Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 2. In the little House, Committee A, I call continued estimates, Ministry of Health.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2017

(continued)

A. Kang: As MLA for Burnaby–Deer Lake, I am honoured to rise today to speak in support of Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. The 2017 Budget Update presents a strong, responsible fiscal plan that puts people first, while helping to ensure the long-run fiscal sustainability of our province.

B.C.’s economy is strong, and employment, retail sales and exports have all exceeded expectations. The outlook for this year’s real GDP growth is 2.9 percent. With our balanced budget, we are sharing the prosperity of our province with everyone who lives here and fixing the problems resulting from 16 years of bad choices and neglect.

We recognize that there is much more work to be done, but we will never forget that this province’s most-valued assets are its people. We’re putting people first by improving the services they need and making their lives more affordable.

As the Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, I would like to emphasize the $189 million over three years that the bill provides to improve access to home and community care. I know the urgent need of looking after our seniors. I have been speaking with numerous seniors advocates across B.C., visiting seniors care homes and speaking to families and care providers about their concerns. Seniors who need stable care and a helping hand are struggling to find timely medical care and an affordable home so that they can live their final years in dignity.

I have been following closely the office of the seniors advocate survey that was just released a little while ago. This is a good report, and I want to commend the seniors advocate for taking the time, care and thought to put together the survey report. The Premier has given direction in his mandate letter to the Minister of Health to address issues that affect many of B.C.’s seniors, and many of these issues were identified in this report.

The government is committed to bringing care hours up to appropriate levels and meeting the standard of 3.36 direct care hours per residential day.

[2:45 p.m.]

In the conversations that I have been having, I hear that seniors want to live in their homes for as long as possible. One hot topic is home care. What I hear from families, seniors and advocates is that it is important for seniors who want to remain at home to stay at home and to continue to be connected to a familiar environment with their families and home community. Seniors will benefit if they can spend more time with home care workers. When seniors are supported appropriately at home, they can avoid unnecessary visits to the hospital and be happier and healthier at home.

Education. In the second month of school, students are now settled down in the classrooms, familiar with their homeroom teachers and have become acquainted with new friends. My kids are excited about meeting their new music teacher, taking out library books to read, playing on the playground, and they are even excited about bringing home homework.

The government is putting our money where our mouth is by providing $681 million over three years to help our kids get the education they deserve. The additional dollars will help reduce class sizes, hire more teachers and provide resources and supports for our children’s success.

To immediately address the space requirements for kids going back to school, we are also providing capital funding of $50 million. This means that Ecole Alpha Secondary School in Burnaby will receive $27.2 million and will finally receive seismic upgrades and partial replacement to increase student capacity from 1,025 students to 1,100 student spaces.

This means that the Montecito Elementary School in Burnaby will receive $3.4 million from this provincial government and will finally receive a seismic upgrade and four additional classrooms that will provide 100 student spaces. This means that University Highlands Elementary School in Burnaby will receive $2.75 million from this provincial government and will finally add eight additional classrooms to provide up to 195 student spaces.

When Bill 2 passes, I can rest assured that students in British Columbia will be having a great school year, where students are not learning in crowded classrooms, where B.C. schools will see hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for public education, children in care and mental health. Bill 2 provides the quality education that our children need and deserve.

This government’s promises to B.C. students, parents and teachers aren’t just words. They are followed up by actions, real actions. We’re giving students the support they need to succeed and restoring proper funding for B.C. classrooms. Bill 2 is a statement that we are leaving no child behind. After 16 years of cuts and conflict, B.C. students, parents, teachers and school administrators are heartened to finally see a bill that shows that the government wants to work with them and not against them.

Education is one of the government’s highest priorities and will continue to be. We’re investing in our children, our future and a more balanced economy. A strong, balanced economy will help improve public services like health care and education that we all rely on.

We must look far and plan for the future. The investments we make today may not pay off in a year or two or even before our next election, but they will pay off. When these investments mature, it will not matter which party sits on this side of the aisle, because as long as British Columbians can reap the benefits, we know that we are making the right decisions here today. These right decisions transcend politics.

Together, we will help British Columbians, young or old, realize their full potential, by supporting Bill 2. I look forward to continue working with all the stakeholders to keep the smartest and brightest minds in British Columbia.

Investment in education does not stop at K to 12. This government is providing $7.5 million to expand BCIT’s specialty nursing program and $78.3 million for BCIT’s health services centre for advanced simulation. This government is planning for the future. Our province’s aging population continues to rise, and we need more and more health care professionals to take care of everyone.

[2:50 p.m.]

Simon Fraser University, the crown jewel of Burnaby and British Columbia, will receive $19.6 million from this provincial government for its B.C. Knowledge Development Fund project. These projects will continue to drive our province’s economy.

Earlier this year we battled wildfires, and we continue to face battles with cancer. We shouldn’t forget another enemy that’s destroying us from within, and that’s the opioid crisis. This year we have lost more people to opioids than wildfires — 978 in 2016 and 876 more in the first seven months of this year. That’s more than 1,000 heartbroken families and more than 100,000 broken hearts. I sometimes wonder: what if these drugs get into the wrong hands, into our children’s hands? The thought of it truly scares me. We must act now before it’s too late.

Bill 2 provides $265 million that will go towards addressing the fentanyl emergency. Bill 2 will help remove opioids from our streets and keep the deadly drug away from our children. I am comforted by the fact that this government is determined to provide an immediate and direct response to the crisis. I am comforted by the fact that our government will help stop these tragedies from happening to our loved ones.

At the root of our opioid crisis is the mental health of British Columbians, which is why Bill 2 is providing a $603 million increase over three years to the base budget for the Ministry of Health. These additional dollars will help us to work on priorities in our health care system. As British Columbia’s population continues to age and our senior population continues to grow, our health services must catch up to the demand. Bill 2 ensures that we don’t fall behind.

Bill 2 also provides $25 million to establish the new Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions that will provide a strategic leadership and take on the issues directly. By designating a ministry specifically for mental health and addictions, the government is committed to tackling the issue. Burnaby will benefit from a new mental health and substance use development and consolidated community health service area. We are also cutting MSP premiums in half, which will save families up to $900 every year. This is where ensuring the well-being of our people and making our province more affordable intersect.

Affordability is an important concern for almost all British Columbians, especially for my friends and neighbours in Burnaby–Deer Lake. People are working harder and harder, but they are realizing that they have not become better. British Columbians deserve a government that is working for the people. I have served as a Burnaby city councillor for the past nine years. Over the past nine years, people have been telling me that life has not gotten better. Families have to work double-income jobs because they just can’t keep up with the cost of living.

As a mother, I share the same concern and desire to give our children a better life than the ones that we have right now. We want to raise our children in communities we grew up in, yet housing prices are so unaffordable that some families are being pushed out of their own communities. Some even have to resort to living on the streets. This is a situation that, as astonishing as it is, is unacceptable. That is why we are providing $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 are also providing $291 million over two years to construct 2,000 modular supportive housing units for people who are homeless. Even with additional funding, there is still more work to be done. The government realizes that and is working on a comprehensive plan to make housing more affordable for people by closing speculation loopholes and reducing tax fraud and money laundering in B.C. real estate.

Our Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, as well as our Parliamentary Secretary for Poverty Reduction are working hard to find solutions to reduce poverty in B.C., including developing a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy.

[2:55 p.m.]

Through Bill 2, this government is also providing $23.2 million to Expo Line upgrades, which will improve the capacity and accessibility. We shouldn’t have to own a car or spend thousands of dollars on gas just to live in this province. Some of us don’t have the means to buy a car. Some of us don’t have the means to fill our tanks. Some of us don’t have the means to maintain our cars. We’re working towards a more accessible and affordable B.C. by providing everyone with reliable public transportation.

In our province, the majority of parents now work, regardless of the age of their children. Most families have both parents working out of necessity, because the economic climate requires that there must be two breadwinners in order to pay the bills.

Due to the unaffordability of the economic climate in our province, as a result of neglect and inaction for the past 16 years to take care of families and children, many families cannot afford to take leave from work to stay home to look after their children. Furthermore, housing prices, especially in urbanized regions, have risen to a point where it is unbelievably out of reach for young couples to secure a place and raise a family.

Given that the cost of child care can consume nearly one parent’s salary, parents or caregivers choose to take leave from the workforce so that the family doesn’t incur the daycare expense. It may seem like an economically rational decision. I know I had to make that decision after having my second child. I couldn’t afford to put two children into child care. I decided to be home for them both.

My story isn’t a unique one, nor is it a rarely occurring circumstance. Hundreds of situations like mine arise every single day. In fact, I’m sure that many of us sitting here in the Legislature have received similar calls for help.

Our government is moving forward with $20 million in new child care investments that will increase our spending on early childhood development and child care to $330 million this year and support more than 4,000 new child care spaces.

Child care services enable parents to get the education or training they need to access good jobs. In addition to the positive long-term impact that high-quality child care has on children and the economy, these programs provide important benefits to working parents, especially working mothers. Child care makes it possible for low-income or sole-support parents to take advantage of opportunities for advancement.

Just as we are putting people in homes, we are also getting people working. Small businesses are the backbone of our sustainable economy. Burnaby has four town centres, one being Metrotown Centre, which is located in my riding of Burnaby–Deer Lake.

With a vibrant urban economy and a central location, Burnaby is the place to conduct business in British Columbia’s Lower Mainland. Surrounded by some of the most beautiful parks and natural settings in Canada, Burnaby is a great place to learn, live, work, invest and play.

Here, many immigrants and entrepreneurs choose Burnaby as home for their businesses. Burnaby’s strong and diversified industry clusters include information technology, wireless, biotechnology, life science, film, new media, education, environmental technology and services, professional services and light industry.

We must keep Burnaby a magnet that attracts talents from worldwide. This is why we are going to build schools, hospitals, transit and transportation infrastructure, which will create jobs in every corner of our province. This is a $14.6 billion investment that will pay off tremendously.

While the pleasant environment is beneficial to sparking innovation and growth, we must do more to stimulate our creative minds. This is why we’re creating an innovation commission, which will be both an advocate and ambassador for B.C.’s tech sector, as well as creating an emerging economy task force, which will develop made-in-B.C. solutions and look at how government can encourage innovative and sustainable industry to drive economic growth in B.C. in the 21st century.

British Columbia is home to a growing technology sector, and the commission, along with the task force, will encourage new investments. We will harness the technology and make sure everyone receives the benefit and wealth created by the 21st century economy.

[3:00 p.m.]

Taking care and supporting small businesses are important to job creation in our B.C. economy. Small businesses are a critical component of and major contributor to the strength of local economies. Small businesses present new employment opportunities and serve as the building blocks of our province. We are supporting small businesses by reducing their tax rates from 2.5 percent to 2 percent.

Some will argue that economic development and environmental protection are conflicting principles, but this government is going to prove them wrong. We will soon end the requirement for the carbon tax to be revenue-neutral and support families and fund green initiatives with additional revenue. We are committed to combatting climate change, not only because it is the right thing to do, but it is also the economic thing to do. We are also moving forward to phase out the provincial sales tax on electricity, which will help B.C. businesses compete while encouraging a transition to low-carbon energy sources.

Supporting families, investing in education and health care, making life more affordable, improving the services people rely on, making new investments that grow jobs and help develop a strong, sustainable and innovative economy — that’s our vision. We have seen that laid out clearly in Bill 2.

I call on everyone in this House and everyone watching this. If you believe in a government working for the people of British Columbia, support Bill 2. If you believe in making life better and more affordable for the people of British Columbia, support Bill 2. If you believe in investing in our future and the people of British Columbia, support Bill 2.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for this opportunity to give my response.

R. Sultan: I am pleased to offer some remarks on Bill 2, the Budget Implementation Act.

I would like to begin by congratulating the new government for not chucking out key elements of the previous government’s Budget 2017, which this government inherited last June, including such measures as cutting the MSP premiums by 50 percent, cutting the small business tax rate from 2½ to 2 percent, phasing out the PST on electricity purchases by business and the $3,000 non-refundable tax credit for SAR’s volunteers and firefighters.

These taxpayer-friendly measures, proudly emphasized by the new government and by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake just now in her remarks, have been more than offset by a basket of add-ons — regressive new taxes, which will raise the cost of living for all of us and hit, particularly hard, low-income people struggling to pay for gasoline so they can drive to work and buy natural gas so they can heat their homes.

New measures in Bill 2 will also make B.C. less attractive to international business. Bill 2 introduces a higher carbon tax, which means gasoline taxes growing by eight to 11 cents per litre and much higher home heating bills due to the higher taxes on natural gas.

Bill 2 also cancels the tax offsets for steadily escalating carbon tax increases. That means British Columbia should return the United Nations award it received last summer, when our member for West Vancouver–Capilano flew all the way to Marrakesh, Africa, to the global warming conference to receive global accolades for B.C.’s policy innovation of the tax-neutral carbon tax. I expect to receive the phone call any day asking for that loving cup or plaque, or whatever it was, to be returned to them because we no longer are entitled to it.

Bill 2 also increases the corporate income tax from 11 to 12 percent, and meanest of all — mean — Bill 2 takes away from children the existing modest tax credits encouraging children’s physical fitness and children’s participation in the arts — gone — thereby saving the taxpayers a huge sum of $11 million.

[3:05 p.m.]

So what does it all add up to? Les Leyne of the Times Colonist summarized it quite well. He said the government “is counting on continued growth and a net $881 million a year in new taxes to fund the promises it’s acting on this year. The trouble is, there are lots of promises they haven’t gotten to yet…. The NDP needs smooth economic sailing to bring in the revenue for those ventures, and the higher interest rates make you wonder about the forecast.”

His wonderment is justified. I wonder too. Smooth sailing ahead? Well, we already see storm clouds on the horizon. Again, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake talked about the employment growth vista that she sees ahead, but what do we see from the statistics? Storm clouds gathering on jobs and employment.

B.C. has been leading Canada in creating new jobs, and last month, in September, according to B.C. Stats, we did add 7,600 jobs in only 30 days. Hurray. But wait. That was only in the public sector. Last month in the private sector, we lost 9,700 jobs. Oops. And as for small business, the number of self-employed last month also shrank, by 4,500 in only 30 days — oops again. It will be hard to keep our credit rating if our government continues to expand while our tax base dwindles.

Two other government initiatives enshrined in Bill 2 are further cause for pessimism. There’s the bridge buyback program. And Bill 2 is pulling the rug out from under international business. Let’s start with bridges and highways. I’m not referring to the Massey Tunnel parking lot enterprise. I’m referring to the Port Mann and Golden Ears Bridge buyback programs.

Jennifer Saltman of the Vancouver Sun wrote in August about the government eliminating Metro Vancouver bridge tolls. She observed: “All B.C. taxpayers will share the burden of paying off billions in debt for the Port Mann Bridge and subsidizing the Golden Ears Bridge once tolls are removed from the two structures on September 1.”

The Premier is reported as saying: “We can manage that within our fiscal framework, and that will not have an impact, we believe, in our discussions with bond traders. It will not have an impact on our borrowing costs.” Well, we shall see.

First of all, it won’t be the bond traders we have to worry about. They know only two decisions — buy or sell — and I think I can guess the direction they’re leaning. This is because the fixed-income analysts the traders rely upon are reading Jennifer Saltman, who reports: “The province expects to spend $132 million on costs associated with shutting down Trio, severance and penalties for cancelling contracts on the toll bridges, and thereafter foregoing $135 million annually in lost toll revenue from the Port Mann.”

Here’s a typical NDP investment proposition: invest $132 million so we can lose another $135 million annually. It’s a heck of a deal. Total debt for the money-losing Port Mann Bridge is over $4 billion, which will be added to the provincial debt of $40 billion. Taxpayer-supported debt increases 10 percent at the stroke of a pen.

But to be fair, there’s a silver lining. Those of us living in West Vancouver–Capilano would like to thank government and the taxpayers of Malahat, North Island, Nelson, Oak Bay and others for providing us with generous relief from Metro Vancouver’s heavy tax burden, and we are not alone. By the way, did I mention this government was disproportionately elected from Metro Vancouver?

Next we have the Golden Ears Bridge, owned by an investment consortium and leased to TransLink, another important institution and big tax burden of Metro Vancouver. My constituents really, really appreciate Metro Vancouver getting more financial assistance from outside its service area.

[3:10 p.m.]

Relevant Golden Ears numbers are capital costs in the range of $800 million, annual loss around $45 million. Heavy lifting on the funding of TransLink — TransLink, of course, being Golden Ears — is done by the municipalities of Metro Vancouver.

Those of us in West Van–Capilano wince when we open our real estate tax bills, considering the relatively light transit service our Blue Bus service provides. Since my constituents are disproportionately large funders of TransLink, they are disproportionately thankful to the government for transferring some of the tax burden off our backs and on to the backs of the generous taxpayers of Malahat, North Island, Nelson and Oak Bay. Thank you, distant benefactors.

I would like to close my remarks on Bill 2 by commenting on the astonishing move of the government, out of the blue, in cancelling the international business activity program, otherwise known as IBA. While the government has neither consulted nor explained, one might speculate on their reasons for abruptly cancelling this program. Maybe its involvement with big banks, and it does. Its being set up under Gordon Campbell, and it was. Its involvement with big business, and that’s true. And it really doesn’t understand the program. I’d say that’s a real possibility.

I see in this government’s attack on IBA a distant echo of another attack on financial institutions in another province, in another century, by another group of ideologues, where I was involved wearing another hat. I refer to the separatist Parti Québécois. The heavy-handed tax and regulatory policies adopted when they came to power in the 1976 Quebec provincial election resulted in the accelerated migration of Montreal’s cluster of corporate head offices to Toronto.

The new government in Quebec did not like corporations, did not like banks and certainly did not like the English, by the way. Some large Montreal-based financial institutions got the message and quietly left town in the middle of the night. Others, such as Sun Life, scheduled their moving vans to arrive in the middle of the day to publicize the consequence of the government’s ill-considered policies. I had a ring seat to this migration as a senior executive of the largest Canadian bank, right across the street.

Initially, the Parti Québécois’s attitude was good riddance. But it wasn’t long before the unemployment insurance lines started to grow and the new government realized they were chasing away high-paying jobs and the golden goose, the tax base of the Montreal financial community. As usual, Montreal ran to Ottawa for help.

Ottawa responded by granting international tax advantages to financial companies operating in Montreal but not to those in Toronto. To placate the rest of Canada, counterpart privileges were granted to Vancouver. Vancouver was so far away, it didn’t really matter. Thus was born, based initially on federal taxes and regulation, the pioneering international financial centre concept.

Over the years, it inspired and grew into a strictly provincial tax and regulatory regime, now known in British Columbia as IBA, the international business activity program. IBA today has become a 28-year-old program of the B.C. Ministry of Finance — a program of the B.C. Ministry of Finance, I emphasize — offering tax advantages to international companies engaged in business abroad from a base in Vancouver.

[3:15 p.m.]

It happens to be one of the major items in the toolbox of Advantage B.C., a member-funded, non-government organization promoting the merits of B.C. as a desirable location for international business. But it should be emphasized that IBA is government.

By registering in the IBA program, a company can receive up to a 100 percent refund on provincial corporate taxes paid on qualifying international business activities. This can result in an effective corporate income tax rate on international activities of 2 to 3 percentage points less than, for example, Hong Kong or Singapore. Unfortunately, under Bill 2, this international business incentive program is obliterated.

Companies involved in British Columbia’s IBA have tended to be organizations — some large, some quite small — engaged in international trade, banking, financial services such as treasury and foreign exchange, factoring, wealth and asset management, life sciences, international patents and film distribution — clean, high-paying jobs, where the client is international in origin.

Core members, and mark this list well, include the Bank of China in Canada, Canaccord Genuity, Canfor, J.P. Morgan Asset Management, Chrysalix Energy, CIBC, QLT, Raymond James, West Fraser, the former Phillips Hager and North; Stemcell Technologies, Tolco Financial, Ritchie Bros., Scotia Capital, Vancity Savings Credit Union, Coast Capital, Vancouver Bullion and Currency Exchange and over 100 others.

I am dumbstruck that this government would pull the rug out from under such a lengthy, diverse, reputable and important list of investors, exporters, employers and high-tech ventures without warning, without consultation, without explanation. We shoot ourselves in the foot when we cancel this program.

Sure, under IBA, some income taxes are reduced. That’s the nature of tax incentives ranging from film to junior mining. But if the government hopes to gain more revenue by raising these taxes, I can’t think of a less likely or more doomed strategy.

These international components of such organizations are, well, international. Most of them could operate comfortably in some other global environment. They are mobile. Many of them would not exactly find it challenging to pull their core people out of Vancouver and relocate them to San Francisco or Hong Kong or Singapore, and fire the support staff. Many of the highly trained professionals involved are not necessarily rooted here. Their passports are up to date, and employers will simply give notice and move these activities to some other country. All of the spinoff activities and benefits which British Columbia has enjoyed will go down the drain. Welcome to a globalized world.

Does British Columbia under an NDP government want to participate in this global economy or build a wall around this place — you might call it the “Adopt a Donald Trump” strategy — and tell those international participants to go back home? Such dreadful parochialism has not been the basis of B.C.’s prosperity in the past. We are world traders.

One of IBA’s hallmark achievements was the important role it played in a little noticed landmark agreement between China and Canada establishing Vancouver as a renminbi hub, the renminbi being the Chinese currency. Establishing a renminbi trading settlement in Vancouver was an important step in breaking free from the U.S. dollar as the numéraire of all international trade settlements. The Americans, of course, do not like it one bit.

The renminbi hub was located here because China has seen British Columbia as welcoming, friendly and financially sophisticated. In contrast, persons close to the government appear to have planted fake news about IBA in American media as part of the recent election campaign, and I say shame.

[3:20 p.m.]

I draw parallels to the Parti Québécois in the late ’70s. I watched with horror as they invited financial institutions to please move to Toronto because they were not welcome in Montreal. This change of government climate is a serious threat to the continued growth of Vancouver as a centre of international finance. We are now ranked No. 17. We used to be ranked only 33.

The financial sector, by the way, represents over 150,000 jobs in B.C. It’s been growing recently at about a 12 percent annual rate. Ten years ago IBA activity in Vancouver was estimated as contributing more than $100 million of earnings, revenues in the range approaching $1 billion, about 3,000 direct jobs and another 5,000 to 8,000 indirect jobs. Those numbers would be much larger today.

If international financial institutions move away, we will not, I believe, find much sympathy at the federal government level to come to our rescue, since we’ll be seen as dismantling the very type of rescue vehicle which the federal government helped create in the first place, many decades ago, to try and help the folks in Montreal.

Let me close by mentioning a name I’m sure you’re familiar with: Amazon — a small company. It has a market capitalization of one-half trillion dollars, and it seems to be challenging even our new wonderful downtown feature next to the courthouse, Nordstrom — Nordstrom being challenged by Amazon, believe it or not. Amazon is planning to invest $50 billion in a second head office somewhere. The race is on. Gregor is in there pitching bike paths, I’m sure.

Unfortunately, passing Bill 2, as it reads now, will jeopardize what is probably the most significant feature we can put on the table to attract Amazon to British Columbia. With that proposition in play, cancelling IBA doesn’t help one bit. Sure, we can point out to Amazon our skiing is great, the mountains are pretty, but business is business. IBA is probably British Columbia’s most effective government program to attract Amazon’s second head office.

Or is Bill 2 just the price we have to pay for facilitating in British Columbia a political culture which a folk singer of yesteryear, who probably many of you have never even heard of, Burl Ives, sang about during the Great Depression? I would like to nominate him as our official balladeer, singing…. I was tempted to sing, but I was dissuaded. The words read: “There’s a land that’s fair and bright, where the handouts grow on bushes…and the sun shines every day on the birds and the bees and the cigarette trees and the lemonade springs…and the big rock candy mountain.”

Hon. L. Beare: I’m proud to be standing here today in support of Bill 2, a bill that is going to make life more affordable for British Columbians by improving the services we count on, by creating stable, good-paying jobs in B.C. tech and the creative economy, a bill that invests in people. After 16 long years of the members on the opposite side, British Columbia is finally going to have a government that is working for them.

One of the things I’m most excited about in this budget update is making life more affordable for the people in B.C., and especially for the people in my constituency of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. We’re going to be investing $208 million over the next four years to support the construction of affordable rental housing units.

This is huge in my community. This is huge in the Lower Mainland. This is huge for the entire province. The people of my constituency of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows feel that this investment in affordable rental housing is long overdue and necessary for our community to flourish.

[3:25 p.m.]

Our government will be providing $291 million over two years to construct housing for those experiencing homelessness. This is coupled with a ministry and a parliamentary secretary tasked with reducing poverty in B.C. This is something that’s very historic for us. This is the first time that we have someone dedicated every single day to creating a poverty reduction plan in B.C. We’re the only province across Canada not to have one.

Our government will be taking action on the housing crisis caused by the previous government. And our government, for the first time, will finally have that poverty reduction strategy to help with that. I’m proud to be part of that historic plan.

One of the things I’m most excited for is our plan to provide affordable, accessible child care to families across British Columbia. I’m the mother of a two-year-old, and I can speak personally to how difficult it was to find child care when I had my baby. I had a job where I didn’t work normal hours. I worked nights. I worked weekends. I was gone for days at a time. There’s absolutely no possibility of finding a stable child care situation for a job like that. I’m not the only one. There are many, many, many families like mine.

I took my daughter, Brinley, door-knocking with me this winter, in around March, when we were in the middle of that deep freeze and there was snow everywhere. The two of us decided to go out, go for a walk, go talk to our neighbours and talk about how important child care is to both us and all the residents of our community.

She was 18 months old at the time, and her very favourite thing to do on that walk was to go up to every single door and ring the doorbell. Each time someone would open the door and say, “Oh hi, what are you here for today?” she would actually try and walk in the house, because she felt like she was being invited in. It was very endearing, and not one family turned her away. They were all very excited to see her.

It was at those moments that I realized how important child care is. I took her with me because I didn’t have someone to watch her while I wanted to go out and engage with my neighbours, while I wanted to engage the community, while I wanted to talk to people about how important it is to make life more affordable. So I brought her with me.

Now, thankfully, my neighbours thought this was extraordinarily cute, and it all worked out. But not all families have that opportunity, and not all children are able to come along with their parents in the manner that Brinley did. That’s something that I, along with many, many, many other parents across this province, am extremely excited for in this budget update.

Our government is going to be focused on creating a fairer society. This bill asks the people at the top to pay a little more. Under the past B.C. Liberal government, British Columbians saw a tax cut given to the top 2 percent of income earners in this province. We’re reversing this decision and asking those who earn over $150,000 a year to pay an additional 2.1 percent, because it’s only fair.

We’re going to be improving the services that people count on. This bill ensures that the important services people rely on in this province are improved and invested in. We are moving forward with increases to childhood development centres and raising our spending to $330 million. We’ll support the creation of 4,000 new child care spaces. And that’s only the first portion of what is to come.

As the Minister for Tourism, Arts and Culture who is also responsible for sport and multiculturalism, I’m excited that we are providing $50 million in capital funding to ensure kids have the space they need to learn and play. We want our youth to have greater space in the classroom, on the court and on the field.

I’d like to assure the people of the province that we’ll be working hard for them. One of the things that I was most excited about in this budget update was the increase to persons on social assistance by $100 and how important that has been for those people in my community. I was at a farmers market recently, and I had a woman come up to me, give me a hug, with tears in her eyes, and express how valuable that $100 was to her and what a difference it was making in her life.

It’s things like that that I am most proud of and most excited to participate in, in our government.

[3:30 p.m.]

Another thing that I am most excited about is the return of adult basic education and the English-language-learning programs at the school districts. This was one of those cuts that happened under the previous government that hurt the most. I was a school trustee, and I immediately saw the decline in adult basic education as soon as the cut happened. We went from 1,000 spots a year being booked to just over 200. It was visceral and palpable, what happened to our adult basic education as soon as those cuts happened. I was very proud the moment our government announced returning adult basic education and English language learning to our members of British Columbia.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

For the first time in British Columbians’ history, we have gender parity in our cabinet, and I’m proud to be one of the ten women who work in this truly equal cabinet. We have a range of new ministers and experienced ministers. We have parliamentary secretaries under 40, and six ministers. We have the first First Nations woman to serve in cabinet. It’s through these types of changes, along with our budget, that we continue to move forward and represent the people of British Columbia.

I am very excited to be the new Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture. We have 24,500 professional artists here in B.C. — more per capita than any other province. We’re a strong creative economy in film, television, interactive media, music, and magazine and book publishing. These are all vital events in our sector.

We are one of the leading motion picture production centres in North America. We’re also the second-largest English-language book and magazine publishing sector in Canada, producing over 1,200 titles a year.

British Columbia has been identified as one of the most physically active provinces in Canada. This contributes to the health of our people, connects our communities on the world stage and brings athletes to our province. That is why I am so excited we’re investing in the infrastructure to bring sport, to bring film, to bring these types of wonderful economies to British Columbia.

One of the biggest concerns for the people in my community is affordability, and it’s housing. I had a father of three come and greet me at the door when I was door-knocking. He spoke to me for a few minutes about how difficult it was to find housing, about how he was struggling to pay his mortgage, and then he shared a story with me.

He has three daughters — they all came to speak with me as well; they all wanted to meet me — and he told me how his toll bill for the previous month was $1,200 — $1,200. He didn’t know how he was going to pay his mortgage and support his girls and pay his toll bill.

The people of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, the people of the Lower Mainland, are so appreciative of our budget update and removing the tolls from the Port Mann and the Golden Ears Bridge. This is about making life fairer for our constituents. It’s about making life fairer for the people in my community and making life more affordable.

To have a government that focuses on housing, that is focusing on building student housing, seniors housing, affordable housing for people in need — this is a government that is putting people first, that’s putting a priority on making life more affordable for British Columbians.

As the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture, one of the things I’m very excited about is working with the creative sector. And in that, we’ve continued the book publishing tax credit, which is a small contribution when you look at it budget-wise, but huge to this community, huge to the book publishers, and it’s something I’m very proud of.

[3:35 p.m.]

Book publishing is part of B.C.’s vibrant creative industries, and our province is home to the second-largest English-language book publishing sector, as I said. We produce over 1,200 a year and generate approximately $150 million in sales. Our government is going to extend the book publishing tax credit. It’s time to focus on the creative sector, and I’m looking forward to doing that as the minister.

One of the things that my community was most excited about in this budget update, as well, was ensuring that we are going to be cutting the MSP premiums in half, saving families up to $900 per year. This is a huge difference to families in our community.

There are a couple of things in this budget update that I know the other side of the House has spent a little bit of time talking about. They’ve talked about taxes and how we’re going to be increasing the corporate tax here in British Columbia. We’re increasing it a modest 1 percent. We’re increasing it to match the other western provinces, to keep us competitive with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

What they don’t talk about is that we’ve also cut the small business tax rate by 20 percent, from 2.5 percent to 2 percent. This is making life more affordable for the businesses in our community, the small businesses which are vital to our economic growth.

As we invest in the people in British Columbia, we’re investing in our economy. By investing in rental housing, supportive housing, small businesses, we’re making sure that we put people first, and we’re making sure that their lives are more affordable.

I’d like to take a few moments to talk about education. As a former school board trustee, I am so unbelievably thrilled that we are providing $681 million over the next three years to help our kids get the education they deserve. We’re going to make sure, as we’ve seen already this year, that they have smaller class sizes. We will ensure that our students have more resources and the supports they need to succeed, including hiring approximately 3,500 teachers.

We’re providing capital funding of $50 million to ensure that the space requirements for kids that have gone back to school in September were addressed. It’s because I was a school board trustee. That was one of the many reasons I decided to run.

I had a young student come and present during a budget impact statement to our school board. He was just a young kid, suffering from anxiety and other issues. He sat there and told us his story. He told me how he was suffering from a breakdown in class. He just couldn’t handle it. He needed help. He asked to see a counsellor. Do you know what he was told, hon. Speaker? “It’s Tuesday. We don’t have a counsellor till Thursday. Can you just hold it in?” This is a child. This is what’s happened over the past 16 years to our education system, and this is something that needed to change, which is why I’m so proud to be part of a government that is investing in education.

I’m also excited that we’re getting to work on our priorities in our health care system. We’re putting a $603 million increase over the next three years to the base budget of the Ministry of Health. We’re putting $265 million to address the fentanyl crisis. The remainder is going to address the other pressures on the health care system. This is critical for the people of our province. This is critical for the health of British Columbians.

We’re providing $25 million to establish the new Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, and we’ll provide strategic leadership in developing a seamless, coordinated mental health and addictions system. This is revolutionary, this is important, and this is exciting for British Columbia.

We’re also providing consistent funding to the therapeutic drugs initiative. We’re putting $2 million per year to ensure the effectiveness of new drugs to better serve the people of our communities and to reduce the cost to our health care system.

[3:40 p.m.]

We’re going to be looking after our seniors. We’re going to be improving access to home care and community care with $189 million over three years through our B.C.-federal agreement. We know how important this is to seniors. We know how important it is that…. Their overall health and well-being is vital for our community.

I’m also excited about our commitments for infrastructure for seniors to ensure that they have spaces to meet, so that we don’t have seniors suffering from isolation, which we know can be a large contributor to health and mental health issues.

I’m excited to be part of a government that’s going to be building a stable economy. I’m excited to be building schools, hospitals, transit, transportation infrastructure, communities. I’m excited to create jobs in every corner of our province, with $14.6 billion in capital spending over three years.

We’re creating the innovation commission, which will be both an advocate and ambassador for B.C.’s tech sector. An emerging economy task force will be charged with developing made-in-B.C. solutions and will look at how the government can encourage innovation and sustainable industries to drive our economic growth in B.C. into the 21st century.

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

I’m so excited to be part of a government that is working for the people of British Columbia. I’m excited to be making life more affordable for our families, to be improving the services they count on and for creating good jobs in our economy.

This budget takes those critical first steps to build a better B.C., and I look forward to what we’re going to be able to do over the next four years. By taking time to invest in the people of B.C., by choosing to invest in the people of B.C., it means we’re investing in a strong, sustainable British Columbia. We’re putting people first. We’re improving their lives. And for that, I support Bill 2, the Budget Measures Act.

D. Davies: Honoured to be here taking part in this significant debate on Bill 2, the Budget Implementation Act, which is one of the first acts of the current parliament and really sets out the fiscal direction and plan and tone of the present government.

It follows rigorous debate, which many — well, probably all — of us took part in on the budget. But now that we’ve had additional time to examine the September budget update, I’d like to list a number of observations, first of all, that have been raised by many stakeholders in this province.

From the outset, the official opposition welcomes the retention of many features from the February 2017 budget that was passed by the previous government. The reduction of MSP premiums by 50 percent. The cut to the small business tax rate from 2.5 to 2 percent.

I want to reach out to the Minister of Tourism and Culture, who said we don’t want to talk about that. But we are talking about that as a good thing, and I will be talking about that a little bit later.

The phasing out of PST on electricity paid by industry. The introduction of a $3,000 non-refundable tax credit for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers, which, of course, is very important, certainly, after this summer.

These are all items that British Columbians are already counting on, because they do represent a broad base of tax cuts that contribute to a competitive and healthy economy. All British Columbians will benefit from the 50 percent reduction in MSP premiums, because essentially, it represents a $1 billion tax cut that everyone is going to benefit from. Even those MSP premiums are going to benefit our businesses, if they’re paid for on behalf of their employers.

Most importantly, when the 50 percent reduction of MSP premiums was previously announced, it was done so with the understanding that it was a direct tax cut and would not be covered by an increase anywhere else, hidden or otherwise.

[3:45 p.m.]

I think this is a significant point, because during the last election, the Green Party advocated for an Ontario style of taxation known as the Ontario health premium, which is calculated on the annual basis of your income. In other words, a sweeping change on MSP premiums, under the carpet, in the form of an annual permanent tax increase to British Columbians. Not what we had intended on doing.

In fact, as of April this year, while still in opposition, the current Finance Minister held an election press conference and also called for a so-called progressive tax system that would replace our current MSP. According to the Minister of Finance: “We’re not creating something brand-new,” she said. “This is something that every other province in the country has done — switched over to a progressive tax system.”

As a matter of fact, the NDP election platform states that “a non-partisan MSP elimination panel will advise on how to protect health care funding, while phasing out this unfair flat tax.” It’s a big difference from giving British Columbians a $1 billion tax cut, like the previous B.C. Liberal government did, to setting up just some sort of a tax commission to replace MSP premiums with just another tax increase elsewhere.

The second item is the reduction of the small business tax from 2.5 to 2 percent. This is another feature in the February budget that has been retained in this current budget update. We welcome that on this side of the House, because British Columbia has one of the most vibrant small business sectors in the country. In fact, it accounts for 57 percent of all private sector investment in the province. Over one million people in B.C. work for a small business, and many more of those are tech start-ups that can easily locate anywhere in the province.

The official opposition also welcomes the fact that the September update will be phasing out the PST on electricity paid for by industry. Again, this represents another way that we as a province can make ourselves more competitive with jurisdictions and attract more money into our province.

Without question, following B.C.’s worst wildfire season, all British Columbians certainly support the introduction of a $3,000 non-refundable tax credit for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers. As I mentioned, again, these are all tax increases that this side of the House supports. They make sense. That’s why we had introduced them initially in the February budget. All of these measures are valuable tax cuts to all British Columbians, valuable to the point that British Columbians are depending on them.

We need to maintain our global competitiveness in the marketplace. We need to be competitive with other provinces. We need to be competitive with our neighbours to the south of the border, where the United States, obviously, still remains our largest trading partner. We need, though, to continue doing as much work as we can to find new customers for B.C. exports — to Asia and beyond. We still need to be competitive.

That being said, there are quite a number of items, though, that are contained in the Budget Implementation Act that we need to question. They include removing the revenue-neutrality requirement of the carbon tax, raising the price of fuel for everyone in British Columbia for the next four years, commencing in 2018 — causing uncertainty and beating down our competitive edge. Raising corporate tax from 11 to 12 percent, causing uncertainty and beating down our competitive edge. Raising the personal income tax rate for individuals earning over $150,000 or more, from 14.7 to 16.8. Again, more uncertainty.

Eliminating the child fitness tax credit, the child fitness equipment tax credit and the child arts tax credit. All of these items represent a significant amount of tax increases that British Columbians are going to be on the hook for — tax increases that will hurt all British Columbians, causing uncertainty and hurting our competitiveness.

[3:50 p.m.]

Before I comment on each one, it should be noted that, as we all know, this government inherited a $2.7 billion surplus, yet it is still finding it necessary to raise taxes and ask for more money. Why, we have to ask? If the budget is already balanced and generating a $2.7 billion surplus, why are more revenues required? Why does the government see the need to increase taxes to the tune of a billion dollars?

This money is coming from the removal of the revenue-neutrality requirement of the carbon tax. This amounts to a tax increase on fuel each year for the next four years that will hit consumers at the gas pumps and those trying to heat their homes in winter.

As a person who lives in the far north, where we experience temperatures of minus 30 to minus 40 from December through March, I pay, on average, $400 a month for my home in natural gas. That is going to significantly impact me and many residents of British Columbia that live in the north.

The government is also increasing the cost of doing business in British Columbia by raising our corporate income tax rate from 11 to 12 percent. The minister claims that this will put our province on par with other western provinces. But it still removes our competitive edge that we need to have in British Columbia.

These increases come at a time when the United States is doing the opposite — cutting corporate tax increases. So when companies like Amazon, which we’ve heard are looking for locations to move their second head office to, and the amazing and incredible amount of jobs that they will bring, B.C. has lost its competitive edge. The hon. member for West Vancouver–Capilano was very succinct in the way that he described the whole Amazon issue that is unravelling, I think, before our eyes.

We no longer have a corporate tax rate that really competes with anyone. It’s cost us jobs. It will continue to cost us jobs. The government is also raising tax on high-income earners. Well, it’s one thing to ask those who earn more money. It sends a signal that, again, the first act of this new government is raising income taxes right from the start. That means the people next in line for a tax increase are the middle-income earners. And they’re already going to be hit, again, by higher prices at the gas pump, heating their home — all of these costs that are going to be passed on to the consumer from higher trucking costs and so on. It’s going to hurt every British Columbian. They’re targeting the average family.

One of the first acts of this government is to eliminate the child fitness tax credit, the equipment tax credit and the child arts tax credit. These are just tax breaks that the average family in British Columbia uses and relies on to take their kids to hockey and other sporting events or pursue interests in the arts. There is no explanation for it.

The answer lies, though, in the fact that, by most accounts, the September budget update and all the measures contained in this bill leave the government with no more fiscal room. All the money has been spent. What’s more concerning is all the underfunded program spending that was suspiciously left out in the September budget update.

The Minister of Finance was left on her own to defend why big-ticket items like the $10-a-day daycare and the $400 renters rebate were left out of the spending plan. It doesn’t include the rollback on ferry rates, a freeze on hydro rates, the elimination of interest payments for student loans and the $1,000 completion grant for college and university graduates — quite the Christmas list.

Where on earth are they going to find the billions of dollars more needed to fund these? The Minister of Finance explained that the reason why the $10-a-day daycare and the $400 renters rebate were left out of the budget was because the Green Party did not approve of these items. Well, that leaves British Columbians wondering.

[3:55 p.m.]

Many British Columbians took the NDP at their word and voted for them because they believed in the campaign promises made. Yet the Green Party seems to have, somehow, some magical veto power over the NDP. In fact, the leader of the Green Party has been quoted — it’s in the newspapers — that campaign promises are “irrelevant.” So who are we to believe?

Prior to the last election, neither the Green Party nor the NDP called for taxpayer subsidies. In fact, the current Premier even ridiculed the idea prior to the election, yet — surprise — here we are now. All of us are going to be paying for political parties out of our pockets, which is not fair and not right. You’re now expected to have your tax dollars, your hard-earned money, supporting political parties that you might not have ever voted for in the first place.

The political bickering between the Green Party and the NDP is contributing to the already incredible uncertainty that is being felt around the world and in our province. This minority government is acting like it is a majority government. But there is one campaign promise that I doubt will survive the next budget. That is the NDP promise to actually balance the budget.

The Balanced Budget Act is a law that is in place that is meant to protect the citizens of British Columbia. Cabinet ministers are subject to losing up to 20 percent of their salaries if their department fails to live up to its means. I’m curious to see if the cabinet is willing to subject themselves to this same standard, because with unfunded liability for big-ticket items like $10-a-day daycare, $400 renters rebate, and so on, members of the NDP cabinet might find themselves out of pocket at the end of the month. So too will taxpayers, who will be spending more out of their pockets to pay for these expenses.

Indeed, there are many assumptions contained in the Budget Measures Implementation Act that place all of these big-ticket campaign promises at risk. Raising interest rates is one of them. In fact, the central bank implemented its first increase in seven years this past July and just shortly after, a couple of months later in September, another one. More rate increases, we’re hearing on the news — actually, I think just today — could be coming in the future. This could have a severe cooling-down effect on our economy, which is already nervous.

It brings us to our second assumption. The NDP is banking on an economic forecast that assumes the provincial economy will grow by 2.9 percent in 2018. This is far and above the conservative estimate of 2.1 percent that we had calculated in February 2017.

I think this places British Columbia in a bit of a precarious position. We have an NDP government with billions of dollars in unfunded liability for big-ticket items, big-ticket campaign promises — for instance, the $10-a-day daycare. Despite the $2.7 billion surplus, the government already sees the need to hike business, personal and consumer taxes. Plus it’s banking on the whole overly optimistic growth rate of 2.9 percent. This is what is contained in the legislation that is before us today, and it is building and fueling the atmosphere, again, of uncertainty.

Site C, for instance. By throwing the future of this vital infrastructure project into doubt, the government is not only threatening to issue pink slips to the in excess of 2,200 people that work on the site; it is also shrinking our province’s capacity for us to expand our economy. Don’t we owe our future generations, our children, a reliable power source that does not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions?

[4:00 p.m.]

The fact is, as we have heard, Mark Jaccard at the school of resource and environmental management at SFU…. He published an opinion piece just a few weeks back in the Vancouver Sun. His team of researchers believe that all of Site C’s electricity will be used shortly after the completion of the project to meet the province’s and the country’s commitments to reduce greenhouse carbon emissions, through the increased use of electric vehicles and the general electrification of our province that we are witnessing.

I know this because a former director of B.C. Hydro…. I saw the business case and that this was a major part of the rationale for the Site C project moving forward. Cancelling the Site C project makes absolutely no sense to me.

Interjection.

D. Davies: There are lots of us left.

This week we saw yet another example of disconnect between the NDP minority government and the Green Party. As mentioned, the Premier flip-flopped on his promise of not using taxpayer subsidies for political parties. The Green Party leader quickly retreated and said, “It wasn’t me,” pointing his finger at the Premier. This leaves, again, British Columbians confused.

During the election, we had an NDP campaign platform as well as a separate Green Party campaign platform. Then last May both parties signed a manifesto which both the NDP and Green Party hailed as a leap forward for British Columbia. But I think now that has changed. The Green Party leader says that all of the NDP promises — about the daycare, the renters rebate — are irrelevant. So it’s hard to say what the people of British Columbia should be expecting.

On the face of it, the government is inheriting a number of significant factors in its favour. We’ve heard them in this House over and over again: the best performing economy in the country, as confirmed by the Auditor General’s last report on August 22; five consecutive balanced budgets in a row, something incredibly proud for our province; a $2.7 billion budget surplus and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 15.8 percent; one of the few provinces with a triple-A credit rating — I think Saskatchewan is the only other province in Canada that has triple-A credit rating; and a province that has created 250,000 jobs since 2013.

Given the strength of this inherited financial position that British Columbia is in, one has to ask why a new government would immediately need to be raising taxes when we already have a surplus. Yet this is what we’re debating today. This is the plan, moving forward. It will increase spending this year alone by a whopping $3.1 billion, or almost 7 percent, over 2016. On top of that, it will introduce new tax increases of almost $2 billion over the next three years.

While we would all like to provide more help to support those in need, we must also ensure that there is balance, and we must also ensure that the economic growth for our province is sustainable. That is the important other half of the budget that is void. It’s economic growth that creates jobs. It’s economic growth that drives tax revenues, which in turn, we know, fund the social programs. If we’re going to continue to create uncertainty, continue to turn away private investment, we are all going to pay.

With all this in mind, when I see that the numbers just don’t add up, the math does not work and the people of this province are going to be facing tax increases over the coming years, I truly cannot, in good conscience, support this bill. My colleagues in the B.C. Liberal Party will not be supporting this bill.

[4:05 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the second reading of Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2017. I’d also like to thank my fellow members in the chamber for their remarks on this important legislation.

The Budget Measures Implementation Act includes some wonderful initiatives, and I’m hopeful it’s a sign of better things to come in B.C., a sign that the government is focusing on its proper role. That is what I would like to speak about today.

Like many of you, I was in Vancouver at the end of September for the Union of B.C. Municipalities conference. I met with mayors and councils from across B.C. It was a great week, and I was thrilled to be able to meet with so many inspiring local leaders who are working tirelessly to serve their communities. The week also felt very heavy. There are a lot of people in B.C. having a really hard time. Every municipality I met with told me a variation of the same story. Over the last decade and a half, they have been sold out, and now their constituents are struggling.

For some municipalities, the problem is overpriced housing. Homes have become a commodity, and communities have been gutted of their young people and working populations. School teachers, police, plumbers, nurses, chefs, carpenters — people with jobs and what should be living wages find themselves unable to afford housing.

For other communities, the pressing problem has been with forestry, where local watersheds are being logged without adequate planning or oversight. Whole forests are being cut down and shipped out of the region, while the local mills remain shuttered. In many of these cases, communities have also been left with compromised drinking water.

Still others spoke to me about their concerns over agricultural land either being sold to foreign entities in parcels that measure in the tens of thousands of acres or to people planning to turn blueberry fields into mega-mansions. We are seeing our food security in B.C. compromised. At the same time, young farmers are out of work because they can’t outbid international agricorporations for land.

In cities, we have young families who can’t afford to buy their own homes, and in rural areas, we have young farmers who can’t afford to buy land. Where do we think this trend is headed?

Some of the municipalities I spoke to at the UBCM raised concerns about local landscapes cut and crossed by an ever-expanding network of roads, mines, wells and pipelines. The oilwells, the gas-drilling sites and the mining operations all leave an impression. The government has not done a good enough job of keeping track of the cumulative impacts. Again, water protection featured prominently in the concerns raised by many local leaders.

The mayors and councillors that I spoke to are not against having active real estate, forestry, agriculture, mining or oil and gas development in their regions. What they don’t want to see is companies come in, grab the cash, strip the resource and get out. They want long-term, sustainable development that serves the needs of the local community first. I support them in that. They want to be treated with respect, and they want environmental standards that ensure their areas will remain productive in the long run. They want jobs in their communities so that the young people, the coaches and volunteers, can live and work where their families are, not in far-flung work camps away from their spouses and children.

There were success stories at the UBCM. These were from communities who have shown leadership at the local level. One success story that I’m excited to tell you about is from the mayor and council of Tumbler Ridge. In Tumbler Ridge, B.C.’s biggest windmill power facility just came on line. Tumbler Ridge, historically a coal-mining town, was named the clean energy community of the year in 2016.

[4:10 p.m.]

They are the wind energy capital of B.C., and wind energy companies are ready to invest more. In fact, with private investment in wind energy, Tumbler Ridge has the capacity to produce 70 percent of the energy that the Site C dam would produce. That’s without a $10 billion price tag for the citizens of B.C. and at a lower price per gigawatt than the energy produced by the dam.

But that’s not all. The mayor and council of Tumbler Ridge have made proactive decisions that have removed their town from the boom-and-bust economic roller-coaster that haunts so many resource-based communities. They had the foresight and the sense to put away funds each year in order to build the community they want, and their foresight has gained them international recognition. A delegation from Russia has visited Tumbler Ridge to learn about community planning.

What does a diversified economy look like? It looks like Tumbler Ridge, where you can find North America’s second UN geopark. You can find trails and rivers, mountains and lakes and a waterfall taller than Niagara Falls. Tumbler Ridge has seen a sevenfold increase in tourism in the last four years — sevenfold — and it’s not an accident. That’s what happens when a community decides to capitalize on its extraordinary assets.

In Tumbler Ridge, mining still plays a role in the economy, but it’s no longer mountaintop removal mining. It’s new and innovative technology that is far less destructive because it extracts coal in a less invasive manner. It’s 21st-century mining, with the benefits supporting a community that is replacing its roads, updating its water system and improving its sewers.

Tumbler Ridge is one of the many stories of communities in this province that did not wait for the B.C. government to enter the 21st century. Tumbler Ridge decided to demonstrate what leadership can achieve — a diversified, healthy economy that benefits everyone in the community.

We have limitless potential in B.C. to benefit from the extraordinary natural resources and the bounty of our province and to capitalize on our greatest asset, our people. Yet — and this is the tragedy — instead of more and more people seeing the benefits of this opportunity, we’re seeing more and more people having to make do with less and less. I heard it over and over at UBCM. “We’ve been sold to the highest bidder, and now we’re struggling.” Different commodities, but the same story and the same result: a dangerously wide inequality gap that grows bigger every day.

Nothing illustrates this gap quite like the short walk from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside to Gastown, near where the UBCM Convention was held. That is the human toll of inequality. In the middle of one of Canada’s most prosperous cities, people are trapped in a life of disadvantage, discrimination and suffering. They are trapped in a system where even their suffering is treated as less than equal.

There are incredible teams of people dedicating their lives to helping their neighbours and friends in communities like the Downtown Eastside. They do amazing work and deserve immense gratitude and increased support from everyone in this House.

Now that I’ve been elected to a seat in this House, however, I don’t think that’s enough from us. I don’t want to be content only fixing around the edges when we have a duty to look at the whole picture. How did we get here? Why are so many of our fellow British Columbians having such a hard time, living with poverty, homelessness, addiction?

These are symptoms of a broken social system, one that governments helped create by allowing certain groups of people to be consigned to a life of disadvantage and suffering. Governments should never be content to put the pursuit of individual wealth by a few over the basic health and well-being of the many.

The system has been entrenched over decades, but that doesn’t make it inevitable. Unfortunately, policies put in place over the last 16 years have exacerbated it further. More wealth is concentrating in fewer hands.

[4:15 p.m.]

Consider these numbers cited in Andrew MacLeod’s book A Better Place on Earth. In B.C., the most affluent 10 percent hold 56 percent of the wealth. At the same time, 3 percent of the wealth is shared amongst 50 percent of our population.

Think about that: 50 percent of the people of B.C. — close to 2½ million people — hold only 3 percent of the wealth of this province. So when we hear, over and over again, about our strong economy, when half of our population has such limited access to the province’s vast wealth, what, about that, is strong?

Before joining this House, I studied and taught history. Over the course of human history, the fate of deeply inequitable societies as compared to cooperative societies has not been a surprising one. They are unsustainable and prone to collapse. The greater the gap between rich and poor, the more a society is prone to social and political unrest.

We cannot continue down this path and expect a different result. We need to start adjusting our economic modelling to fit with the world we now live in. We need 21st-century, steady-state economics that will value equity, that will recognize the importance of measuring not just GDP but social and environmental outcomes.

If we are to cope with the extraordinary challenges of climate change and economic shifts, we must create a foundation of cooperation and compassion. It’s not good enough for a few to benefit while many suffer.

As elected officials, we need to be able to look at our current system and recognize where it is failing people. We spend a lot of time in this House talking about crises. Forest fires, housing affordability, opioid overdoses, poverty — these are not natural, inevitable crises. Governments have a hand in creating them, and we can also work towards solving them.

To start, narrowing the inequality gap should be one of the government’s top priorities. We won’t be able to solve this passively. It will need purposeful taxation policies, education policies, health policies, climate policies and housing policies. We need to get away from the “all taxes are bad” narrative in this House.

When used properly, the taxation system is a tool for achieving goals in the public interest. Everyone in this chamber is here because of public taxes, as are the roads we travel to get here, the schools our children go to, the medical system that cares for the people we love. Taxes should be used transparently and responsibly. They should be used diligently as a tool for the good of the many, not the privileged few.

Government can and should be a supportive force in people’s lives. It was for a large part of my life. I was fortunate to attend an early childhood education centre in Edmonton, jointly funded by the municipality and the province. I learned to read and write at five years old and, more importantly, I learned to love learning.

I attended French immersion in Alberta, thanks to the policies of the federal government. I attended university here in Victoria during a government-mandated tuition freeze. I had access to subsidized, affordable child care so my son could be tended to while I pursued my master’s degree. All those benefits made me equipped to serve my community as a teacher, an advocate and now as an elected representative.

Just this morning I met with a group of students from the Alliance of B.C. Students. They described to me how students are struggling to find affordable housing, struggling to pay their increasing costs and facing crushing debt at the end of their university careers.

[4:20 p.m.]

Worse, our best and brightest undergraduates leave B.C. to pursue graduate studies in other provinces where there are provincial graduate student scholarship programs — a program that used to exist in B.C. and that I benefited from during my graduate studies at UVic.

Again, as a historian, I’m drawn to the lessons found in time. Even the difference between how I felt about my future as a student and how young people feel today is stark. I felt supported and hopeful. With the help of enlightened government policies, I was able to move forward in my life. But today many find themselves trapped, hemmed in by government policies designed to serve corporate and not community interests.

Well-paying, stable work is out of reach for many. Owning a home in some communities is also out of reach. We need to recognize that trickle-down economics do not work. It is not working in B.C. The evidence of that is clear to all who would open their eyes and take a hard look at the problems that I heard about at the UBCM convention and that we hear about every day in this province. The money collects at the top for the lucky few who are adamant the system is working great and who use their power and influence to maintain the status quo.

Before any of my colleagues stand in this House to defend trickle-down economics, I would urge them first to consider how this system is serving families trapped in poverty. Hard work should count for something. But all too often in B.C., we find that hard work won’t allow a young family to buy a house or farmland. All too often we find people who are willing to work but can’t find jobs that will allow them to escape the poverty trap. This is happening in a province blessed with bountiful natural resources and a supposedly strong economy.

One councillor from a Metro Vancouver riding told me that nurses, teachers and police officers can no longer afford to move into her community. “The young people are leaving,” she said. “We have sold out an entire generation,” she said. She wondered why young people aren’t rioting in the streets.

It’s a good question. Why aren’t young people rioting in the streets? I think it’s because this shift towards government acting as a broker, instead of as a representative for the people, has happened gradually over the last decade and has been sold to us as inevitable, as if the province had no control over affordability trends.

We all know that’s not true. We are in this situation because of a series of choices. It is the government’s job to ensure that inequality does not become the defining characteristic of our society. But in too many instances, the conditions of stability in B.C. have been eroded because government has pursued policies that put individualism first.

We have created the first generation in Canadian history to be worse off than the one that preceded it. That is not a legacy to be proud of. Even more, we are failing future generations by not rising to the historic challenge of climate change. Two weeks ago the CBC reported: “In a blunt fall audit report tabled in the House of Commons, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Julie Gelfand said the federal government has failed to implement successive emissions reduction plans and is not prepared to adapt to the life-threatening, economically devastating impacts of a changing climate.”

B.C. had taken a leadership position under Premier Campbell by being the first government in North America to put a price on carbon pollution. But that leadership position was turned into a laggard position under the former Premier. How dare we? How dare we leave this mess for our children and grandchildren? How dare we ignore the science, the evidence, the unrelenting impacts of climate change?

[4:25 p.m.]

For generations, governments have allowed our atmosphere to be used as a free dumping ground for pollution. The costs of that pollution are measured not only in forest fires and category 5 hurricanes but in our increasing insurance rates and our increasing need to rebuild after these disasters. The costs of that pollution are going to be the burden of generations not yet born. We owe future generations a debt. We have a responsibility to them, and we have no right to pretend otherwise.

We were elected to shape the future, not emulate and exacerbate the failures of the past. We must guide government back to its role of protecting and providing for its citizens, all of them. In this regard, Bill 2 is a small step in the right direction. Changes to the Carbon Tax Act, the establishment of a new higher income tax bracket, restoration of the full provincial preferential tax rate for credit unions, an increase in the first-time-homebuyers grant threshold and the elimination of the international business activity program are all positive shifts. I look forward to supporting this bill as it is voted through committee stage for further analysis.

D. Barnett: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 2, the Budget Implementation Act. This is the enabling legislation that follows the September budget update presented by the NDP and Green Party coalition. I want to emphasize that this was just an update of the Liberal budget delivered last February, which is to say that this is the government’s first opportunity to put its own stamp on the budget, but we expect much more when a full budget comes down next February.

This bill does contain a number of elements that we carried over from the Liberal budget. These include the reduction of MSP premiums by 50 percent, the cut to the small business tax rate from 2.5 to 2 percent, the phasing out of the PST on electricity paid by industry and the introduction of a $3,000 non-refundable tax credit for volunteer firefighters and SAR volunteers.

You will notice that each of these items are tax cuts, the only tax cuts contained in the September update budget. These are also things that British Columbians were already counting on because they were passed by the previous Liberal government.

It should also be noted that these tax cuts are a product of five consecutive balanced budgets in a row, and they were only possible because government was operating within its means. We had spending under control, and because B.C. has the best-performing economy in the country, we were operating on conservative growth estimates. The Liberal budget forecasted the economy would grow by 2.1 percent, but in actual fact, the economy grew by 3.7 percent last year. That’s essentially what generated a much larger than expected budget surplus.

The one thing that separates the Liberal budget delivered last February and the new government’s update are tax increases. Now, it just doesn’t make sense to me to raise taxes when you have a surplus. It doesn’t take a math genius to figure out that if a government has to raise taxes on top of a surplus, it doesn’t have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem.

Here is the list of all the tax increases that British Columbians are expected to shell out for, and this is before they get a crack at a full budget next spring. Removing the revenue-neutrality requirement of the carbon tax. Raising the price of fuel each year for the next four years, commencing in 2018. Raising the corporate income tax from 11 to 12 percent. Raising the personal income tax rate for individuals earning over $150,000 from 14.7 to 16.8 percent. Eliminating the child fitness tax credit, the child fitness equipment tax credit and the child arts tax credit.

[4:30 p.m.]

Now, I find it curious that a government inheriting a $2.7 billion surplus can suddenly find it short of money, and that’s exactly what’s happening.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

As you may know, my Cariboo-Chilcotin riding was one of the hardest hit during the worst wildfire season in our province’s history. I have constituents that have been wiped out with no insurance. Many of them could not obtain insurance because they lived so remotely that it was cost-prohibitive to have insurance. These people are left with nothing. Now, I am hoping this government is thinking about helping people who lost everything in the wildfires. They are and should be a priority.

There are a lot of small businesses affected by the wildfires, especially in the tourism sector. I am talking about everyone from local guides to restaurant operators. These people lost an entire summer, basically a whole year in revenues, to cancellations and evacuations.

Ranchers are especially hit hard. These are mostly family businesses that are passed on from one generation to another and, we hope, another. They are struggling to find feed, repair fencing and rebuild lost structures. The $20 million Agri program, through the Minister of Agriculture, 40 percent provincial and 60 percent feds, is a start. But more is needed.

I have spoken to many, many ranchers, and 70 percent is what this Agri program covers. They have to come up with another 30 percent. For many, they do not have the ability because of the huge loss many have had. They will not survive unless there’s financial aid. These people need help to recover. In my mind, help should entail immediate financial assistance and a long-term strategy for the coming months, if not years.

For small business owners in the Cariboo, many have said they won’t even be able to afford their property taxes this year. So I proposed that the government cover the property taxes for small business and tourism operators affected by the wildfires to help them get back on their feet. I am not asking that property taxes be forgiven. That would starve local governments of much-needed revenues to rebuild. But when I asked the Minister of Forests, during question period, he simply said his thoughts were with them. Well, that’s nice, but it doesn’t help very much.

Same thing with the Minister of Finance. When local media asked the question too, the minister offered a written statement, saying that she does not believe that my proposal is the best way to help. As a matter of fact, she passed the buck back to the Minister of Forests, claiming that now the state of emergency has ended, it’s his responsibility to examine the situation.

I can assure you that people in the Cariboo have long memories. At the height of the wildfires, people were out putting themselves at risk, just to help their neighbours. People will remember that for the rest of their lives, and they will never forget when governments turned a cold shoulder, and that is exactly what the NDP and Green Party coalition government is doing.

They didn’t even tell people during the election that it was their intention to siphon money out of the taxpayers to support political parties. This is what they call reform of campaign financing. And $28 million in taxpayer subsidies. That’s how much money they want to put in their bank accounts.

The Minister of Finance is fond of saying she wants to make life more affordable. How is taking the taxpayer and hiking taxes making life more affordable? No one voted for this in the last election.

[4:35 p.m.]

Now they are forcing people, who did not cast a ballot for one party or another, to make a financial contribution whether they like it or not. And you call this electoral reform? Make no mistake. The Liberal Party supports limiting union and corporate donations. But why do taxpayers have to pick up the slack? Shouldn’t a political party be self-supporting? This is flawed logic. The NDP and the Green Party think they’re entitled to help themselves to taxpayers’ money, and that’s exactly what they will be doing.

Worst of all, this government is running around cancelling every megaproject they can lay their hands on. The so-called rushed review of Site C is putting the B.C. Utilities Commission against the wall. They want to force a decision and put thousands of people out of work. This is a minority government that is more concerned with self-preservation than it is with the future of our province.

They are doing the same thing with bridges on the Lower Mainland. Taking the tolls off the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges is supposed to make life more affordable for people, but who pays for this? We do, the taxpayer. This budget implementation bill is transferring self-sustaining bridge tolls and lumping it into taxpayer-supported debt. Who is paying for this? We do.

It is no wonder the credit rating agencies are sending stern warnings to the provincial government. In less than two months, they are raising taxes $1 billion next year and planning to spend $4.5 billion more. This is rather sad, because people in B.C. just had five consecutive budgets in a row. That’s how we could afford tax breaks.

The NDP and the Green Party are steering us quickly towards deficit financing, just to pay for all the campaign promises they made, without any regard for the bottom line. This is not responsible government. This is one party that is using taxpayers’ money to buy off the votes of another just so they can stay in power. They are targeting the average family too.

These are just a few issues that I have a problem with. Yet there is no explanation. The answer lies in the fact that by most accounts, the September budget update and all the measures contained in this bill leaves the government no more fiscal room. They have spent all the money.

What’s more concerning is all the unfunded program spending that was conspicuously left out of the September budget update. The Minister of Finance was left on her own to defend why big ticket items like $10-a-day daycare and the $400 renters rebate were left out of their spending plan. And that doesn’t include a rollback on ferry rates, a freeze on hydro rates, the elimination of interest payments on student loans and a $1,000 completion grant for college and university graduates. Where on earth are they going to find all the money for all of these campaign promises?

The Minister of Finance explained that the reason why the $10-a-day daycare and the $400 renters rebate were left out of the budget update was because the Green Party does not approve of these items. That leaves British Columbians asking questions. Many British Columbians took the NDP at their word and voted for them because they believed these campaign promises, yet the Green Party appears to have a veto over the NDP.

[4:40 p.m.]

The leader of the Green Party actually called all campaign promises “irrelevant.” Who are we to believe? This is a minority government acting like it has a majority, but it does not.

There’s one campaign promise that I doubt will survive the next budget, but I hope I am wrong. That is the NDP promise to actually balance the budget. This government has already broken so many promises that people don’t know what to think.

As I said earlier, people in the Cariboo have a long memory, and the summer wildfires of 2017 will only help their memories. They will not forget.

L. Krog: It is an unexpected pleasure for me this afternoon to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

I want to thank the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, who is always a strong advocate for her constituents, because she has given me a bit of an opening to comment on the measures that are planned by this government in order to ensure that our budgetary priorities are different from the previous government.

She closed by saying: “They will not forget.” Oh, they will not forget 16 years of Liberal government that ground the faces of the poor, that filled the pockets of the rich, that benefited all their insiders and friends. Absolutely right, they will not forget. They will not forget for many elections yet to come.

The Green Party over to my right, the three members, got elected along with all of the other members on the other side of the House as well to form a stable government for British Columbia for very good reasons. Need we enumerate them?

Why would I want to rub their faces in it, how they increased MSP premiums? How they put Hydro rates through the roof and have nearly bankrupted the crown jewel of Crown corporations built by W.A.C. Bennett, sustained by Dave Barrett, sustained by Bill Bennett, sustained by Mike Harcourt, sustained by Dan Miller, sustained by Glen Clark, sustained by Gordon Campbell until they decided they wanted to run it into the ground to try and support budgets they couldn’t balance on the basis of regular taxation by taxing the people through the back door, raising their Hydro rates through the roof, making British Columbia non-competitive for its industries and its businesses.

And they have the temerity to say to us they will not forget? Absolutely, they will not forget.

It is the job of the government not just to promise hope and deliver hope for the future. It is the promise of this government to ensure that they will not forget. They will not forget what the B.C. Liberals did year after year after year.

I want to pay credit today to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. Now, I have a certain affection for a man of that brilliance, a Rhodes Scholar. Not only a lawyer but a doctor, someone who has demonstrated an incredible capacity for work and one of the candidates for the B.C. Liberal Party.

I’m not endorsing anybody. But I do want to say his remarks recently quoted in the paper, with great respect to all of the other candidates, when he talked about the problem with the B.C. Liberal Party is that it was looking down from 30,000 feet, and the NDP were speaking to people in their living rooms…. If ever there was an astute comment on B.C. politics, a clean, brief, effective and accurate analysis of what happened in the last election in British Columbia, that was it.

I want to pay again, as I say, my compliments to that member who now sits on that side of the House with those members because they didn’t have the brains to do it when they were over on this side of the House — that is, to listen to the people of this province who were sick and tired of a government that spent its time looking after their rich friends, caring for those who already had so much more than they could possibly use.

Interjections.

[4:45 p.m.]

L. Krog: The member over there from Chilliwack says we lost. Well, I guess, technically speaking, he could say that’s accurate.

We were separated by — what? — a few thousand votes provincewide. But the truth is that when you add up the numbers, 57 percent plus of British Columbians voted to ensure that the B.C. Liberals would be over there instead of over here. I’m satisfied with the results, and I would suggest to the member opposite — the member opposite who now sits in opposition happily, railing at a government implementing good public policy…. I am satisfied that the people of British Columbia were right in doing both things: electing us and putting us on this side and putting them on that side.

You know, I’m having occasion to read a lovely book. It’s called First Nations 101 — tons of stuff you need to know about First Nations people, written by Lynda Gray. Here is just a short quotation that I want to read. Many of you have heard it before or words to this effect. She says: “According to my ancestors, I have a responsibility for the seven generations to come.” Pretty wise thinking — seven generations. Imagine that.

Now, I know, in a cynical age, that people think politicians only think in four-year cycles, or two-year cycles in the United States. But when we talk about seven generations on this side of the House, when we talk about implementing and working with the First Nations of this province, in ensuring the implementation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, we’re talking serious stuff.

This government had 16 years to move that human rights, that social and economic justice agenda forward. They didn’t entirely disregard it, but let’s not pretend for a moment that they really moved it ahead in a way that made the First Nations of this province, the Aboriginal peoples, feel that they were part of a province that had a real future. They didn’t do that, but we intend to. Part of the things that you do when you try and move a province forward is to look at the state of it, see what’s wrong, analyze it, figure out how you got there and figure out how you’re going to make it better.

Essentially, what governments do is really rather simple in some respects. I don’t want to degrade what goes on in this chamber or what the thousands of public servants do in British Columbia every day or municipal politicians and the staff who work in the various communities across this province. But, essentially, government receives money from the people, and it distributes it in the form of services or benefits to try and create a just and equitable society. It’s really as simple as that. That’s the guts of what happens.

Here we have, in the Budget Measures Implementation Act, legislation which, on the face of it, is duller than ditch water — duller than ditch water, let’s be blunt. Section 1 of the act: “Section 17 of the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Act, S.B.C. 2005, c. 36 is amended (a) by renumbering the section as section 17 (1), (b) in subsection (1) by striking out ‘$50 million’ and substituting ‘$60 million’, and (c) by adding the following subsection: (2) section 7 (2) (b), (c) and (d) applies to the directors of the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust.”

Now, those aren’t riveting words, but words have power when they’re used in this place. What we say some people actually listen to, and what we put in bills before this House, as government, and when they’re passed and implemented, has real impact. What that says is the North Island economic development trust is going to get another $10 million to pursue all sorts of wonderful and innovative projects that will help British Columbians.

I don’t hear applause at this moment from the members opposite. I’m surprised. It shows a lack of a sense of history, which is one of the problems of the B.C. Liberals. They’d like to forget the last 16 years, and they’d like us to forget, but as I promised earlier, they will not forget.

[4:50 p.m.]

That was an initiative of the Gordon Campbell government, and we’re continuing it, and First Nations, in particular, are beneficiaries of those moneys, very often. Initiatives that help people in their communities, that touch people in their homes, that help families move out of poverty — those are good things. I’m surprised the members opposite haven’t been cheering as I’ve been speaking about this particular addition of $10 million to this fund. I am shocked and surprised that they aren’t joyous in the celebration of an addition of funds that will help people in their own homes and in their communities.

Now, as I said, government essentially gets down to, apart from the regulatory aspects and all sorts of other things, receiving those moneys and making sure that society gets better. In what ways are we doing that? Well, I think it’s kind of obvious. Further sections in the bill — the carbon tax schedule, sections 9 and on, found on page 3, for those of you who are watching at home…. And this is what I don’t understand. I’m talking about the carbon tax.

I’ve got to make an admission here. Some of the members opposite, may be not as experienced as some of us on this side, might remember that my party took a somewhat interesting position on the carbon tax and its implementation, and it was the B.C. Liberal Party under Gordon Campbell who brought it in. So when we have chosen not only to accept, acknowledge and continue it, again, I would have expected thunderous applause from those on the opposite side for ensuring that Gordon Campbell’s good legacy — and it is a good legacy — would, in fact, be applauded once again by a party of politicians who surely would respect the person who gave them so many electoral victories.

Now, I acknowledge there’s a prevailing belief that most people don’t want to pay taxes. That may be a prevailing belief. It’s not the belief held in my household, because my household has done just fine, thank you very much. And I, personally, like the member who spoke a couple back from me, the member for Cowichan Valley, enjoyed the benefits of low tuition, of a decent economy, of union jobs — of benefits that helped me get ahead.

The demands placed on society now by the obvious effects of climate change, which we are all paying for — whether it be in increased house insurance rates; whether it be in increased expenditures like this past summer, where we have spent roughly — what is it? — half a billion dollars fighting fires in British Columbia…. Those demands placed on society have occurred because, as a species, we have chosen to arrogantly believe that we could continue to produce pollution, to affect our air and water and not see consequences.

I am extremely proud of this government, with the support of the B.C. Green Party, in implementing increases to the carbon tax. Yes, it’s going to hurt some businesses, probably, but it’s going to enhance and encourage others. It’s going to encourage shifts in our economy which are important for the future of not only the people of British Columbia and the planet but, most importantly, for the children and the grandchildren of the members of this House and the people of British Columbia generally.

It is going to create a society that we can be proud of. It is going to move us down that road, and that is something to be truly pleased about. That is, again, why I’m astonished that the members on the other side aren’t clapping. You do good things, you carry on two aspects of their legacy that they should be proud of, and they’re not enthusiastically supporting it.

Now, I know that it’s hard to lose. I’ve been around in politics for a while, and I have won and lost, and I know what it feels like. Lord knows, I sat over there long enough. It seemed like a lifetime. But I would have hoped that even the B.C. Liberals, when they’re receiving compliments about a couple of aspects of their legacy, would be more excited and thrilled. I’m surprised that they didn’t stand up and applaud these changes.

[4:55 p.m.]

Instead, in an era where we’re trying to cooperate to move society forward, to enter into a new spirit in this chamber, they have chosen to rely on and to go back to simple old oppositions thinking. If the government does it, it’s bad, according to the opposition. Pure and simple. Whatever government does, bad; opposition, good. That kind of simplistic thinking is just not terribly effective anymore with B.C. voters, and I get that. They get that, voters do. But obviously, the B.C. Liberals haven’t quite reached that level of understanding.

As I said, words have power. Words are tools. Let me just quote another section of the act, section 16.

“Section 4.1 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 215, is amended

“(a) in subsection (1) (e) by striking out ‘if the taxable income exceeds $85 000,’ and substituting ‘if the taxable income exceeds $85 000 and does not exceed $150 000,’,

“(b) in subsection (1) (e) (ii) by striking out ‘that exceeds $85 000.’ and substituting ‘that exceeds $85 000 and does not exceed $150 000;’,

“(c) in subsection (1) by adding the following paragraph: (g) if the taxable income exceeds $150 000, (i) the highest amount that might be determined for an individual under paragraph (e) of this subsection, plus (ii) 16.8% of the taxable income that exceeds $150 000. , and

“(d) in subsection (2) by striking out ‘subsection (1) (b) (i), (c) (i), (d) (i) and (e) (i), the highest amount that might be determined for an individual under subsection (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d),’ and substituting ‘subsection (1) (b) (i), (c) (i), (d) (i), (e) (i) and (g) (i), the highest amount that might be determined for an individual under subsection (1) (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e),’.”

Again, dull as ditchwater, but with a few paragraphs, this government has said to the wealthiest British Columbians: “You know what? When we have significant problems with homelessness and street poverty, when we have presentations from Hospital Employees Union members today talking about the condition in homes, where the very people who gave birth to many of us, where the very people who helped build this province, where the very people who fought in the Second World War against fascism, who defended the Koreans, who fought for peace and tried to keep peace around the world — those very people are in facilities where they don’t receive the dignity and care that they deserve.”

What we do with this simple provision, complex and as dull-sounding as it is, is say to people making over 150 grand a year, “We want you to pay a little more,” so that we ensure that your parents and your grandparents, the ones who are in those facilities; so that the people who are in receipt of social assistance; so that the kids in classrooms who need supports; so that the students who need assistance to get an education to meet the demands of a modern workplace will actually have some help. Now, is that a bad thing?

I don’t think it’s a bad thing. And you know what? It’s such a miserly, small amount of money, actually. Again, I’m surprised the members opposite don’t applaud it, because after all, in fairness, at our prompting, when we were in opposition, the B.C. Liberals brought it in themselves. Oh, yes, another legacy of the B.C. Liberals, which they have backed away from faster than the bank robber leaves the scene of the bank robbery. They hopped in their car, and they just disappeared, don’t want to be associated with this.

It was good public policy. Again, in the spirit of cooperation that should characterize modern politics, I would have thought, third aspect, that they could have chimed in and supported this. Let’s put this in graphic terms. If you make $200,000 a year in British Columbia, which is a pretty sweet income, even by the horrible house price standards of Vancouver, you’re being asked to pay an extra $1,000 a year in provincial income tax. Imagine, an extra $1,000 a year. You know what that is? It’s 20 bucks a week. That’s what the wealthiest British Columbians are being asked to pony up —$20 a week.

[5:00 p.m.]

Again, do I hear the B.C. Liberals applauding? Do I hear them expressing their excitement about a shift in public policy which, up until a little while ago, they actually brought in, supported and voted for? Do I hear that cry of support now? Do I hear compliments for the government for acknowledging the Liberals made a mistake when they let it disappear? I don’t hear that. What I hear from the B.C. Liberals is criticism after criticism.

This is more good news. This is Elwood Veitch alive in this chamber. I’ve used his name before. This is more good news, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the Liberals don’t get up and applaud and support this. They complain that we’re bad for business. We just agreed. We’ve acknowledged. We’re going to have the MSP premiums.

Hon. Speaker, you’re a small business person, maybe doing well enough that you actually pay the MSP premiums for your workers. Say they’re all paying the maximum rate. You’ve got ten employees. You’re going to get a $9,000 break right off your expenses — right off your expenses, $9,000. Do I hear the B.C. Liberals expressing gratitude on behalf of the business community that they supposedly represent?

Gosh knows they’ve certainly been upset about the prospect of banning corporate and union donations until recently. We all know what happened there. “Oh, we’d never do that.” No, the B.C. Liberals would never ban corporate and union donations until after they got reduced to being the official opposition. Well, actually, not quite. Let’s just say, to be accurate — and I do wish to be accurate — until after the election results were in, and suddenly the powerful B.C. Liberal Party was reduced to this much-reduced number of seats.

They brought in a throne speech. There was a bit of an epiphany here. Suddenly they were in favour of banning corporate and union donations. Now they find themselves in this difficult situation where they have to attack so vigorously the concept of a transitional support allowance for political parties for four years.

Goodness. I mean, we’ve heard the numbers. We’ve heard the numbers. What was the quick-win advertising campaign? Was it $15 million? I can’t even remember. It was such an enormous amount of money, all spent by the B.C. Liberals to try and win an election, which actually helped them win the election, in fairness. So maybe, from their perspective, it was money well spent, but I can assure them the constituents in Nanaimo didn’t appreciate it very much.

What are we left with? We’re left with…. With great deference to the Minister of Finance, you can’t put wonderfully — how shall I say? — exciting language in a bill that implements a budget. This isn’t the Gettysburg address.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member over there for — what is it? — Surrey–White Rock…. How could one forget Gordon Hogg’s successor?

The member for Surrey–White Rock says it’s not the Gettysburg address — or agrees with me. She’s quite right. Insofar as declarations of the intent of government go, it’s a pretty fine document. It expresses that there is a new sheriff in town, to use the old cliché, and that sheriff is saying, quite simply: “It’s time to shift.”

The growing inequalities that my friend the member for Cowichan Valley talked about so eloquently in her speech just aren’t acceptable anymore. Of course, change is painful. Of course, those who are going to have to pay a little more want to resist. I understand that. I understand that the usual hysterics will come from the opposition — the hyperbole of various members, expressing their concerns that the world is going to collapse somehow, that the economy will shrink and disappear under a B.C. NDP government. I understand all that. It’s just that it’s not real, and it’s not realistic.

[5:05 p.m.]

I think back to the ’90s. I know the members love to talk about the ’90s. As somebody said, they will not forget the ’90s, when the price of copper was — what? — 80 cents a pound. Then, back in the first decade of this century, copper had climbed up to $4 a pound. Well, that had nothing to do with government policy. It had nothing to do with who was in power in Victoria. It had everything to do with world marketplaces, world commodity prices.

The member for Surrey–White Rock is a banker, I believe, comes out of that long-important part of Canada’s economic stability: a sound banking system. I just finished reading a biography of Sir John A. The BMO, the Bank of Montreal, helped finance the building of the great railway that strung this country together, that bound us into the great nation that we’ve become. So that’s important, but again, the copper price had nothing to do with government.

Government has — unfortunately, from my perspective — a fairly limited role in its ability to control the economic environment. I’ve said this so many times, every member must be sick of hearing it. If governments had the ability to control the economy as much as the B.C. Liberals claim they have when things are good, then of course wouldn’t any party in power make the economy hum along all the time so they could take credit for it and remain in power forever? Isn’t that the logical consequence of that line of thinking?

We know that governments are like all of us as individuals. We are subject to forces far beyond our control — where we’re born, how we’re raised, who our parents are, what our education system is like and what the economy is like at the time we’re born. So things beyond our control.

Inasmuch as government has control, inasmuch as government has the ability to make change in society, what Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2017, does is move us down the right path. It gives government some revenue, it shifts some expenditures and it gives some tax credits. As we know, there’s a benefit there for families — up to $250 a year, as I recall. If I can get to the correct section…. Yes, it establishes a new B.C. back-to-school tax credit for the 2016 taxation year.

There are some goodies, as they’re commonly referred to in the journalistic parlance of the day, in there for voters. But the most important aspect of this is that we have a government that has listened to the people of this province. To come back to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, it’s a government that was speaking to people in their living rooms.

It was a government that understood, as many members have already said and acknowledged in their remarks on this bill, that you have two adult family members working and they can’t meet basic expenses, can’t meet the most basic expectations of one another and their children. You can’t do that, and you’re working hard and you’re struggling. You can’t afford child care, hydro rates just never seem to stop increasing, and you have to think about whether or not you can keep a car in a society that is absolutely automobile-dependent. Let’s not kid ourselves — absolutely automobile-dependent.

Those people looked at what has happened over the last 16 years, and to come back to the line of the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin again, they will not forget. They understood what this was about. They understood that there were shifts that had taken place in their communities, in their families, in their lives, for which government could not step back and say: “Oh, not our fault, not our problem.”

We’re not talking about the commodity price of copper. We’re not talking about an American government that seems to want to tear up free trade agreements with Canada. We’re not talking about the softwood lumber tariff. We’re talking about those things over which government had the most direct say. And what government said for 16 years is: “We’re going to balance the budget, balance the budget, balance the budget.”

[5:10 p.m.]

Well, you could say, in fairness, that the B.C. Liberals had a balanced budget for five years. Except what it really was wasn’t a balanced budget. It was a series of social deficits that people felt in their homes, saw in their families, saw in their schools, saw in public transportation, saw in MSP premiums and saw in the benefits they expected a civilized government to provide to their parents and their grandparents in facilities across this province. They saw people getting inadequate food and inadequate care in long-term care facilities.

They saw a society they didn’t like. So they made a choice, and that choice enables this government to be in this place today, bringing about the passage of the Budget Measures Implementation Act that changes the course, that moves us forward, that benefits the families of British Columbia.

I’m going to vote with enthusiasm for this, and given that much of what we’re doing is enhancing existing programs that were already there, established by the B.C. Liberals, I know, just as they had an epiphany before their last throne speech in the dying days of their government, they’re going to vote enthusiastically for this bill, because they know it’s good for British Columbians.

T. Redies: Thank you for that lovely history lesson with respect to banking and what it did for our economy. It took me back.

I’m very grateful for this opportunity to take a closer look at Bill 2, Budget Implementation Act. This particular piece of legislation follows, of course, the September 11 budget update.

Now, ordinarily a budget update is just that. It provides a renewed look at the main budget delivered earlier in the year, but of course, in this case, Budget 2017 was delivered by the previous Liberal government. That budget, as we know, delivered British Columbia’s fifth consecutive balanced budget in a row and renewed confidence in our triple-A credit rating, which our province had earned through fiscal discipline and sustained economic growth.

Budget 2017 was based on prudent and economic assumptions. Just like any household, the former Liberal government’s budget did not overestimate how much money was coming in every month, nor did it spend more than was planned. Having eliminated deficit financing following the 2008 global recession, the Liberal government was employing any surplus on new social programs and, by law, applying a part of the surplus to paying off public debt.

The B.C. Liberal government also felt that taxpayers deserved a break, too. So I welcome the fact that the new NDP and Green Party coalition, through this bill, chose to keep a series of tax breaks in their budget update.

These include their reduction of the MSP premiums by 50 percent, the reduction of the small business tax rate from 2.5 to 2 percent, phasing out the PST on electricity by industry and a $3,000 non-refundable tax credit for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers. We do welcome the retention of these budget items, not just because they were Liberal promises but because British Columbians were already counting on them.

This leads us to the September 11 budget update. There are a number of sharp differences between the Liberal budget of last February and the NDP–Green Party budget update. Let’s begin with the government revenues.

The most significant difference between the two budget documents lies in the fact that the new government announced a series of major tax hikes right off the bat — almost $2 billion in incremental tax increases over three years. This is rather curious, given the NDP and Green party inherited a $2.7 billion surplus, yet they felt it was necessary to raise taxes that will ultimately yield an extra $1 billion of tax each year starting next year.

Under part 2 of the bill, entitled “Tax-Related Budget Measures,” we see where the NDP and Green Party coalition details its tax hikes in the form of personal, consumer and corporate tax increases. Sections 9 through 14 are packed full of tax hikes, starting with the carbon tax. Increasing each year for the next four years, consumers in British Columbia will feel the pinch as the government hikes the price of gasoline, home heating oil, jet fuel and even diesel fuel, which the ferries run on.

Based on current taxes, the carbon tax on all fuels will be going up over 40 percent over the next three years. And while the carbon tax was introduced by the former Liberal government to combat climate change, the NDP and their junior coalition partners, the Green Party, are eliminating the revenue-neutrality aspect of that tax, which is to say, under current laws, any increase in the carbon tax had to be offset by a corresponding decrease in personal or other forms of taxation. But the legislation that we have before us will eliminate revenue neutrality, so consumers will be hit every time.

My colleague for Prince George–Mackenzie did a simple calculation that illustrates what the NDP and Green Party tax hikes represent. He looked at fuel consumption of the largest B.C. Ferries fleet, which is about 9,700 litres of diesel.

[5:15 p.m.]

The current carbon tax on one round trip of that ferry is about $1,072. Based on ten round trips a day, that amounts to $10,720 a day in carbon tax on just one ferry. Because of this bill, that’s going up incrementally to $12,000 in 2019; $13,000 in 2020; and by 2021, it will hit $15,000. That’s a 40 percent increase.

Now, like most service providers, B.C. Ferries would normally have to pass along the increased cost of operations to the consumer. But under current laws, the government would have to reduce taxes, somehow, in order to offset that increase.

Bill 2 is going to do away with that revenue neutrality. I very much fear that the loss of revenue neutrality will amount to a free-for-all for tax increases on the consumer. The NDP and the Green Party support this.

But what about their campaign promise? This is a government that claims it wants to make life more affordable. So at committee stage, we’re going to be asking some difficult questions. How, for example, is the NDP going to make good on reducing ferry fares and hike carbon tax at the same time?

We all know that tax hikes are typically passed along to the consumers, and the planned hike to the corporate tax from 11 percent to 12 percent will likely have the same result because companies must make profits. Therefore, they usually pass it on to the end consumer. It’s usually the end consumer who actually pays.

B.C. will also be losing our competitive edge at the same time. As the Finance Minister quite adeptly pointed out in her budget update, the increase in corporate tax rates will put British Columbia in the middle of the pack with other western provinces.

In other words, if we all have the same tax rate, what incentive does a company like Amazon have to locate its new headquarters here? The same applies to the increase in personal income taxes. Right off the bat, the government announced an increase to the highest income tax bracket for individuals earning over $150,000.

How is that going to affect people, for example, working in B.C.’s tech sector? This is a crucial part of our province’s diversified economy. These are often higher-than-average wage earners, and they are highly mobile. What I don’t understand is that I think the NDP and the Greens, like the B.C. Liberals, want to encourage a technology economy. But honestly, people will leave the province if they feel unfairly taxed. If highly mobile tech companies leave the province, then high-income earners will all follow and take their skills to other, more tax-friendly jurisdictions. We’ve seen this before.

Now, Bill 2 also hits B.C. families pretty hard. Here’s a list of the family-based tax cuts the NDP and Green parties want to do away with: the child fitness tax credit, the child fitness equipment tax credit and the child’s arts tax credit. And if that’s not enough, the government plans to also limit the back-to-school tax credit to just the 2016 taxation year.

We plan to be asking a lot more questions as to the basis for attacking families in this budget, because all of these items are being eliminated without explanation.

Turning to the income side, all of these measures amount to significant tax increases. When combined, they more than wipe out any of the tax cuts implemented by the former Liberal government. And that’s what’s most concerning. A government that walks into a $2.7 billion surplus and already starts asking for more — that sets off alarm bells.

That leads me to the expenditure side of the government’s plans. I do feel for the Minister of Finance. She’s had the unenviable task of hitting the road during break week and had to visit Montreal, Toronto and New York. Her mission was to sit with bank officials and investment firms and credit rating agencies and defend all of the tax increases and, more importantly, the huge increases in expenditures at the same time.

Now, these people are not interested in talking about economic inequality or stepping up assistance to social assistance payments. Their main interest is in the bottom line. Unfortunately, this Finance Minister had to defend her budget update with no plan in place to grow the economy.

We’re talking about pension fund managers, investment bankers, asset fund managers — all the people that manage retirement funds and other large sums of moneys who have invested in our province because, to them, a triple-A credit rating is a safe harbour, and British Columbia is the current top economic performer in the country.

You can’t register a huge spike in taxes and program spending and just expect the economy to hum along just the way it’s always done. The NDP and Green Party coalition government received their first warning from Moody’s credit rating agency when they announced the removal of the tolls from the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges. By removing a self-supporting debt to cover construction costs through bridge tolls, the government received a credit-negative warning because all of the debt was transferred to taxpayer-supported debt.

[5:20 p.m.]

Moody’s was looking for some indication in the budget update that the NDP and the Greens would mitigate the debt transfer. But as we know, none was forthcoming. In addition to snarling traffic jams on the Port Mann Bridge and the cancellation of the George Massey Tunnel replacement, the government instead announced a huge increase in expenditures. During estimates, I’ll be asking the minister as to what the specific dollar cost of a credit downgrade will be to B.C. taxpayers, if suddenly our credit rating begins to slip.

As the member for Abbotsford West, the formal Liberal Finance Minister, recently indicated: “If our creditors see a risk of a credit downgrade, they will want a higher interest return. On a borrowing portfolio the size of British Columbia’s, that can quickly add up to hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Based on the budget update, the debt-to-revenue ratios also are moving from 81.8 percent in fiscal 2016-2017 to 93 percent in 2019-2020. So I intend to ask the minister what conversations she has had with the credit-rating agencies. In other words, is 93 percent consistent with a triple-A credit rating, and if the debt-to-revenue rises above this, will we see a rating downgrade?

We’re also going to be asking if the government is going to maintain current laws pertaining to balanced budgets. Currently, budget surpluses, such as the $2.7 billion budget surplus contained in the September budget update, are automatically applied to paying off taxpayer-supported debt. Is this going to be a continued practice? We’d like to know, and British Columbians want to know. Is the government still committed to balancing budgets in 2018 and beyond? Make no mistake. Budget preparation is obviously no easy task.

Now, I’ve been travelling with the Finance Committee on a 2018 prebudget consultation across the province. I have heard from quite a number of businesses and individuals who are afraid of what they see as the heightened uncertainty in our province. In the forest industry, we are dealing with the aftermath of the worst forest fires in our province’s history. Add to that the softwood lumber dispute and NAFTA renegotiations that President Trump is threatening to walk away from. Then include rising interest rates. We are looking at a great deal of economic uncertainty in our province.

People are also concerned about cancelled projects and major infrastructure projects that are at risk because of this government’s actions. Just look at how the Agriculture Minister has thrown the entire aquaculture industry into turmoil today. Yet this bill, the Budget Implementation Act, offers no reassurance on these fronts.

All we see is a growing list of broken promises. The promise of ride-sharing by the end of 2017 just fell by the wayside. Campaign financing is yet another. Neither the Green Party nor the NDP talked about this during the last campaign, nor was it contained in their so-called, taxpayer-funded confidence and supply agreement. But somehow, the B.C. taxpayer is going to be expected to funnel $28 million into the coffers of the NDP and Green Party, regardless of whether they voted for them or not, over the next four years. There are so many better uses of this money, whether it is to support children with disabilities or help homeless youth or seniors needing assistance.

There was no mention of taxpayer funding of political parties in the budget update or in this bill. All of this contributes to a greater degree of uncertainty.

Now, the NDP and Green Party coalition government loves to make spending announcements, but they’re somewhat loathe to make any tough decisions on things like ride-sharing. When the going gets tough, the government seems to run for an outside consultant.

Here’s a list of reviews the NDP and Green Party are currently undertaking: ride-sharing, Site C, the foreign buyer tax, interest-free loan program, the first-time-homebuyers, aquaculture policy, casinos, marijuana licensing, minimum wage, forest fires, floods.

It’s very surprising to me, as someone new to government, that the new government, who have been in opposition for 16 years, don’t seem to have engaged with stakeholders during those 16 years, because they really haven’t come forward with any detailed plans on pretty much anything.

All with one exception: electoral reform. Damn the torpedoes. In this particular case the NDP and the Green Party have decided to leave the people out of the discussion, and they’re driving forward their own partisan agenda.

[5:25 p.m.]

Let’s be clear. The B.C. Liberal Party welcomes electoral reform, and it was a Liberal government that held two referendums, in 2005 and again in 2009. But we handed the question over to a group of 161 ordinary citizens, called the British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. Do we have public input contained in the NDP–Green Party scheme? Apparently not.

The NDP and the Green Party promised there would be a referendum on electoral reform in concert with the municipal elections in 2018. Oh, did I just discover another broken promise? I stand corrected. This is now going to be a mail-in ballot. With no public debate or consultation, the NDP and the Green Party are just going to slip an envelope in your mailbox and call that electoral reform. Not only that; the NDP and the Greens are going to spend B.C. tax dollars to actively campaign on behalf of their version of electoral reform.

This is a minority government acting like it has a majority. But it does not, and there’s one campaign promise that I doubt will survive the next budget. That is the NDP promise to actually balance the budget. As I mentioned, there’s currently a law in place that is meant to protect taxpayers, the balanced budget act. Cabinet ministers, under this act, are subject to losing up to 20 percent of their salaries if their department fails to live within its means.

I’m curious if the NDP cabinet is willing to subject themselves to this same standard, because with unfunded liabilities for big-ticket items like $10-a-day daycare and a $400 renters rebate, members of the NDP cabinet may find themselves out of pocket at the end of the month. So, too, will B.C. taxpayers, who will be spending much more at the gas pump.

Indeed, there are many assumptions contained in the Budget Implementation Act that place all of these big-ticket campaign promises at risk. Rising interest rates is one of them. The central bank implemented its first increase in seven years last July. The second came in less than two months, in September, and more rate increases could have a cooling impact on the economy. This places British Columbia in a bit of a precarious position.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We have an NDP government with billions of dollars of unfunded promises, like $10-a-day daycare, and despite a $2.7 billion surplus, a government that has already seen the need to hike personal and consumer taxes. This is what is contained in the legislation that we have before us. Coming from a financial background, that troubles me. I know the importance of balancing your books, of controlling spending, of living within your means. And I know the importance of preparing a reasonable budget, not maxing out on your spending until your financial stability is put in jeopardy.

Unfortunately, that is not what we see here from this NDP government. I’d like to just caution this government, for if they continue in this trend, I truly fear where we as a province might end up.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, closing debate.

Hon. C. James: There is so much to say after all of that, so much to say. I think I want to start off by saying how proud we are on this side of the House to be optimistic about British Columbia and the people of British Columbia. Bill 2 presented a balanced approach, ensuring fairness of the tax system, ensuring that the services and supports that people rely on are available in British Columbia, ensuring that everyone pays for the supports and services that we all benefit from.

I just heard the member talking about the tour and whether we’d talked to rating agencies and asset fund managers and bankers and financial institutions. I actually heard the member say that she didn’t think that they’d be interested in talking about inequality. Well, I’d like to correct her. In fact, they were very interested in talking about housing and inequality and addressing child care and addressing the challenges faced by businesses. In fact, they were more than keen to talk about the kinds of key investments that we are making while maintaining our competitiveness, while maintaining a balanced budget, while ensuring that British Columbia continues to be a leader in growth across this country.

I won’t go through the long list but just a few pieces to remember that this bill in fact includes a small business tax cut, providing support to the engine of job creation in our communities. It reduces PST on electricity, with an elimination in another year — again, a major investment to support business and support our competitiveness. It invests in climate action by making sure that we’re doing our part in British Columbia and spurring investment in green industries.

[5:30 p.m.]

It invests in affordability by reducing MSP premiums across the board by 50 percent. So a balanced approach, an approach that puts people first, that makes sure we’re addressing affordability, addressing services and supports and building a long-term sustainable economy that the people of this province asked for and deserve.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2017.

[5:35 p.m.]

Second reading of Bill 2 approved on the following division:

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 2 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2017, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Standing Order 18
(Speaker’s Ruling)

APPLICATION OF
STANDING ORDER TO BILL 5

Mr. Speaker: Members, earlier today the Opposition House Leader sought guidance as to the application of Standing Order 18, which states: “No Member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he or she has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any Member so interested shall be disallowed.”

The Opposition House Leader raised the matter in relation to continuing debate on Bill 5, Constitution Amendment Act, 2017, which proposes to amend legislation, by changing the definition of “leader of a recognized political party,” by reducing the threshold of “four or more members” to “two or more members.”

[5:40 p.m.]

In practical terms, the implication of this amendment is that the independent members affiliated with the Green Party would become a “recognized political party” and its leader, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, would presumably become the “leader of a recognized political party” within the meaning of section 1 of the Constitution Act.

By virtue of the Members’ Remuneration and Pensions Act, the member, as party leader, would consequently be entitled to increased annual compensation, as would the member for Saanich North and the Islands and the member for Cowichan Valley if they were to accept additional responsibilities for other party positions, such as House Leader or party Whip.

The question is whether the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head or the other independent members affiliated with the Green Party have a “direct pecuniary interest” in the passage of section 1 of Bill 5. It is well recognized by prior Speaker’s rulings on Standing Order 18 that a direct pecuniary interest must be immediate and personal if a member is to be prevented from voting. The matter cannot be of a general or remote character; nor would it include the remuneration or benefits of a member. This view is supported by numerous parliamentary authorities. See, for example, Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fourth edition, pages 37 and 45, and Erskine May, 24th edition, page 83.

Bill 5 deals with the number of members required for recognized party status. The increase in salary would result from provisions in other legislation which provide increased compensation to leaders and other officials of recognized parties and is therefore indirect.

Generally, Members of the Legislative Assembly should not be prevented from voting on the rules that establish, directly or indirectly, their entitlement to compensation. While doing so has the effect of providing them with pecuniary benefits, these decisions are expressions of the basic right held by parliaments that a House must be allowed to govern itself. Further, in this case, I find that the interest of the members affected is not personal. The benefit attaches to a position — namely, the leadership of a recognized political party — not to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head or any specific member personally.

Accordingly, I thank the Opposition House Leader for raising this matter and providing an opportunity to clarify that Standing Order 18 does not prevent any members of this Legislative Assembly from participating in the debate and voting on Bill 5.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 5, Constitution Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

There are three separate amendments in this bill. The first amendment will reduce the number of members of a recognized political party from four or more members to two or more members. This will allow a party that holds two or more seats in the Legislative Assembly to have guaranteed representation of one member on the Legislative Assembly Management Committee, additional speaking time in the Legislative Assembly and entitlement to increased remuneration for certain positions, as provided for in the Members’ Remuneration and Pensions Act.

The second amendment changes general voting day to the third Saturday in October every four years. This will provide for passage of a budget prior to an election, increasing transparency. A new provision has been added to address how the day will be chosen if there is an overlap with the campaign period for a general local election or with the election period for a federal general election. A new day will be determined by cabinet in consultation with the Chief Electoral Officer, the Leader of the Official Opposition and each leader of a recognized political party.

[5:45 p.m.]

A third amendment expands the list of circumstances in which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint acting ministers to act in the place of another minister, for an automatic line of succession in the event of a catastrophic event, such as an earthquake, wildfire or tsunami. This will ensure that government’s decision-making and execution of constitutional responsibilities can automatically continue without interruption in the event of an emergency.

A. Wilkinson: This bill is important, far beyond the suggestion of its short number of sections, in terms of its effect on our democracy. This is part of a three-bill package brought forward by the NDP in recent days, consisting of Bill 3, Bill 5 and Bill 6.

The cumulative effect of these bills is to change our democratic system substantively in a way that favours the NDP and the Green Party. This is being done with no public consultation whatsoever, with no reference to any expert panels and with no consultation more broadly than in the cabinet room.

It is of grave concern to us in this chamber and to the official opposition that this is going to proceed with minimal notice. The media have done some work in bringing it to the attention of the public. But we are faced with a scenario where the fabric of our democracy is about to be changed, possibly forever, and it’s getting very little attention or consultation.

The essence of this bill is, of course, fourfold: a longer term for the government in power, currently the NDP with the support of the Green Party; a change in the number of advanced polling days; and changing the voting day to a Saturday. The fourth item is to provide for official party status to be granted to parties with two members rather than the current four.

The net effect of this is that the voting system will change in terms of voting day — that is, the Saturday voting and the advanced polling days — but the more substantial issue is that of the longer term. It defies logic as to why, if the voting day is to be changed to October, that should result in a six-month extension for a government rather than a reset to six months earlier to provide for a 3½-year term rather than a four-year term.

Surely in a democracy like ours, the party currently in power by the skin of its teeth with the assistance of the Green Party, should not be granting itself an extra six months during which it will spend $26 billion of taxpayers’ money by simply granting itself a six-month extension in the Legislature. This is fundamentally undemocratic.

The most obvious solution to this is simply to reset the date, if it’s going to be in October, to October of 2020 rather than October of 2021. This has not been entertained. It has not been the subject of any consultation or discussion. It’s simply a unilateral move by an arrogant government that is, as I say, barely legitimate, by hanging on by the skin of its teeth.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This effort, of course, happens in the cabinet room, as with this package of bills — Bills 3, 5 and 6. The machinery, the mechanics of it, are all to be decided in cabinet, and we’ll hear about it as it’s announced through press releases and orders-in-council rather than in any kind of public process that would determine whether there’s a public appetite for these changes, what the degree of public interest is in these issues and whether, in fact, it is part of our democratic scheme in this country.

It’s interesting to look across the country at the comparisons. We see that in every jurisdiction in Canada, the provisions that are made are that there be a four-year election cycle, not a 4½-year election cycle. This is something that has been dreamt up by the NDP to grant themselves an extra $26 billion of spending power and an extra six months in office.

There has been no attempt whatsoever by the NDP or the Greens to determine what the evidence behind this concept is. The members of the Greens are ever so proud of touting their dependence upon principle and evidence, but there is simply no evidence to support this move. Is this better for voter turnout? Is it better for public involvement because of weather or other vicissitudes, like attendance at school or the university calendar? Is it better in terms of the level of public attention — right after Labour Day being the election cycle rather than right after Easter?

[5:50 p.m.]

We have simply nothing to go on. This is an arbitrary move by the NDP to grab power for an extra six months. It is, actually, quite shameful that we have to debate this in this chamber, rather than the NDP coming to that conclusion themselves that this would be a high-handed manoeuvre and that this would be something completely unwarranted. This is something without any basis in public consultation or evidence or any other premise whatsoever, other than grabbing themselves another six months in power.

We look at the provisions across Canada. The government of Canada provides for an election in the fourth calendar year. Of course, British Columbia currently does. Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, the Northwest Territories, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec all provide for a four-year cycle. None of them even contemplate a 4½-year cycle. Yet here we have the NDP, with the connivance of the Greens, giving themselves this extra period of office so that they can spend the public’s money as they see fit before an October 2021 election.

I think it’s almost incredible, actually, that there has been no attempt whatsoever to gauge public opinion on this. Nothing has been done to bring this to the attention of the public and to ask what their views might be. It’s left to us, as the opposition, to try to publicize just how high-handed this is, with the involvement of the media, who have, sadly, not taken much interest in it.

We have to keep in focus that this is part of a package. This is part of a package put forward by these two parties, this fall, to perpetuate their hold on power. The Green Party, of course, is keen on proportional representation for a variety of reasons, all of which are self-serving. The NDP is working hand in hand with the Greens, through their secretariat and otherwise, to make sure that they hold on to power as long as possible. They reached their accord this summer. That’s fair game for them to do so, as is done in many environments. Nonetheless, this is part of a three-bill package that was arrived upon by these two parties working together to perpetuate their time in power.

We have to look at the details. The advance polling dates will hardly be controversial. In the modern world, we’re finding that more and more people vote in advance polls. That’s convenient for everyone involved. It’s hard to quibble with that, so that issue I will not be raising further.

The Saturday voting — again, the arbitrariness of this. Perhaps it’s a good idea. Perhaps it’s not. Has any work been done to determine whether or not it’s helpful to voter turnout, whether it’s helpful to inform the public about a Saturday date? There’s the complete disdain, apparently, for people with religious preferences or religious convictions. Jewish people and Seventh-Day Adventists may deeply object to a voting day being held on a Saturday. We have heard nothing about that. This is, of course, affecting the basic constitutional right, under the Charter, to be able to vote and express one’s democratic franchise in the vote.

Perhaps we’ll hear from the other side about how Jewish people and Seventh-Day Adventists should be trivialized and ignored. I see the nodding heads on the other side. This is the kind of attitude that we’re getting from the New Democrats in this particular bill. It’s that they are somehow entitled to change our democratic system without talking to the public and that they can just dismiss our concerns out of hand. This is, actually, quite intolerable in a democracy.

We have taken hundreds of years to get to this point. For 150 years, this country has functioned remarkably well through all kinds of troubles, through multiple world wars, through conscription crises in both wars. This country functioned with a first-past-the-post system and with four-year election cycles, and it has functioned remarkably well. We are a model of democracy around the world. Now we have the NDP, with the involvement of the Greens, marching into this chamber and saying they’d like to change it willy-nilly, with no public consultation whatsoever, and to do it, in terms of the mechanics, behind closed doors.

This, of course, raises the issue of: how did this come to be? The bias that is being expressed by the NDP and the Greens, again, is to grant themselves more power. That’s what they’re after, that’s what they seek, and that’s why they’re introducing this package of bills.

Every other issue that they have brought up this session has been sent out for consultation. We have that lengthy list of issues that have been sent out for public consultation. Whether it’s taxis or whether it’s to build a bridge, these are matters that are the normal course of government that will probably be long forgotten ten years from now. Instead, we have the NDP setting themselves up for success by guaranteeing an electoral result that they seek by changing the fabric of our society.

[5:55 p.m.]

This is intolerable. Look at what they’re sending out for consultation: the building of a power dam, a tunnel replacement, a foreign buyers tax, auto insurance, aquaculture policy, money laundering at casinos, marijuana, the Human Rights Commission, minimum wage and ride-hailing. These things, as I say, are the normal course of government. They will be sorted out in the next decade and, most likely, will have faded into the annals of history.

Changing the our voting system in perpetuity is fundamental to our society. Yet there is to be no consultation, no hearings — nothing.

This side of the House, of course, in 2004 and the run-up to 2004, went through a massive consultation process, put together a randomly selected citizens assembly, engaged the academic community and brought in experts from around the world to determine what the best package would be to put to the electorate in a vote to determine the voting system. That was done twice — in 2005, in 2009 — and lo and behold, the public voted against it. That had the net effect of being a wide public consultation with full academic involvement, with full consultation with communities, with the best evidence in the world put together in a lengthy package by the citizens assembly.

This time around we have nothing. No effort. No thought. No regard. No concern whatsoever for public sentiment on this or for what’s developed in the world in the last 13 years in terms of democratic systems. So this, of course, must be resisted. This is a package that cannot be tolerated in a democratic society, so we, of course, will be opposing these bills, because the longer term granted to the government in power is simply a power grab.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, through the Chair.

A. Wilkinson: I am incredulous that I’m hearing there is going to be a significant public consultation in the next two weeks over these bills. We have the member from Maple Ridge telling us that this is going to be a democratic process to involve the public. It took three years to come up with the citizens assembly report, and here we have a brand-new elected member who is going tell us how the world works in a matter of a couple of weeks.

Where is the consultation process? Where is the academic panel? Where is the citizens assembly? It has been dismissed utterly as this government engages in a naked grab for power. What we can see is the members opposite chortling away as they vote themselves an extra six months in power. This is really quite offensive.

We then come to the issue, of course, of official party status. I am pleased to say that there will be an amendment proposed on this issue by the official opposition in the days to come. We expect, as this goes into committee, there will be some controversy about this.

It’s a short bill, but it’s a bill that requires attention. The issue comes to the attention of this Legislature of whether or not this is something that should be subject to some kind of sunset clause. Is this something that should just be foisted on the public forever and accepted and to last in perpetuity? Or perhaps it should be time limited so the public have a try at it.

That’s what was done in New Zealand. That was an attempt to engage in a democratic change, and it was used for a while, and then they reverted to a different system. That is also the situation in Canada, where there were, as I said, the two votes in British Columbia, in 2005 and 2009, on a different voting system, which was rejected.

The same thing happened in Ontario, where it did not pass, and in P.E.I., where it barely passed, by a tiny percentage of the population voting. I believe it was 27 percent who voted in favour, who voted at all. So the net effect was 18 percent of the public in P.E.I. voted in favour of proportional representation, and the Legislature said that was an insufficient mandate and did not proceed with it. That is the history of this package in this country.

We really must sit back and contemplate the significant effect that this package will have on this chamber and on our democracy. It’s time for British Columbians to stand up and say whether or not this is tolerable.

We see the number of seats to form a recognized party in this country. In Alberta, it’s four. In Manitoba, it’s four. In Ontario, it’s eight. In Quebec, it’s 12. In New Brunswick, it’s five. In Canada, the federal government, it’s 12.

Interjection.

A. Wilkinson: The member from Oak Bay talks about it being in P.E.I. Well, P.E.I. has a population of 140,000, about the same as North Vancouver or Richmond, and they have 32 members in their assembly, one for every 4,500 people. P.E.I. has almost no bearing on British Columbia in terms of the functioning of its democracy. The member down there says that this area of Canada that represents 0.5 percent of our population should be held up as a model.

[6:00 p.m.]

They rejected proportional representation. They have a massive assembly per capita, with one member for every 4,500 people in the population. Imagine that. We would have 1,000 members in this assembly if we had the same pattern as P.E.I. So there’s little to be learned from P.E.I.

What we learn from every other province is that there is no precedent in Canada for changing the number of members who would form an official party with a population of two members in the House. Saskatchewan does that, Nova Scotia does that, and the rest of Canada does not.

In terms of these issues of changing the voting days so there can be a four-and-a-half-year period in power, that is unprecedented in Canadian history. It has never been done. It is totally inappropriate for these two parties to simply sit back and say they’re entitled to it, to go behind closed doors and to simply engage in this power grab exercise.

We’ll be opposing this bill. It is simply intolerable, as part of this package, that we should acquiesce in this effort by the other side, with their bare hold on power, cobbled together with this agreement in the summertime, to then, grinning from ear to ear, march into this chamber and subvert our democratic process.

We’ll be resisting this bill, and I’m sure we’ll hear more from members on both sides.

Hon. L. Beare: I rise today to speak in favour of Bill 5. Contrary to what the member across has said this afternoon, this bill will modernize our democratic system by reducing the number of seats required for recognized political party status from four to two, by changing the fixed election date from October to May and by strengthening the institutional stability of government in the event, for example, of a natural disaster.

The benefits of these changes are many. By changing the required number of members for recognized political party status, we are allowing smaller caucuses access to the legislative tools and other benefits available only to recognized political parties. This is good for the people of British Columbia, who’ve already told us that they want their voices heard, and it’s good for democracy.

Moving the fixed election date to the fall leaves time for a February budget to be debated and passed. The people of British Columbia will know the status of our province’s finances and will be able to vote accordingly. By having the budget already passed and year-end public accounts released in July, the people of British Columbia will have greater transparency and accountability from their government before they cast their vote. Again, this change is good for the people of British Columbia and good for democracy.

These changes are steps in our progress toward the modernization of our democratic system. In 2001, a unique situation occurred in the B.C. Legislature. There was no official opposition in the parliament due to the four-seat requirement. There was no party performing the important function of official opposition.

We recognize political party status. Green Party members, upon passing of this bill, will have access to the legislative tools that are at present available only to members of the two existing official parties. These benefits include additional speaking time in the Legislative Assembly and increased remuneration for the positions in the party. This will provide a better representation of views and perspectives and better reflect those of all British Columbians.

Certain positions within the party, yes, will receive additional remuneration, as the member opposite took great lengths to point out, but that should be made available to all independent MLAs. While recognized political party status can bring an increase in speaking time in the Legislature and increase salary for some members, it also results in reduced budget for operating and capital costs.

The party status also provides a stronger voice for all British Columbians in the Legislature. The Liberal Party acknowledged the need to modernize the threshold in their last throne speech, so I look forward to their support on this bill as we move forward.

As for changing the fixed election date, contrary to what the member for Vancouver-Quilchena just said, our government believes this these changes may increase voter turnout for fixed election dates and offer more choice in advance voting options.

[6:05 p.m.]

By moving the fixed election date to the fall, we’ll provide for a more transparent budget process and provide for the passage of a budget before the provincial election. A full and robust debate of the finances of the province and of the budget is essential to both transparency and accountability. Again, it’s good for democracy, and it’s good for British Columbians.

Changing the fixed election date is an excellent opportunity for younger voters, especially students, to participate more easily in the elections. As we all know, May signals the end of the semester, and there’s a lot of movement between universities and post-secondary institutions and students and their hometowns.

By holding an election on Saturday, it will also likely mean a higher voter turnout. If a voter doesn’t want to or can’t vote on an election day, as always, we provide advance voting for all registered voters, so voters will have many, many other options than just Saturday. In the recent provincial general election, the Chief Electoral Officer observed that the most popular day of the week for advance voter turnout was — surprise to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena — Saturday.

Overall, advance voter turnout across the province was, on average, 51 percent higher on Saturdays than on the rest of the weekdays. Our government, of course, contrary to the implications across the way, respects the diversity of religions and traditions that enrich our province and all of its members.

As with any election, we offer numerous days and opportunities of advance voting for all registered voters. We recognize that some religious groups observe Saturday as a Sabbath and have responded by ensuring there will be six advance voting days. Changing the days of the week for the advance voting days ensured there are an equal number of voting days available that don’t fall on a Saturday. This ensures government is accountable to the electorate.

We’ve consulted with the Chief Electoral Officer and the Leader of the Opposition and each leader of a recognized political party. This is not simply, as the member said, a chance to increase our time. This is a chance to change the date of an election to suit the interests of British Columbians.

Current legislation calls for a fixed election on Tuesday. But as I said, Elections B.C. showed that significantly more voters participated in advance voting on Saturday than on any other day of the week. We believe that this may result in increased voter turnout.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Beare: Well, this is great. This is my first heckle in the House. I’m very happy. Thank you for participating with me.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Beare: Because this is such an important issue, I appreciate the chance to speak to this. Overall, advance voter turnout, as I will remind the member, across the province was, on average, 51 percent higher on Saturday than on workweek days. But I’m going to move on from that.

I want to take a moment to talk about strengthening the institutional stability. This bill has a fantastic opportunity to create a clear succession plan for government, to be put in place for ministers to provide an orderly continuity of government in the event of an unexpected catastrophe such as an earthquake or a wildfire.

Current legislation provides for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint an acting cabinet minister in the event of an illness or absence of cabinet ministers from the capital. But it doesn’t contemplate these catastrophic events, which of course none of us hope for, but we need to be prepared for. As we know with our ShakeOut day tomorrow, we will all be preparing for such an event.

If a member is unable to perform their duties, this proposed amendment to the legislation will broaden the reasons for acting appointments to ensure that government’s decision-making capabilities can automatically continue in the event of a catastrophe, without any debate, any turnaround time or whether the reasons are broad enough to capture these situations. Again, this is great for the province of British Columbia and great for democracy.

I’d like to wrap up by saying that our government is committed to introducing these amendments in the Legislature, and we’re doing that now. We’re looking forward to continuing debate with it. We’re looking forward to continuing modernizing our democratic process. We’re looking forward to doing so through the changes that we’ve already proposed. Now I look forward to doing it through the Constitution Act, so I will be voting in favour of Bill 5.

[6:10 p.m.]

M. Morris: I’ve listened to the members opposite, and I’ve been listening to them for the last several weeks now. I find it amazing that they choose to consult on the Massey bridge, although they’ve already made up their mind they’re not going to build it. They’ve chosen to consult with Uber and pay a bunch of money for another report, but get out there and get some more feedback on that. They’re reviewing Site C to death again. Everything they’re doing has gone to committee, it’s gone to consultation, or it’s gone to review.

Except for this — and I find that amazing. One of the most fundamental changes to the democratic process in B.C., with the packages that they’re introducing with this bill and some of the other initiatives they have out there, and it’s not going to public consultation. It’s just straight into the back of the cabinet room or into some little shed or some room in the back of a café where they talk about these things and they make the deal between the Greens and the NDP on how they can covet more power and increase their power hold on the province here.

It was us — it was the B.C. Liberal government — that established fixed election dates back in, I think it was, 2005. I can’t remember now. That brought some stability to the democratic process in British Columbia. It was well received, and of course, the results have been well-founded right across Canada, with many other jurisdictions that we have in Canada with the four-year, fixed election date.

The discussion that my colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena has initiated — and I follow the same line of thinking here — is instead of moving it to a 4½-year period, the benefits of holding it six months earlier, in the fall of 2020, far outweigh the consequences that we’ll face if they move it to 2021. The benefit…. We see voter fatigue in the province here. We have municipal elections. We’ve got federal elections. We’ve got provincial elections. We’ve got referendums. We’ve got a number of things that take place on a frequent basis throughout the province here.

I think by holding it in the fall of 2020, it’ll probably relieve a little bit of that voter fatigue that we see with the municipal elections coming up in 2018. We’ve got federal elections coming up in 2019. We can go and have another provincial election in the fall of 2020. The whole cycle will keep on repeating itself here. From that perspective alone, I think it merits a closer look.

The fact that the NDP want to carry on for an extra six months in power…. I’m not sure how much money we’re going to have left to spend after four years of an NDP–Green alliance government here in British Columbia. We’ll be deeper in debt, and the credit rating will be down. There will be other issues that…. I don’t know if the NDP government would be able to bear an extra six months in government, let alone the public trying to put up with another six months of an NDP government.

The other thing that this bill addresses is moving the election day to a Saturday. There’s some theory that it’ll attract more voters. Maybe it will; maybe it won’t. There’s really been no research on that which I’ve been privy to. When we get outside of rural B.C. or outside of urban B.C….

A lot of the people in rural B.C. travel to major centres on a Saturday to do their shopping. You know, jump in the car or their pickup truck, and they’ll drive to Prince George or Terrace or Quesnel or some other major centre. It’s an all-day event for them or a weekend event just to go in and replenish their supplies and do some banking at the closest bank — whatever they might have to do on a weekend. Of course, this would interfere with that.

Having the election day during a weekday when everybody is at their normal place of work or their normal place of residence, for the most part, I think, captures a lot of the voters, in that kind of a situation. Absentee or advance polls are available for those that can predict that they might not be around during those particular times. The voting day on Saturday — I’d have to see some data from the members opposite as to why they’ve chosen this option. Maybe we’ll get it in the committee stage, as to why they’re going with that particular option.

Lowering the threshold of the party status. We looked across the country, and we’ve looked at other jurisdictions. A lot of the jurisdictions have four. Some are down to three. A couple of jurisdictions, I think, are in that two level.

[6:15 p.m.]

We introduced legislation just prior to the change in government. It gave the option to the Green Party to vote on that legislation that we introduced in this House, where we had reduced the threshold to three members to accommodate the three Green members that are here. They never even read that legislation. They never looked at it, and it was voted down subsequently.

I look at the fact that they are now touting to be the people, the government that interacts and works well with one another. Here was an example where they could have worked very well with the government of the day, with that particular bill that we had submitted. But they never. They never even looked at it.

It’ll be interesting to see how they vote on this one. I hope they’re reading it. They’re probably going to be speaking on this one, so I’m sure they have read it.

Lowering the threshold down to three or down to two from the current four is something that…. I don’t know if it’s in the interest of democracy or not for us to do that. There are a number of things here. My colleague earlier said that this is something we’re not going to support.

There are a number of factors here. It’s not just this bill alone. It’s the entire package that has been put forward and proposed by the NDP: to covet power and to try and hang onto the power as long as they can; if they keep on going in the direction they have right now, to plunge this province further into debt; to put the burden of debt on my grandchildren, in the future, as they try to pay for the things that this government is doing.

If we can move that fixed election date up into the fall of 2020, I think that’s something that we should look at. I’d like to see some more evidence to support a Saturday voting day.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

M. Morris: I’d like to see some amendments introduced, perhaps as we go down the road, here, to maybe lower the threshold to three members to recognize official party status. There’s a bunch of work that we have to do on this. I look forward to the committee stage where we can flesh it out in more detail.

I’m not in support of this bill the way it stands right now, and I look forward to further debate on this as we go down the road.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Thank you to my colleagues.

I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 5, the Constitution Amendment Act — a bill so complex, so complicated, that the member from Vancouver-Quilchena felt the need to get a detailed briefing and analysis of it, delaying our discussing of this at second reading until this date.

This bill does three things. It amends the definition of leader of a recognized political party, in a matter analogous to what the B.C. Liberals did in the July session that we had here. It adds circumstances when acting ministers may be appointed from the members of executive council — for example, if there’s a tragic death, someone in cabinet. And it amends the fixed election dates.

Now, it’s just truly remarkable to hear the righteous indignation of members opposite speaking against this bill, when they produced something almost identical in the summer. They claimed that there was no consultation. They claimed there was no consultation, but both election platforms…. Both the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens campaigned on this.

Why did we campaign on it? Well, I suspect the B.C. Liberals wished they had campaigned on it, because we wouldn’t have been in the awkward situation of suddenly discovering a $2.8 billion surplus because of reckless fiscal mismanagement by a previous government.

What government would project a several hundred million dollar surplus and end up with a $2.8 billion surplus, all the while taking mean-spirited policies — taking this mean-spirited position — and not helping those people in our province who need that help most?

Had we had a fall election date, the February budget would have been passed. It would have been passed, and we would have had year-end statements.

[6:20 p.m.]

We would know what the fiscal situation would be. We wouldn’t have been in this panic, trying to pass a supply act because of stalling by a government that knew it didn’t have the confidence of this House. It knew it didn’t have the confidence of this House, so it stalled and tried to rush a supply act. Changing the election date to October is a good change, one that we support in its entirety.

Again, earlier today we had another example of how this government proposes to work with others to represent British Columbians. We saw a cynical, petty statement by the member for Abbotsford South — I think it was Abbotsford South or the relevant Abbotsford riding — who stood up and sought a ruling from you, hon. Speaker, with respect to the ability of members to vote on this. It’s remarkable that he would do that. It was nothing more than a petty, cynical ploy that his own caucus didn’t know he was going to do.

This is a member who wants to lead a party yet would do something like that without informing his caucus and expect that there would be goodwill from the Green Party members in supporting amendments that they might bring forward on bills. It’s disingenuous at its very worst. I look forward to seeing how members opposite react as this member moves forward in a leadership bid — one who doesn’t actually consult with colleagues. I found it quite sad, particularly since Standing Order 18 is very clear: “No member is entitled to vote, etc….” There are clear cases here. In fact, this Legislature, in 2007, was required by law to vote on its own compensation. Again, petty, and it’s exactly why this government needed to be put in a time-out.

Coming back to the importance of party status, let’s go back to 2001. There are many precedents here. In 2001, the B.C. Liberals won a majority with 77 seats. There were two B.C. NDP seats. In another mean-spirited fashion — again, a mean-spirited fashion that has even been suggested by a former chief of staff that it was mean-spirited — the B.C. NDP did not have official party status. They received 21.6 percent of the vote — 343,156 votes, two seats, no official party status. No official opposition.

I remember watching the Legislature at that time. It’s kind of the thing we do. I remember watching Liberal MLAs stand up and ask questions like: “Hon. Speaker, my question, through you to the minister, is this: how good are our policies?” This is the type of rhetoric we heard back then. Back in 2001….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member opposite is heckling and suggesting that our questions are softball. I don’t know who writes their questions. Their questions are an embarrassment. Their questions, filled with — I love to say this again — righteous indignation, sanctimoniously portraying themselves as victims of democracy, as they ask and criticize government for doing exactly what they’ve been doing for 16 years. It’s just ironic having to sit here. It’s quite enjoyable to see them….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: In 2001, coming back there, the B.C. Green Party at the time — I was not a member of any political party then: 197,231 votes, 12.39 percent of the population. That’s zero seats, and that’s fair enough. That was the system we had. But let’s take a look at the votes per seat back in 2001. When you take the number of seats, divided by the number of votes, each one of those NDP seats represented 171,578 votes. Whereas to win a Liberal seat, all you needed was 11,908 votes.

[6:25 p.m.]

The NDP were denied official party status, cynically and in a mean-spirited fashion, even though they received 343,156 votes, and each of those two MLAs then represented 171,578 votes. That’s shameful. It’s shameful for democracy, and it’s shameful that that was done. The Reform Party had status back in the day with a number of members.

Let’s go to 2017. Here’s another example. In 2017, the recent election we just had, the B.C. NDP received 795,106 votes at 40.28 percent and 41 seats. The B.C. Liberals had 796,772 votes or 40.36 percent, representing 43 seats. And the B.C. Greens had 332,387 votes, 16.84 percent with three seats.

Now, let’s have a look.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Penticton needs to be careful. We ran a candidate who got 19 percent in his riding, and he watches.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: She did lose, but just watch the next election. The member from Parksville-Qualicum beside him better be careful too. We know that we had polling data, and it was very close there until the last week.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They’re very chirpy. Very, very chirpy. They don’t like being put in this time-out. It’s like the boisterous children who were misbehaving. You put them in time-out, and you say: “Take it easy, there.” But they can’t, so they need to be kept there for 4½ years, because they need to rediscover who they are. They need to rediscover what they stand for. Nobody in British Columbia knows. They don’t know what this party stands for.

Everybody and his dog is running for leadership of this party. Nobody knows who’s going to be leader. Nobody knows who’s running the show. By listening to question period, they need to discover who they are.

Again, the righteous indignation portrayed as they hurl abuse at the Minister of Transportation for not bringing in ride-sharing. It’s just remarkable to sit here and listen, knowing full well that they had seven years to do it but they didn’t. In fact, the Minister of Transportation at the time told British Columbians he was going to but got soundly smacked down by perhaps the Premier’s office, perhaps the Minister of Finance then, and they back-pedalled on it. So again, there is no credibility there.

There’s no credibility, which again, coming back to the bill, is why it’s so important to actually give the official, official opposition party status here in the B.C. Legislature.

Coming back to the votes per seat….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Penticton is chuckling. I did enjoy being with the member for Penticton on the Finance Committee. We had some fun there. I take it in good spirit with the member for Penticton.

Coming back to the votes per seat in 2013. Again, this is important. To win a B.C. NDP seat, given the number of votes and the percentage there and the 41 seats that they won, you needed 19,393 votes. To win a B.C. Liberal seat, you needed 18,530 votes. Each B.C. Liberal over there represents 18,530 British Columbians who voted B.C. Liberal. Each B.C. NDP — see over here — represents 19,393 votes. Each B.C. Green vote represents 110,796 votes. Three MLAs, 332,387 votes.

Now, we know — based on the amount of email that we get, the calls we get from across the province — that British Columbians don’t believe we have an official opposition, because all they know what to do is play politics. They’re not raising issues. They’re with the game of politics — got you this, got you that, accuse you this. They have no ideas, they’re out of touch, and they’re navel-gazing as to the direction that they want to go.

We are acting, the three MLAs, as the conscience of British Columbia, holding this government to account while they navel-gaze, while they ask the pitiful questions in question period, while they abdicate their responsibility to offer solutions. And here we stand.

[6:30 p.m.]

Obviously, it is not only fair. It is the right thing to do to recognize that the three B.C. Green MLAs are the political party. We ran as a political party. We got elected as a political party. In Prince Edward Island or in New Brunswick, one Green MLA was given party status. In British Columbia, three Reform MLAs — I think it was three — and two NDP MLAs were not given party status.

Now, I would encourage members opposite who don’t know what they stand for to actually get together and figure what groups of you stand for, and maybe we might see a B.C. conservative party emerge. When the new leader of the B.C. conservative party — or the Liberals; they call themselves Liberals — will be Dianne Watts, it’ll be wonderful to see that party break into two, because that’s really what they are. And nobody knows what they stand for.

The party has been driven out of the Premier’s office for the last four years, with MLAs not knowing what stands which — MLAs waking up, listening to a throne speech after campaigning on the doorstep, saying: “We can’t afford this. We can’t do that.” I mean, there are no morals. There are no principles. It has lost touch. Again, it is why it’s so important that we come back to the fact that we get party status here in the B.C. Legislature.

One of the things in this bill that we haven’t touched upon yet is the allowing for the appointment of acting ministers in the case of a death of a member. I caution government that there isn’t a provision here. What happens if the entire cabinet were to die? That is not covered in this legislation. It would be a tragedy, but there is a loophole there that we need to perhaps consider closing, because it’s only if one, or one or two, but not the entire cabinet. Heaven forbid there was an earthquake at 10:10 on Thursday, October the 19th, and the cabinet would go. So there is a small change there.

Again, this is a very complex piece of legislation that required a detailed thorough analysis and briefing by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, who found it so complex he needed the extra week to think about how he could understand it. I mean, again, one could be somewhat cynical as to the delay of debating this bill, but I wouldn’t want to go there, of course. No, that wouldn’t be right.

There are other things in this bill. It’s such a complex bill. We’ve got the appointment if someone dies. We’ve got the fall election date. Members opposite are all in a fury, all in a kerfuffle about the fact that it’s October, 4½ years. It’s actually only four years, just in case they really care. If the members opposite had actually got their act together and recognized they did not have confidence of the House, it would be 4½ years. It’s only four years, because we weren’t actually able to put this agreement together until the end of the summer — well, July — because we had to wait month after month, as the B.C. Liberals tried desperately to hang on to power.

Therein lies the key. For the B.C. Liberals, it is about power. It’s all about the game of politics, the quest for power, and the cynical aspects of politics. They’re not interested in good public policy. They’re not interested in that. They’re interested in power — whatever it takes, say whatever it takes. That is what is so sad about this political party, and it’s why they need to be put in an extended time-out so that this government gets a full four years.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Oh, that’s an interesting idea. The member…. I do apologize. I forgot which riding. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission has suggested, and I do believe he’s onto something here, that this party opposite might be put in a time-out for 16 years instead of just the four years that they’re being put in. That might be….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Oh, they are so very, very chirpy today.

I don’t think that I need to belabour this.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: The member for Kelowna–Lake Country is applauding the arguments being raised here, the compelling nature of these arguments, and thanking for an articulate representation of why Bill 5, Constitution Amendment Act, needs to pass.

[6:35 p.m.]

Obviously, we’ll be supporting it. We look forward to supporting it, and we thank the government for recognizing the importance of recognizing the third political party.

We do recognize the Liberals did offer this to us back in the spring, but we agree with the B.C. NDP, in this time, that it is important that if you run as a party, you be recognized as a party, because ultimately, that’s what our democracy is all about.

R. Kahlon: I rise in the House today to support the Constitution Amendment Act. I want to thank the leader of the Green Party. I thought that was a very entertaining response to the budget speech. I want to thank him for his energy. I also want to thank the members opposite for their lively interactions in it. It made for an enjoyable 25½ minutes.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: You did an excellent job, hon. Member.

Our government has introduced changes in the first weeks of this session. We’ve introduced bills to modernize our democratic system through lobbyist reform. We’ve brought in a proportional representation referendum and now an amendment to the Constitution Act.

These changes, if passed, would reduce the number of seats required for recognized political party status from four to two; would change the fixed election date to October, instead of our customary May; and would strengthen the institutional stability of the government in the event, for example, of a natural disaster. The benefits are many. Changing the required numbers of members for recognizing political party status enables smaller caucuses to access the legislative tools and other benefits available to only recognized political parties.

I think that the opposition plays a critical role in the function of this building. I have spent some time out in the halls here, when this side was the opposition. It’s not the easiest of times being in opposition, but I think it’s an essential part of making government work and making our society work. Although we may not always agree with the other side, I certainly respect that they’re doing their jobs in trying to hold the government to account.

In order to fully speak to this, I think we should go over, quickly, the role of the opposition.

“…Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, which enjoys privileges and carries out duties long established by tradition. It holds an important position in the Legislative Assembly and contributes to the overall effectiveness of parliament by monitoring the cabinet and encouraging the government to make well-planned and appropriate decisions.

“The primary role of the…opposition, as well as the smaller opposition parties and independent MLAs, is to question the government’s actions and to present alternatives to existing government policies.”

The opposition leader usually sets up and creates shadow cabinet members and keeps ministers very closely to represent the opposition party’s position in debates, essentially holding the government accountable. “The opposition is key to making sure government remains accountable to the people of B.C. Opposition MLAs have a number of opportunities to question the government and comment on its actions.”

This unique…. We’re used to a traditional model of having two parties, and now we’ve got this change in dynamics, which the people of B.C. have sent to us, so it’s our responsibility to make it work. I note that in 2002, when the NDP was in opposition and there were two MLAs in this House, they had the difficult task of two members trying to keep a government accountable and do the important work that the opposition does in the Legislature. They found it difficult. In 2002, the party was given $300,000 to manage all their staff, while the government had a $4.3 million budget.

I looked back and I read back at some of the work that Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan did at that time. It’s quite remarkable what they were able to do, just having limited resources. But I do recall at the time that it was so difficult for them to be the official opposition that the Premier at the time joked that they were going to put out options for the public to pose questions, because they felt that they weren’t getting enough.

[6:40 p.m.]

Partly, it’s that when the opposition has resources to do the research, to have staff that help prepare many of the speeches that get presented — not all of them, but many of them — and do the research that needs to be done, I think it makes them more efficient and a stronger opposition. I believe that helps government become a better government. I noted 2002, with Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan and the difficulties they faced in that time.

Also, it allows the opposition to get more time to speak in this Legislature. I think that having listened to the debate in question periods over the last several weeks, it’s fair to say that whether you’ve got two members or three members, you should have an equal voice to raise concerns. The Green Party has raised some difficult questions for government regarding various issues, and I’m confident that if they had more resources, they’d be causing more challenges for some of our cabinet ministers.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: Yeah, it sounds kind of counterintuitive for a government to be giving opposition parties more power, but we believe that the reason why people are not paying attention to our political process is that the process is failing them. We believe that we need to strengthen our system, strengthen the resources for opposition parties, so we can have a more lively and fulsome debate. I believe that this is one of the steps to do that.

Recognized party status also provides a stronger voice for British Columbians within this Legislature. Not to toot their horns too much, but everybody here in the Legislature, I think is important. And full disclosure: I worked as staff for an opposition, so I have a great deal of respect for staff and the work that they do, both on the government side — now that I’m seeing the operations and how things operate — but a great deal of respect for the work that opposition staff do, usually with not very much means and having to produce a lot. And morale isn’t always the highest when you’re in opposition. So all of these things will add up.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: Well, we got good at it for 16 years, and I hope that they have the opportunity to get that same experience.

The other thing in this bill that….

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: The member says 16 months. I think 16 years sounds better to me, but we can have this debate, I’m sure. Maybe there’ll be a motion on Monday morning, and we can debate this. I’m grateful that the member for Chilliwack-Kent is not here, because he got fired up last time when I had a debate with him. It’s nicer to see some smiling faces on the other side.

The other part of this bill that I want to speak to is moving the fixed election date to the fall. It would leave time for a February budget to be debated and passed and for a year-end Public Accounts to be released in July, providing greater transparency and accountability.

I think what we’ve seen — over the past few elections, certainly, if not longer — is that the public always is skeptical of election year budgets, and so is the media. It’s not just this last time; it’s the time before that, the election before that. What this portion of the bill does is it gives people more certainty that the budget the government is presenting is thoughtful, is a fair reflection of the standing of the province. So I’m grateful to the Attorney General for including this piece in this bill.

It’s certainly something that I heard on the doorstep. It wasn’t the number one issue. There were many issues, I think, that were more prevalent in my community of North Delta, but certainly, this concern that our democratic system was failing people, and this piece was an important piece.

When you go into an election, everyone bases their platform pieces off a budget, and if people don’t have confidence in the budget, it undermines the whole election process. So I think this was an important piece, and I’m grateful to the Attorney General for adding that piece to it. Moving the fixed election date to the fall will provide a more transparent budget process and provide for the passage of a budget before the provincial election.

[6:45 p.m.]

I think the other piece I would say to this is that as a new MLA, I’ve had a chance now to sit in this House and listen to question period, but what I really enjoy, have enjoyed so far, is listening to the debate in the estimates in the small House. I find that that process of letting MLAs come and ask cabinet ministers questions, get really detailed in the questions and actually get really good answers back is a healthy part of our democracy.

I’m not sure how many people are watching that, but certainly, more people should. The exchanges…. I saw the Minister of Agriculture with the member for Kelowna–Lake Country have a fulsome debate. It was quite interesting. I spent three hours in the room. I learned a lot, and I appreciated it. Certainly, today with the member for Peace River South and the Minister of Health — a fulsome debate, and all of the details got fleshed out.

I think that when the budget process is reflecting the actual reality of the province and then the debate in the estimates period is more fulsome and real, it provides a greater accountability for the public as well.

It also means that…. This is about moving the date. I think that what I heard, certainly all the way through the election, was from young people and involving them in the electoral process. I think that the system now moving to October, changing the date so that students are able to vote on Saturdays, is going to drive up voter engagement. I know that….

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: Sorry? The member from Parksville says that they’re busy partying on Saturdays. You say…?

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: Oh, sports — yes, of course. We’re part of an alumni, the member from Parksville and I, so I would agree. Many people are playing sports. I think it was mentioned earlier that it might interrupt people’s shopping and banking that they might be doing. It would be a shame if voting got in the way of people having to go shopping. But I think it’s critically important for our democracy to provide people the opportunity to have a fulsome debate and vote.

We see the numbers of people not voting, and I think that everyone in this Legislature would agree that it’s a travesty to have 46 percent or 47 percent not vote. Certainly, by providing additional days for voting, in advance, as well as providing an opportunity to have the election day on Saturday, I think we fall in line with a lot of countries that use election day as a celebration.

We should be celebrating. I think that there’s been a great deal of sacrifices made for us to have the privilege to vote. And I believe that creating it on a Saturday maybe gives people an opportunity to enjoy and watch the results as they come in and be less stressed about having to go to work in the morning and, if you’re fortunate enough to win, perhaps have a little bit more of a celebration with your colleagues.

Holding an election on Saturday will also mean a higher voting turnout, which I have already mentioned, which we’ve seen in some of the studies. I think one of the….

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: Yes, we can certainly provide some studies. I’ve actually, just sitting here, Google-searched voting on Saturdays and how to drive up voting. I heard what the member for Vancouver-Quilchena said, and there’s information on there. So feel free to google that, sir. I think you’ll find some interesting things.

As with any election, if a voter does not want to or cannot vote on the actual election day, there are numerous opportunities for advance voting. As I said, there will be additional days.

I think earlier it was mentioned by, again, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena that perhaps the Jewish community would be opposed to this and that it would be against their religious beliefs. I think it’s important to note that Jewish communities — many of the communities — were consulted in this. They were asked to send back feedback and comments. Certainly, I believe if members have big concerns about that, I’m sure that can be provided to them, and the response that came back from that. But I think it is an important concern, and I’m grateful, again, to the Attorney General’s office for addressing that.

[6:50 p.m.]

Noting the hour, I would like to adjourn the debate and reserve the right to continue speaking on this amendment.

R. Kahlon moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.