our children go to, the medical services that we receive, even the food we eat or the water we drink.

It was through working with all the local residents, seeing their struggles with the high cost of living and seeing them make tough decisions to meet their families’ and children’s most basic needs, to make the ends meet, that I realized how crucial it is to elect a government that really understands the needs of its people and the local communities, a government that really works for the best interests of all British Columbians — not just for the few on the top but for everybody.

It was also because of the families that I’ve worked with for so many years, the stories that I’ve heard and some of the very heartbreaking stories. For example, there was one time I was trying to help a family of five to find shelter, because they got a one-month notice from their landlord to move away from their previous residence and they could not find anything near their school or the services that they count on in the community. They couldn’t find anyplace to rent. We were calling around the shelters all around the Lower Mainland, trying to find a place for them to stay so they could buy a few days until they found, hopefully, the next place.

There was no shelter available for this family. I called probably over ten or 12 places, and all the shelters were saying: “Sorry, you may have to come by nine o’clock tonight and see if there is something available, or maybe try to come early in the morning.” Try this, try that, or try to call the other number. That was just heartbreaking. Finally, we had to break up this family. The father decided to take the only boy to one shelter, while the mom took the two girls to a different centre. One child was only two years old.

It was stories like that, that made a huge impact on me, that made me realize how important it is to make sure that we have a government that listens, that will work for people’s needs. It was also because of the families and the stories that I’ve heard on the front line…. That gave me the courage to run for public office.

I believe, regardless of what parties we all come from, that all members in this House decided to come to this Legislature because we care about the people in our community. And I really hope we that we all do.

That is why I’m proud to speak to this bill, because it is important to know that whatever policies or legislation our government is making, they are always focused on people and supporting the services that people count on, from education, early learning and child care services, which I’m passionate about, to creating good jobs and investing in a British Columbia where all families can have the opportunity to thrive and where there is fairness and equality.

For far too many years, too many people could not get the services that they need or afford to live in our beautiful province in B.C. So it is time to fix the problems by putting people first and make life better for families everywhere in B.C. We need to take some critical first steps in order to achieve that, and that will begin by creating fairness.

That is what this bill is about. While a majority of B.C. families were waiting for assistance and services for many years, most top-income earners in B.C. received a tax break under the previous B.C. Liberal government. That’s why we’re reversing that decision — so those earners at the very top pay a little more. That’s why we’re increasing the corporate taxes by a modest 1 percent, still keeping us competitive with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

That is also why we’re moving forward to phase out the provincial sales tax on electricity, which will help B.C. business compete while also encouraging the transition to low-carbon energy sources like electricity. I’m also proud to see that we’re lowering the small business corporation income tax rate from 2.5 percent to 2 percent.

In my constituency in Burnaby-Lougheed, there are so many small business owners. Most of them are actually restaurant owners from diverse communities near the Lougheed Mall, the Lougheed Highway, North Road and the Kensington area, who are so happy to see the cut to small business tax and happy to know that this government is working hard to support small business by lowering the tax and also phasing out the provincial sales tax on electricity.

Small businesses are the backbone of our community. We need to make sure that we continue to support them so they can continue to provide the crucial services and employment opportunities our community needs on a long-term basis.

[4:15 p.m.]

We also need to improve services that people count on, starting with health care and addressing the opioid, mental health and addiction issues.

We’re getting to work on priorities in our health care system with a $603 million increase over three years to the base budget for the Ministry of Health. A significant portion of that will go to address the fentanyl emergency, and the remainder of the money will go to address other pressures in the health care system. I’m also so proud to see that our government has established the new Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions that will provide strategic leadership in developing a seamless, coordinated mental health and addictions system.

When I worked on the front lines as a community worker, I also worked with people suffering from mental illness and addictions and have really seen the firsthand impact of their struggles and also their families’ struggles trying to access and find services. The establishment of the new Mental Health and Addictions Ministry is a significant change that many British Columbians have been waiting for, for a long time.

We also need to look after our seniors by improving access to home and community care, with $189 million over three years through our B.C.-federal agreement. So many seniors in my community, in Burnaby-Lougheed, have shared with me their struggles to access home care. This crucial investment will help us to provide better services that our seniors deserve and should be able to count on.

I’m also proud to see that we’re cutting MSP premiums in half for all British Columbians, which will help to save families up to $900 per year. It is a start and a first step towards the elimination of the premiums over the next four years.

Of course, we need to invest in K-to-12 education, something I’ve always been advocating for and passionate about. It is really important to see that our government is providing $681 million over three years to help our kids to get the quality education they deserve, with smaller class sizes, more resources and the support that they need to succeed, including hiring approximately 3,500 teachers.

We’re also providing crucial capital funding and investment to ensure that space requirements for kids going back to school are addressed and that public education is properly funded and supported. Investing in public education is not only to support our children. It is really an investment for our community, our economy and our future. It is also the best equalizer we can use to make sure our children all have fair opportunities and equity to grow up and become contributing members of our society.

Public education is really the foundation of our children’s future and our community. With today being World Teachers Day, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all teachers, educators, education assistants, support staff and everyone in the education system for their dedication and hard work to support our children and our schools.

Of course, we need to invest in child care and work to implement a universal child care system that will provide quality, affordable, accessible and safe child care services to all families who need it. As soon as we became government, we have been actively working on the implementation plan — not to see what we want but to see how we do it.

The implementation plan will be ready for the February budget, as we continue to work with parents, stakeholders, early childhood educators, providers and, hopefully, all members from this House to put together a system that will finally work for all B.C. families. We’re committed to invest in the early childhood education workforce through training, education and wages to ensure that we have a high quality of child care services.

[4:20 p.m.]

As we know, today many ECE — early childhood educator — workers earn a very minimal wage, a wage that is way below the living wage. That is not right. They are educators supporting our young children, and we need to make sure they are supported.

We also need to accelerate the creation of spaces throughout communities in B.C. We know that in almost every community in B.C., there are families waiting for affordable, quality and accessible child care services. In almost every community in B.C., there is a shortage of infant and toddler spaces. That is why we need to make sure that we continue to find opportunities to create spaces throughout B.C. communities.

I’m happy to share that during UBCM, I had the opportunity to have many meaningful discussions and conversations with mayors and councillors from many municipalities who have come forward to share their creative ideas and to work with our government to build more child care spaces together. Some of them have proposed that we can build child care spaces in their public facilities and community centres, or they’re willing to contribute their properties and to find partnerships to build non-profit child care centres. There are some municipalities that are even asking new development builders to make sure that they allocate a floor of space when they’re building a new apartment and that space is donated to the city so the city can work with the local non-profit to build child care spaces.

Those are exciting conversations. Those are exciting conversations that show we have the support of our municipalities and friends and child care providers throughout B.C. to make sure that we support the child care needs of B.C. families. I look forward to working with everyone to ensure that we will make child care more accessible.

There is a lot of work ahead of us. It is important and a plan that will make life more affordable for B.C. families and that will be good for our community and for employers, who have been waiting for a long time for parents to return to work. So I’m excited to make sure that the steps that we’re taking right now will be the right steps that will lead us in the right direction to create a universal child care system that will benefit every family in B.C.

Of course, we need to build a sustainable economy. We’re going to build schools, hospitals, transit and transportation infrastructure in communities and create jobs in every corner of our province with $14.6 billion in capital spending over three years. We are creating an innovation commission, which will be both an advocate and ambassador for B.C.’s tech sector, and an emerging economy task force that will be charged with developing a made-in-B.C. solution and will look at how government can encourage innovative and sustainable industries to drive economic growth in B.C. in the 21st century.

We’re also making it a priority to fight climate change by increasing the carbon tax by $5 per tonne starting April 1, 2018, and ending the requirement for the carbon tax to be revenue-neutral. We will use the carbon tax revenue to support families and fund green initiatives to address our climate action commitments.

We need to make sure that we’re making life more affordable for British Columbian families. That will start with housing because that is really the most basic need that we should have, that everyone in British Columbia should have and be entitled to. We’re getting started on a comprehensive plan to make housing more affordable for people, to close speculation loopholes and to reduce tax fraud and money laundering in B.C. real estate.

In this budget update, we’re taking the first critical steps to invest in affordable rental housing by investing $208 million over four years to support the construction of more than 1,700 new units of affordable rental housing in communities across the province. We’re also investing in supportive housing units by providing $291 million over two years to construct 2,000 modular supportive housing units for people who are homeless. We all know that homelessness is now visible in many, many of our communities in B.C., and that is something that we all have to work hard, with our municipalities and local communities, to address.

[4:25 p.m.]

I’m also proud to say that we’ve created a ministry and a parliamentary secretary tasked with finding solutions to reduce poverty in B.C., including developing a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy, something that has been long overdue. Every other province has one, and now, finally, B.C. is getting it. That’s something that our members from this side of government have been working hard to advocate for. I’m so proud that as soon as we became government, the poverty reduction strategy was one of the many things that our government started to work on immediately, to support the needs of local families.

The 2017 budget update really presents a strong, responsible fiscal plan that puts people first while helping to ensure the long-run fiscal sustainability of our province. Thanks to the hard work of our Minister of Finance, and also her staff, our balanced budget for 2017 and 2018 includes total spending of $51.9 billion with revenue of $52.4 billion, with a forecast allowance of $300 million and a budget surplus of $246 million, and, most importantly, a record level of capital spending, while maintaining a debt-to-GDP ratio that is affordable.

B.C.’s economy is strong. Employment, retail sales, housing starts and exports have all exceeded expectations. The outlook for this year’s real GDP growth is 2.9 percent, which is prudent compared to the outlook provided by the independent Economic Forecast Council. I’m proud to see our government presenting this budget, a budget that is balanced, fiscally responsible, and that is investing in people. That is why I’m honoured to stand here to support Bill 2, to make sure that we are putting people in the centre of politics, that every policy we’re making will bring some positive changes to British Columbians and to families who have been waiting for far too many years for a government that is finally working for them.

It is important to remember that British Columbians elected a minority government and expect us to work across party lines together, to find solutions, the best solutions possible for B.C. families. Every day I’m working in this Legislature, I think of the stories I’ve heard, people that I’ve met, people that I’ve worked with on the front lines in my home community in Burnaby and the stories that I’ve heard at the doorsteps and in my community office.

Families have shared with me their struggles to find services, housing, a food bank, or even to put food on the table for their young children. Those families should always be in the centre of all the policies and legislation that we’re making in this House. I’m pretty sure that all members in this House, when you’re speaking in this Legislature, are thinking of the people in your community. You’re thinking about your community members who you’re advocating for.

I look forward to working with everybody in this House to make sure that we bring forward the best policies possible for all British Columbians, and this bill is a good example.

M. Morris: I’ve been listening to the things that have been said in this House today. The previous government — the Liberals, when we were in government…. The five consecutive balanced budgets, the triple-A credit rating, led to some significant advancements in B.C.

I know that the member that just finished speaking talked about the poverty reduction plans that they see right across Canada. I look at the provinces and the jurisdictions across Canada. I look at the debt that many of them are in, the debt-to-GDP ratios that are up in the 40 to 50 percent, the unemployment, the lack of economic activity in those provinces. That probably leads to more pressure on their social systems and more poverty there.

We’ve had a poverty reduction plan in this province for many years now. It may not be called a poverty reduction plan. It’s a jobs plan. By giving everybody the jobs and ensuring that everybody has the opportunity to work in this province, we’re providing meaningful employment for families so that they can draw themselves out of poverty and be participants in the great economy that we’ve enjoyed here in B.C.

[4:30 p.m.]

We’ve kept taxes down. That ensures that B.C. is competitive. We’ve done a lot of things here to ensure that B.C. has led the country. Many other areas in North America, as well, have been looking north, looking to see what we do here.

We were able this spring to put the surplus that we had, the $2.7 billion surplus that we enjoyed for ’16-17…. We applied it to the operating debt that the province had. It was part of our goal to make sure that we eliminated that operating debt over the ensuing years. We were hopeful that we would see it paid off by 2020 or earlier. I’m not optimistic we’re going to see that now.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

By paying down the operating deficit that we have in this province, we’re saving millions of dollars. The millions of dollars that we save on that every year go back into the social structure that we have here. It’s something that we’re very proud of.

The members opposite are talking about the economy. We led the country with economic growth in British Columbia here this year, but we have to keep in mind that a lot of the decisions that industry and companies were making that led to this growth that we had in B.C. were board decisions that were made probably a year or more ago.

I wonder what kinds of board decisions are being made now for future projections for next year and the year after, with everything that’s been going on right now and the uncertainty that we see and that has been generated by this government since it’s been in power.

We had 200 people laid off in Site C recently. We’ve had Kinder Morgan…. There are all kinds of pressures on Kinder Morgan. The government has mounted an argument in the federal court against Kinder Morgan. They’ve shut down the Massey bridge replacement project, putting thousands of people out of work. The list goes on and on. Looking at that, I would say that the corporate boardrooms have been pretty reluctant to move ahead with any new growth coming down the road here.

We look at the increases that this government has announced on the personal income tax rate — 16.8 percent on taxable income over $150,000, up from 4.7 percent to that 16.8 percent. There are very few people in that tax bracket. I went to Stats Canada just before I came into the House today. There are less than 100,000 people in B.C. that are in that tax bracket that are going to be paying a big chunk of money, contributing to the B.C. economy. They already pay a big chunk of money in their income taxes, contributing to the province of British Columbia.

What I did notice when I was looking at these statistics is that the number of people that have been employed making over $50,000 a year in B.C. has climbed by 250,000 people, roughly, in the last five years. I think that’s a significant number, and I think that is a testament to the hard work that the previous government made, that we did when we were in government, in training people and making it accessible for industry and folks to invest in British Columbia and to employ more people. I see that as a good thing — the number of people who have work. And I see that as a bad thing — the increase in the corporate income taxes.

The other thing that I think is going to dramatically affect British Columbians at all levels of income is the increase in the carbon tax. It’s been sitting at $30 a tonne now for quite some time. B.C. led the way. B.C. was recognized by the United Nations for the innovation that we showed in having a revenue-neutral carbon tax here in B.C. This government is now taking that neutrality away, and they’re going to increase it by $5 a tonne over the next four years.

Just to give you an indication of how that affects everybody, I’m going to give a couple of examples here. I was talking to a heavy-industry player in B.C. here. He was showing me a one-month invoice for natural gas for one small part of their operation. In that small part of the operation, the gas bill for one month was about $950 — $950 worth of natural gas that was used within their operation. In addition to that 900-and-some dollars, it had $2,200 of carbon tax that was added on to it, and that’s in today’s numbers.

[4:35 p.m.]

That will go up to $3,700 for the same amount of gas used once this $5 a tonne over the next four years is implemented. I said: “Does that concern you?” He said: “Right now, with the $2,200 carbon taxes on that, we just pass that on to the consumer. We pass it on to the people that are using the product at the end of the day.” The $3,700 that’s going to be added on in four years will probably change how they do business in B.C. They might have to ship their products to another province in order to be competitive in Canada with the product that they’re selling.

Let me throw a couple more examples out there that are a little bit closer to home for British Columbians. We hear lots about the ferries and people travelling back and forth between the Mainland and Vancouver Island. B.C. Ferries is, I think, one of the second-largest ferry fleets that we have in North America, for sure — perhaps the world. I don’t know.

I just went on line. I looked up this information, here, a while ago. One of the largest ferries they have uses 9,700 litres of fuel per round trip in the ferry. The carbon tax in 2018 for that will be about $1,072 per round trip. The average of ten trips per day is a $10,000 hit for that particular ferry. That’s going to go up. In 2019, it’ll be a $12,000-a-day hit. In 2020, it’s a $13,000-a-day hit. And in 2021, it’s a $15,000-a-day hit for the carbon tax, just on one ferry. If you multiply that by the number of ferries that we have travelling back and forth across the water here, it’s going to impact the users.

Now, this government is talking about freezing ferry rates. They’re talking about making it free for seniors, perhaps. There are a number of things that they’re looking at here. Somebody is going to have to pay those costs, and they’re going to be passed on to the British Columbian taxpayer if this government still insists on providing reduced fares for everybody on the ferry system. That’s one of the ways that they’re going to see that increase, and everybody is going to have to share the load on that.

Another one. I fly back and forth from Prince George down to Vancouver and over here. We use…. Bombardier has a Q400. It’s one of the most modern aircraft that’s flying the skies right now. That aircraft, flying from Prince George to Vancouver, burns about 2,700 litres of fuel.

I looked at schedule 1, the table under this Budget Measures Implementation Act. I was looking at the schedules and the tax rates on the different fuels. With jet fuel, that’s going to…. It’s not bad. It’s going to add $262 one way in 2018. In 2019, $281. By the time we get to 2021, it’ll be $345 for one way. Of course, that plane goes back and forth several times a day. That’s one plane. There are several planes. Air Canada, WestJet and all the other aviation companies in B.C. fly these types of planes here.

Again, there are tens of thousands of dollars a day in carbon tax that are going to be added to the cost of the tickets for the everyday consumer to travel back and forth across this great province of ours. We all travel. Every time I get in that plane — in Prince George, coming south, or in Vancouver, heading north — it’s pretty much full all the time. So that has an impact on everybody.

It goes beyond that. I see we’ve reduced the tolls on the bridges. Every morning, when I watch Global News, that scene from the helicopter is quite dramatic. It’s a flow of lights coming across the bridge at a snail’s pace. Oftentimes it’s stopped. It goes for miles and miles. They, perhaps, have saved some money by not having to pay the tolls anymore, but the amount of gas that they’re using, and the GHG emissions that they’re pumping into the air, is costing those consumers more money every day to operate their vehicles.

It goes beyond that. In every tire that we have on our cars, there’s seven gallons of petroleum products, oil, that has been used to make that. So the carbon tax goes up. The price of a tire goes up. Four tires on a car, on most of them.

[4:40 p.m.]

When you take your old tires off to go to recycle them, that tax goes up. That’s in one of the schedules in table 2 there. That’s going to be $75 to $80 plus per tonne for tire recycling. That’s going to be added on to the cost for our consumers here in British Columbia.

Still staying on the carbon tax, if we look at the oil and gas industry, it’s going to be hit pretty significantly with this. Polypropylene forms a big part of our lives here — the miles and miles of polypropylene pipe in the ground taking our water to individual houses, taking our sewer into the treatment plants. The cost of that is going to go up, because of the carbon taxes associated with that.

The polypropylene plastic that we use in our everyday lives is phenomenal. It’s not only in our cell phones and our laptops and our computers, but bicycle tires, car tires. We have clothing. There’s dresses, shoes, sweaters, jackets, pantyhose, shampoo, lipstick, perfumes, nail polish, pens. There are hundreds of everyday products that we use — made from petroleum products — that will see an increase in price because of the carbon taxes as they go up. The consumer eventually pays for all of this stuff, one way or the other, at the end of the day.

The carbon tax is designed to bring in revenue for the province. They say it’s going to reduce carbon emissions at the end of the day. But we have consumers in this province that are consuming products every day made from petroleum products and natural gas products.

The other part of it is, when we live…. You know, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head drives back and forth. Maybe he drives an electric car. I don’t know. But he drives on asphalt, and asphalt contains anywhere from 5 to 10 percent bitumen in it. They just paved a nice section of road that he probably drives on every day in his car, made with petroleum products — the plastic that’s in his vehicle.

In addition to that, it takes 200 kilograms of thermal coal to produce one tonne of cement. You look at the amount of concrete that we have in the province here, in the buildings that we have in urban British Columbia, in the bridges that we have in British Columbia. To heat up the limestone and make the cement, there’s quite a process that goes through there. With the increase in the coal, in the carbon pricing for coal, it pretty much eliminates B.C. as a competitor in the cement industry. It gives the offshore folks an advantage to import their products, and it puts a lot of our local British Columbian cement people out of business.

In addition to that, we have steel that goes into our highrise buildings, the nice apartments that a lot of folks live in down here and the concrete that goes into that as well. So the carbon tax is going to affect just about everything we do in this province, to a significant degree.

You can reduce the tolls. You can increase the tax for the people making over $150,000 a year, but every single consumer in the province is going to be covering those costs. Those costs are going to be passed on to the consumer at the end of the day, so there’s no real savings for a lot of those individuals there.

By abandoning the revenue neutrality for the carbon tax, it’s going to have a significant impact on every single consumer in the province. It’s going to force businesses to pass those costs on to the consumers, and at the end of the day, nobody wins.

The Budget Measures Implementation Act. There’s a number of things in there, and my colleagues have spoken quite eloquently on that over the past several hours here. It highlights the tax increases that we have. It talks about the MSP premiums being reduced by 50 percent, which is something, of course, that we had proposed when we were in government as well. The offset to that though…. It’s a significant hit to the bottom line in the budget.

[4:45 p.m.]

I was looking at the economic growth projections that this government is forecasting for this fiscal year, ’17-18 — 2.9 percent. Really optimistic. I don’t know if we’re going to see that. Like I said, the corporate boardrooms that are taking their decisions for growing their companies, hiring more employees, are predicated upon things that are existing in today’s business world.

When they look at the increase in taxes, when they look at the increase in carbon taxes, that might be the breaking point for many of these companies to say: “Listen, I am not going to invest any further in the economy in British Columbia here because I don’t like the direction it’s going to go.” I don’t think we’re going to see that 2.9 percent increase in the economy next year.

For an example, I had a businessman come to me in Prince George. He was prepared to put $1 million into his company to satisfy a lot of the contracts that he had. He wanted to know my best guess on what was going to happen with Site C, because that had a major impact on what he was doing.

Site C. We just saw 200 people laid off from Site C. Hopefully, we won’t see any more, and that project will move ahead and start producing the power that will no doubt be required here in British Columbia by the time it’s done. There’s $1 million that he’s not going to invest. There are a number of people that he was going to hire that he will no longer hire because of the uncertainty in the market up there.

I’ve said it in this House before. Another contractor came to me probably about a month ago and said that he had lost an 18-month contract due to the uncertainty that this government has projected, particularly in rural B.C. and particularly in the resource sector. As a result of that, he’s got a number of people that won’t be working for the next 18 months.

All of those things are going to lead to the fact that…. I think this 2.9 percent projection for growth is overly optimistic. I think it’s going to lead this government into a position where they have no choice but to increase even more taxes.

I’m happy to see… I didn’t see anything in the Budget Measures Implementation Act that’s going to take the balanced budget legislation away, that’s going to take away the legislation regarding the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act — where you take the surplus and you put it onto the operating debt of the province. I think that’s probably going to stay much the same as it is right now, because there won’t be any surplus to throw on that at the end of the day.

This government is heading down a road where they’re talking about providing lots of services to many people in the province here. They’re talking about building social housing, but those are all government projects. I haven’t heard one thing that is going to entice the private sector to invest in British Columbia. I haven’t heard one thing in this budget, and I haven’t seen one thing in Bill 2. There’s nothing. There’s no carrot here that is going to entice any corporation to spend any money in British Columbia to grow their business, to grow the industry.

The triple-A credit rating that we have. I’m predicting we’re going to see a downgrade in that. I’m predicting that we’re really going to struggle with a balanced budget at the end of the year. I’m waiting for the February budget that this government is talking about.

We had estimates the other day. We’ve got estimates going on right now, and the commitments that are being made by the different ministries are pretty significant. When you add that up with the fact that…. We’ll probably see something to do with $10-a-day daycare. We’re going to see the $400 — unless they’re not going to follow through on those campaign commitments, much like they’ve talked about some of the other ones that they’re not following through on.

Going in the direction they’re going right now, I see things going downhill. I see a deficit coming up. I see credit ratings going down, and I see people struggling to see how they’re going to make ends meet with the increased tax load and all of the other burdens that this government is placing upon working men and women throughout the province here.

I don’t support Bill 2. Like I said before, I’m going to wait with bated breath to see what that February budget looks like, as we get a better idea on the trajectory, this downward trajectory that I think we’re going to see take place in the province here.

Hon. J. Darcy: I’m very pleased to rise and speak in support of Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2017, and very, very proud that this is a budget that really does focus on people.

[4:50 p.m.]

Listening to some of the members opposite speaking, it strikes me that they are, frankly, oblivious to the message that was sent by British Columbians in the last election. I think what we saw in so many communities across this province was British Columbians saying that they understand that budgets are about choices and that this government has been making the wrong choices for the last 16 years.

Successive Liberal budgets did not put people first the way this budget does — budgets that gave tax breaks to millionaires; budgets that relied on steadily increasing MSP premiums, increased by 100 percent since the Liberals came to power. Budget speeches lauded and bragged about a booming economy but didn’t invest in the very people, the hard-working families. They are the ones that have created that wealth and prosperity in this province, yet families are struggling to get the services that they need in their communities.

This budget update, I’m very proud to say, respects our election commitments to the people of British Columbia. We are making life more affordable with this budget. We are improving the services that people count on. And this budget will result in creating good jobs for people throughout British Columbia. But you know, it must be said that after 16 years of very bad choices and neglect, there’s an awful lot of work to be done.

This budget update takes the first critical steps to building a better B.C. It starts by investing in people. When we invest in people, that means that we are investing in a strong and sustainable British Columbia.

This budget makes life more affordable. Let me just start with housing, which my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing spoke so eloquently about not very long ago. I have to say that in my constituency office — a very busy office — for virtually every person who comes in the door, no matter what their story is, no matter what their issue is, lack of affordable housing is part of the crisis that they’re dealing with.

I’m so proud and so excited that in this budget, we’re getting started on a comprehensive plan to make housing more affordable for British Columbians, to close speculation loopholes, to reduce tax fraud and money laundering in B.C. real estate. In this budget update, we’re taking some critical first steps for affordable rental housing, investing $208 million over four years to support the construction of more than 1,700 new units of affordable housing, and also taking some really important steps to addressing homelessness — $291 million over two years to construct modular supportive housing units for people who are homeless.

I have to say that at the recent Union of B.C. Municipalities, whichever local government officials I met with from across the province welcomed this initiative. They are stepping up to the plate. They want to offer land. They want to support. They want to work in partnership in order to address affordable housing and homelessness.

In this budget: poverty reduction. How many times have we stood in this House — I’ve only been here four years, some of my colleagues much longer — calling for a poverty reduction strategy in the province of British Columbia. It is shameful that we have had to wait this long while every other province of whatever ideological stripe has stepped up to the plate and brought forward a poverty reduction strategy.

It took a new government in this province in order to do it, and we will now finally be starting to take those important steps forward, together with — to ensure that it will be actually implemented, put in place — a minister who is responsible for social development but also for poverty reduction, who will be bringing forward a poverty reduction strategy to this Legislature.

In this budget we’re investing in child care. That is certainly, for people in my community and in so many communities across B.C., for sure the second-highest cost for so many families and, in some cases, the highest cost. I’ve certainly heard that over and over again in New Westminster. We will be creating 4,000 new child care spaces, $20 million in new investments, bringing the total to $330 million this year. But this is just the beginning.

[4:55 p.m.]

Across the board, businesses are saying that this is a good idea. Local governments are saying it’s a good idea. School districts are, families are, parent groups. We need this. Our children need it, our families need it, and the British Columbia economy needs it. As I said, it’s just the first step of much more to come.

K-to-12 education. We’ve had 16 years of conflict with teachers and with teacher unions, who had to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to finally have money put back into the classroom where it belongs.

This year we will be committing a total of $681 million over three years to help our kids get the education they deserve, with smaller class sizes, with more resources and with the supports they need to succeed.

On World Teachers Day, I’m so excited to be able to confirm that we’ll be hiring approximately 3,500 more teachers in the province of British Columbia. On top of that, capital funding of $50 million to ensure that the space requirements for kids going back to school are addressed.

This budget also takes critical steps to build a sustainable economy, building schools, building transit, transportation infrastructure — all of them absolutely critical for British Columbians that need to travel to work, travel to study — an announcement that has been welcomed by the business community.

Members opposite pretend that everything in this budget has been greeted with doom and gloom. That’s not the case. The business community has welcomed the fact that there will be the biggest investment in infrastructure in many, many years in this province, because that’s good for everybody, for transit, for transportation, for our economy and also for our environment. There will be massive investments in public transit throughout the Lower Mainland as well as investments in transportation infrastructure elsewhere.

We certainly welcomed the proposals and the initiatives proposed by our Green colleagues. We have incorporated into this budget update an innovation commission, which will both advocate and be an ambassador for B.C.’s emerging tech sector; as well as an emerging economy task force that will be charged with developing made-in-B.C. solutions and seeing how we can encourage innovative and sustainable industries to drive economic growth into the 21st century.

On the issue of the carbon tax, again, this has been welcomed across this province — increasing the carbon tax by five cents per tonne and, very importantly, using that revenue from the carbon tax to fund green initiatives to address our climate action commitments. If we don’t do that, we’re talking about a future for our children and our children’s children that we can only begin to imagine.

Of course, this budget is also about fairness. Yes indeed, we are asking people at the top to pay a little bit more. Top income earners received a tax break under the B.C. Liberal government. Millionaires received a tax break under the B.C. Liberal government. I’m proud to say that we are reversing that decision and that those high-income earners will pay an additional 2.1 percent on income over $150,000 — a reasonable thing to do.

We’re also increasing corporate taxes by a modest 1 percent, which will still keep us competitive with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

We’re cutting MSP premiums in half — I will return to that issue — saving families up to $900 a year.

We’re lowering the small business tax by 20 percent, from 2.5 percent to 2 percent. I can tell you that the hundreds of dynamic small businesses in New Westminster certainly are welcoming that action by our government.

Certainly businesses across British Columbia are welcoming that we are moving forward to phase out the provincial sales tax on electricity, which will help B.C. businesses to compete while encouraging a transition to low-carbon energy sources, like electricity.

On the issue of affordability, let me just underline how significant our changes are to medical service premiums. I cannot tell you how many people come to my constituency office, how many people talk to me at community events or walking down the street about the high cost of MSP.

[5:00 p.m.]

If you pay, under the present regime — where it’s gone up by 100 percent since the Liberals came to power — whether you earn $40,000 a year, $400,000 a year or $4 million a year, people were expected to pay the same MSP premiums — the only province in the country to still have a flat tax to pay for health care. This cut will save couples up to $900 per year, and individuals will save up to $450 a year. No need to apply. Premiums will be lower than the rate that was applicable in 2002, and this is just the first step towards our government eliminating MSP premiums within four years.

Let me talk about the new Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, the first one in British Columbia’s history and the first one in Canada. I can’t tell you how honoured and proud I am to be asked to serve as the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. This is a critical part of investing in people. Despite the amazing work of so many people on the front lines providing mental health care and providing addictions care, the reality is that we have a system for mental health and addictions in the province of British Columbia that is broken.

It is fragmented. It’s uncoordinated. There are huge gaps, and thousands and thousands of British Columbians are suffering as a result. A whole lot of them are suffering in silence, because of stigma, and an awful lot of them, if they decide to seek help, don’t know where to turn. The waits are too long for assessments for our children and our young people who are showing early signs of mental illness in our schools.

Pediatricians will tell you that they’re seeing a record number of kids who are dealing with high levels of stress, anxiety disorder and depression. We need to support those children early in their lives to prevent those mental illnesses from getting worse and potentially developing into severe mental illness and addictions. We need to support our young people in order to give them an opportunity to thrive and to grow and to have a path to wellness and to health.

There is no better reminder of that than the story that we heard yesterday from the Representative for Children and Youth. At the age of two, Joshua — not his real name — was already self-harming, beating his head against the wall. By the age of six, Joshua spoke to people at school and elsewhere about the fact that he didn’t want to live. Joshua made his first attempt at suicide at age 11.

It’s not that there were not people who stepped up along the way. People in the education system stepped up, offered help, supplied help and services, and then when he seemed to be getting better, they stepped back. The Ministry of Children and Families intervened on many occasions, and then they stepped back. People in the health care system stepped in and gave support to Joshua and his family, and then they stepped back.

The reality is that there are too many children like Joshua who are not getting the support that they need. The Representative for Children and Youth did not say that his death was directly attributable to problems in the system. He said that we couldn’t know that for sure, but he certainly said clearly and unequivocally that putting in place a seamless, coordinated system for mental health — for child and youth mental health, in particular — would have given him a better chance.

At the age of 17, Joshua took his own life. We have to do better than that. We cannot, on the one hand, say, as the members opposite do, that we have this great and prosperous province — which we do — and not be investing in the services for child and youth mental health to support kids like Joshua.

I’m honoured that the Premier has mandated me to lead this new Ministry for Mental Health and Addictions. I have to say that there have been reports and studies…. I have several files full of them already — take them home and read them every night and on the weekends — that have documented this problem very, very clearly.

[5:05 p.m.]

It’s not for a lack of us knowing in the province of British Columbia. It’s not for the lack of the government understanding that we have huge gaps in the system for mental health and addictions for youth and adults right across the board.

I’m so proud that this government has decided it’s time to take very serious action to build a seamless, coordinated system for mental health and addictions so that we can get to the place — and we won’t get there overnight — where mental illness and addiction are accorded the same dignity and respect and care that physical illnesses get. It starts with our youth and our children. It starts with children like Joshua.

In this budget, we are taking the first steps towards that. We are increasing the funding for the Foundry youth hubs — some of them already in place. One of them just opened recently on the North Shore. One is opening in Prince George next week. I’ll be very happy to be up there and to be part of that opening, as well as meeting people in the community to hear more about their concerns about our system for mental health and addictions. It’s precisely this model of services that we need to see in our communities across the province for youth, for children in our schools and also for adults.

I am very proud that in this budget update our government has committed $322 million over three years, with the focus being on the overdose crisis, but also taking those first steps, the building blocks towards building a better system for mental health and addictions so that we can get to the place — and, again, it won’t happen overnight — where people who are suffering from mental illness or addictions are able to ask once and get help fast.

Let me just spend a couple minutes, before I conclude, on the overdose crisis. In this province, it’s almost become the new normal. We hear the figures. People’s eyes are beginning to cloud over, the way that we get accustomed to wars and tragedies in other parts of the world. But four people will die by the end of today as a result of poisoned street drugs.

There are many different journeys that got them to that place. Some of the people I’ve heard stories about were injured workers who were on pain medications. The pain medications either weren’t strong enough to relieve their pain, or they were cut off their pain medication or weaned off too quickly, and they turned to street drugs, which dealt with their pain for a while, and now those drugs are poisoned.

Some of them have lost their lives. Some of them, fortunately, have made their way to some of the clinics and programs that are in place to provide them with safe prescription medication to save their lives and provide a pathway to hope. Some of the people who are dying are homeless, have lived in poverty. Some are recreational drug users who took a drug that they thought was safe but was poisoned. People are dying in all corners of the province.

That’s why this government has decided that in this budget update, as one of its top priorities, we need to escalate our response to the overdose crisis. We cannot allow this overdose crisis — four deaths a day — to become a new normal in the province of British Columbia.

In this budget, we have significant new investments in the overdose crisis in order to reduce the death toll and in order to start providing more pathways to hope. If we don’t — if things continue the way that they will — at this point, we are on track that by the end of this year, 1,500 people will have died by overdose.

Those are not statistics. Those are mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters and sons and daughters and loved ones. And we have to be there for them. We have to be there to save their lives and to provide treatment and pathways to hope.

In this budget, we’re investing in harm reduction in a significant way, expanding access to naloxone kits, the numbers of naloxone kits and also accelerating the number of people trained to administer it. We’re expanding the access to life-saving prescription medication. We’re increasing support for people on the front lines of the overdose crisis, who are living with incredible stress — and themselves burning out.

[5:10 p.m.]

We’re going to be expanding rapid-access clinics in the communities most affected and substance use centres across the province. We’re establishing a community crisis intervention fund so that we can be flexible and nimble and move the resources to where we need them in order to save lives — one that will really be driven by community-based initiatives, because some of the most successful initiatives that have saved the most lives have been driven by communities.

We will also be investing $5 million in this budget update and $10 million in each of the next two years to work with First Nations and Indigenous people. Indigenous people are dying at a rate three times the death rate in the population at large. Why? Because of intergenerational trauma, because of the legacy of residential schools, racism and colonization. So we will be working in partnership with First Nations leaders and Indigenous organizations and communities in order to support those communities to make our way through this overdose crisis and save more lives.

The other critical part of our response to the overdose crisis and to our strategy to deal with mental health and addictions in general is that we are taking an all-of-government approach. That means that we recognize, as the previous government refused to, that we need to address the social factors that contribute in such a significant way to mental illness and to the development of addictions.

That means working together with the Minister of Housing to address homelessness. It means working on poverty reduction. It means working in partnership with Education, with Indigenous communities and with Ministry of Children and Families, because it will take an all-of-government approach in order to build a better system for mental health and addictions. That starts with early intervention with our kids, and it will take an all-of-government approach to have an effective response to the overdose crisis.

We are also saying that it can’t just be an all-of-government approach. It needs to be a whole-of-province approach. We are asking everybody — all partners, all sectors — to step up to the plate. That means business. That means labour. That means local government. That means partnering with the federal government, of course. It means sports organizations, faith communities. We all have to take this on together, because it is hurting all of our families and our province in a very, very big way.

At the same time as we’re tackling this overdose crisis, we are, as I’ve said, taking the first steps, putting some of the building blocks in place for a seamless, coordinated system for mental health and addictions.

We are doing all of this, as well, in the context of a strong, responsible fiscal plan. This is a balanced budget. There are record levels of capital spending that will contribute to the social infrastructure as well as the physical infrastructure across this province, as well as creating good, family-supporting jobs from one corner of British Columbia to another.

I am very proud to support Budget Update 2017, and I have to say, in conclusion, that everywhere I go in my community, everywhere I’ve travelled across the province, every local government official that I met with at UBCM last week says how excited they are to see a government that wants to work in partnership with them, a government that is investing in social capital as well as in physical infrastructure and a government that is prepared, finally, to put people first. I’m proud to speak in support of Bill 2, the budget implementation act.

J. Thornthwaite: On behalf of my constituents in North Vancouver–Seymour, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to discuss Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. The tax measures that we are debating in this bill will have serious implications for British Columbians today and for generations to come.

We as elected officials are entrusted to represent the voices of our constituents and make the best-informed decisions for the citizens we represent. For it is these decisions that will ultimately shape the course of the $50 billion enterprise that is the government of British Columbia.

[5:15 p.m.]

While this House has already debated the budget, it’s now time to examine it more thoroughly and study how it will affect the lives of everyday British Columbians, for better or for worse. However, when I look at these budget measures through the lens of how they will impact affordability for British Columbians, I’m compelled to reflect on the progress we’ve made as a province, and I’m given great pause to think about where it has us destined to be headed.

A good place to approach this budget is to look way back into 2001 when the Liberal Party took power following ten years of NDP governments. Now, 16 years is a long time ago, and I know the other side of the House is tired of us bringing it up, but I find it necessary to reminisce that far back in order to recall the state of disorder that this province was left in under the NDP.

Under the NDP’s reign, B.C. had the highest unemployment rate in western Canada every single year they were in power. The province’s debt-servicing costs increased by 60 percent. The province had six credit downgrades from rating agencies. Over the course of ten years, they balanced only two budgets. Throughout their last four years in power, B.C. was dead last in job growth, and more than 50,000 people left the province in an economic exodus. To put it bluntly, under the NDP, British Columbia was a have-not province.

Over the course of 16 years, the B.C. Liberal government worked tirelessly to get the economy of this province back on track. With a solid fiscal plan in place and with strong fiscal leadership, our government built a strong, growing and diverse economy that was working for British Columbians. When this newly aligned NDP-Green coalition seized power this summer, they inherited an economy that was the envy of the rest of the country.

What is there to dispute when you are leading the country in economic growth, when you’re leading the country in job creation, when you’re one of only two provinces in the country with a triple-A credit rating, when you boast the lowest unemployment rate in Canada, when you balance five consecutive provincial budgets and, lastly, when you post a record $2.7 billion surplus?

Why, then, does this new government need to raise personal taxes, raise corporate taxes, raise carbon taxes and eliminate family tax credits? After inheriting the best-performing economy in Canada, how does this government rationalize placing a heavier financial burden on consumers, B.C. businesses, taxpayers and struggling families? When one considers the economy they inherited, how do they feel justified in dismantling the formula that got us to this strong fiscal position in the first place?

Before we get too much into the weeds here, let’s give credit where credit is due and first look at the many initiatives the NDP has borrowed from our budget and proclaimed as their own: the reduction of MSP premiums by 50 percent; the reduction of the small business tax from 2.5 to 2 percent; the phase-out of PST on electricity; and the implementation of a $3,000 non-refundable tax credit for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers.

Despite the fact that each of these B.C. Liberal initiatives is being announced as new directives, we can’t be too miffed. These measures will have very positive, real implications for everyday British Columbians — and positive, as I said, at that.

Let’s look at some of the more troubling budgeting measures that this government is set to implement to “build a better B.C.” Out of the gates, the NDP is raising the corporate tax rate so that every dollar a business raises over $500,000 is taxed at 12 percent. Now, we must realize that many businesses operate with very low profit margins, and even a 1 percent tax hike will significantly impact their bottom lines. That will be reflected in higher prices for consumers. This has already negatively affected entrepreneurial optimism and small business confidence.

Moreover, in times of global financial insecurity or uncertainty and rising U.S. protectionism, what kind of message does this budget send to prospective investment in British Columbia? It does affect our global competitive advantage. Why, for instance, would Amazon want to locate to British Columbia when we’re raising the tax rate?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Inevitably, British Columbian consumers should get ready to have these costs passed on to them. It’s not bad enough that the NDP is raising the carbon tax and abandoning the current provision that requires it to be revenue-neutral.

[5:20 p.m.]

Under our B.C. Liberal government, we were the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a broad-based, revenue-neutral carbon tax. This made-in-B.C. tax was lauded around the world as an innovative solution to help address carbon emissions. At the same time, every penny of excess funds raised was returned directly to British Columbians and B.C. businesses through revenue-neutral tax cuts.

The NDP’s decision to increase this tax will excessively raise the price at the pumps and the cost to heat our homes. British Columbians are now going to be paying nearly seven cents extra per litre of fuel, and that puts us back up to 135.9 a litre, up from 128.9, which is what the price is today in North Vancouver. I don’t know how that makes things more affordable.

By now, Mr. Speaker, I’m sure you’ve heard enough about tax increases. Now we’ll take a minute to talk about the cuts. Buried in this budget is the elimination of the B.C. children’s fitness equipment tax credit as well as the children’s fitness and arts tax credit. These tax credits provided up to $750 in important tax credits to working British Columbia families. While this measure saves the government $11 million a year, it punishes an unknown number of children from across B.C. whose parents relied on it to help cover the cost of enrolling them in organized sport and arts classes.

Also, I’d be remiss not to mention the positive ripple effects that tax credits can produce for individuals, industries and our provincial economy as a whole. Specifically, I’d like to acknowledge the positive impact that our B.C. Liberal government’s tax credits have had on the B.C. film industry. When B.C. film was in its darkest days, our government stepped up to make sure that this industry felt supported. Not only that, but we helped erode industry uncertainty.

We did that through the creation of film industry–specific labour tax credits that are tied to people working in B.C. film. When more credits are administered, it means more jobs are being created in the industry. These credits are not a straight subsidy. The response from the industry has been overwhelming. Until now, these credits have always been paid on time, and they played a large part in resuscitating the industry, which was seriously struggling. This contributes to certainty for the industry.

In conclusion, my questions with regards to this budget are: where’s the plan to grow the economy and continue our strong record on jobs? Where’s the plan to generate revenue, attract investment and expand our provincial export markets? How does raising corporate taxes, raising personal taxes, raising carbon taxes and eliminating family tax credits make life more affordable for British Columbians?

Six months ago the Auditor General confirmed our economy grew by an astonishing 3.7 percent. Now it’s barely expected to rise above 2 percent. With credit-rating agencies raising warning flags over our current triple-A credit rating, across-the-board tax hikes and no real plan to grow the economy or create jobs, I need not wonder why. If this government feels the need to raise taxes in the best economic times, then please help us. Who knows what this indicates for British Columbians, should our economy reverse course? I hope this isn’t so.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know the LG is in the precincts, so I would move, at this point, adjournment of the debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I’m advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain in your seats.

[5:25 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner Continuation Act.

In her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this act.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the House, at its rising, stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Monday, October 16.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: The House is adjourned until 10 a.m., October 16.

The House adjourned at 5:34 p.m.