Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call address in reply to the budget debate.

[2:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to continue from my initial comments delivered in the House yesterday regarding the 2018 budget tabled by the government.

I also wanted to add my thanks to the Minister of Finance for the work that she has done in facilitating the lockup for our particular caucus members and also for the staff that she provided to assist with our preparations. I very much appreciated the efforts that were made in order for us to be prepared for the budget yesterday.

The strength of our economy in British Columbia actually comes from the hard-working people of this province. I don’t think there’s anyone in the House that would disagree with that. We also recognize that everyone in the province wants to have a good job and the opportunity to make their lives and the lives of their families better. People expect that when they work hard they will reap the benefits, that they will work hard and their families will find themselves in a better place.

We have to recognize that ultimately the wealth in British Columbia is generated by hard-working people across the province, many of those in the private sector. From small start-up companies to businesses that are small and medium and large-sized, the private sector is a primary source of well-paying, family-supporting jobs in our province.

I’m sure that most members of this House have heard, and certainly we have, that business can only prosper if government gets out of the way and allows the private sector to be competitive, to compete. We know, and we’ve seen evidence. We’ve seen the story before. We’ve heard the story before that when you place a heavy burden on the private sector by piling on more taxes, by dealing with issues by adding more regulation…. All of us recognize that health and safety regulations are essential, but you simply don’t grow an economy by placing heavy burdens on businesses, the private sector in the province.

For the past several years, British Columbia has led the country in terms of economic growth. In fact, when we received the fall update from the Minister of Finance, there was recognition that this government had inherited one of the fastest-growing economies in the country — triple-A credit ratings, leading job creator in the country. British Columbia has been a leader in economic growth.

One of the reasons that that has been the case is because, as a government, we made it a priority to have a competitive tax regime that allows businesses to take root in B.C. and to flourish. Well, unfortunately, we’ve started to see a shift in that priority.

It started when the new government took over last summer. We’ve already seen the shift. We’ve started to look at that loss of competitiveness. It’s essential that we remain competitive. Yet what do we see? We see a number of significant tax changes contained in the September 27 budget update.

[2:35 p.m.]

British Columbia used to have the lowest corporate tax rate compared to the western provinces, and that matters. They are our competitors. They compete for investment. They look to attract new businesses to their provinces. Competitiveness matters.

All of that began to change when the current government increased the rate from 11 percent to 12 percent last September. It wasn’t important that British Columbia remained the leader and remained competitive. It was okay that we were now in the middle of the pack. That’s not good enough for British Columbia. For a new company looking to locate in B.C., there is no longer a significant competitive tax incentive. That matters.

To further compound the burden on the private sector, the government announced a significant increase in the carbon tax over the next four years. One of the things, as the opposition, that we are very concerned about is the lack of revenue neutrality. Now, that just sounds like a phrase, and people are wondering: “Oh, what difference does that make?” It makes a significant difference.

B.C. had received international acclaim for being one of the very first jurisdictions to adopt a truly progressive carbon tax, and much of the success and the reception from the public was because of the principle of revenue neutrality. That disappeared with the new government.

What that meant is that any increase in the carbon tax would be offset by a corresponding decrease in income tax or other forms of taxation. But now, with the current government, the carbon tax is being increased. The cost of doing business in B.C. is going up incrementally.

The really difficult part about that is that there will no longer be a requirement to report to British Columbians about how that revenue is going to be spent. There is certainly no guarantee, looking at the 2018 budget, that it will be related to any sort of comparable tax reduction. British Columbians are paying an increased carbon tax. They will not know how it will be distributed or how it will be spent, and it certainly will not be revenue-neutral. That is a significant fiscal issue for British Columbians.

The increases in the carbon tax start on April 1 of this year, and they will compound over the next four consecutive years. These are seemingly silent tax increases every year, amounting to $1.4 billion. Once again, no requirement to report out. No requirement to outline for British Columbians where those dollars will be invested.

Most of the impact will be felt in the transportation sector. Stop and think about it for a moment. From a truck that delivers food to the grocery store, to the bus that takes your child or, in my case, your grandchildren to school or the taxi you take to the airport, gas, diesel and, yes, aviation fuel are going to cost more. I’m not sure how the correlation hasn’t been made that when businesses experience the rising cost of overhead, that expense somehow will be passed on to consumers.

When we want to talk about affordability, we’d better stop to think about all those consequences that British Columbians will face when we see things like a compounded carbon tax over the next number of years. British Columbians will start to feel that pinch — where? — at the gas pumps. They are going to start to feel the impact very directly, starting April 1, when they go to fill up their vehicles.

All of the tax increases that were contained in the September budget update, frankly, set the stage for yesterday. If there’s one thing that can be said about the NDP’s first full budget, they certainly did achieve the element of surprise. If you are a business owner in British Columbia, you probably feel blindsided by the budget that was delivered yesterday. A whopping new payroll tax is being levied against the backbone of our economy: family businesses, the private sector, those entrepreneurs, the tech sector.

[2:40 p.m.]

This is a government that speaks frequently about the need to look at innovation, the knowledge economy. The very increases in this budget will hit that sector hard.

Businesses in this province woke up this morning to the reality that government now expects them to pay almost $4.2 billion more in taxes over the next three years. What did the president of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade have to say? Well, in fact, he said: “This is a hammer that came down that we didn’t see coming.”

When our government announced a 50 percent reduction in MSP premiums in Budget 2017, it was supposed to represent a $1 billion tax break for the average British Columbian. Now it appears the NDP wants that money back and more. Only now they expect businesses in B.C. to pay for it. This is fundamentally wrong. We depend on the private sector to generate employment and grow and strengthen our economy. How does this government honestly expect businesses in the province to hire more employees, especially if it is incrementally more expensive to hire someone?

Let’s be clear about this. Despite the discussion we had in question period, this government plans to double-dip with MSP premiums. Starting on January 1, 2019, the new payroll tax kicks in, one full year before the MSP premiums are phased out. What that means to business is double taxation. Meanwhile, what does it mean for the government? They rake in a $2 billion windfall, a tax windfall because of overlapping taxes. This impact will be felt by small and medium-sized businesses the most.

Today one of the most difficult answers to hear in question period was when the Minister of Finance said they will only pay…. Well, I can tell you that already today we’ve heard from small businesses, from non-profits, from organizations who, if and when this takes place, either will be forced to reduce their staff to cover the incremental costs or certainly will not be hiring additional staff. The impact will be felt by small businesses.

The members opposite may want to think of small as five or six people, but let’s be clear. A $500,000 payroll threshold includes businesses that may have ten or 12 or 14 employees, and the definition of “small business” is a business with 50 employees or less. Make no mistake about it. They will feel the impacts of the jobs tax. The Finance Minister claimed that a $500,000 payroll threshold will exempt most small operators with ten or 12 employees. However, the government is counting on $4.2 billion worth of revenue over four years. The money has to be coming from somewhere.

Let’s go back to the Vancouver Board of Trade once again: “Small business is defined as 50 employees or less. This will hurt.” He is quite correct, as 47 percent of small businesses in British Columbia have less than 50 employees, and this pain will be felt by thousands of small businesses right across the province.

For example, for a small business with an annual payroll of $1.5 million, the annual cost will be about $30,000. Standing in this Legislature, that may not sound like a lot, but when you are striving and working as hard as you can, working along the margins to keep your business operating, $30,000 can make the difference between operating that small business, hiring new people or, in fact, letting people go. That’s quite a tax hike to come out of nowhere. The small business community is already being hit with a 34 percent increase to the minimum wage in the next four years.

Here’s what the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has to say: “When I look at the dog pile of increasing corporate tax, increasing minimum wage, loss of neutrality around the carbon tax, and now we get to add to that a payroll tax, that’s going to leave business, by 2021, footing an almost $2 billion bill.”

[2:45 p.m.]

They go on to add: “By the time we reach 2021, the business community is picking up 70 percent of the tab.” That’s a lot. It’s too much. The impacts are real, and I think it will stifle growth and investment in key sectors.

Let’s just say that again. This isn’t about invisible people, and it’s not about whether or not there is merit in adding more child care and looking at the housing sector in British Columbia. But you have to stop to think about who is responsible for growing the economy in British Columbia — those small business owners.

The vast majority of businesses in British Columbia are small or medium-size enterprises. They drive the economy. Here is what they had to say: “The impacts are real, and I think it will stifle growth and investment in key sectors.”

Jock Finlayson of the B.C. Business Council says the new payroll tax came as “a nasty surprise.” The Canadian Federation of Independent Business vice-president took a look at the $500,000 payroll threshold and said the following: “It’s probably too low. A payroll of $500,000 may seem like a lot, but that’s probably only eight to ten people. We would like to see that threshold double.”

Business is right to feel blindsided. They should.

One of the first things this government announced was a medical services premiums review panel last November — one, I might add, of over two dozen government reviews. The panel included former NDP Finance Minister Paul Ramsey to examine how to replace that missing MSP revenue. According to the terms of reference of the medical services premiums review panel, it was supposed to present a report to the government on March 31 of this year.

Certainly, as the official opposition, we have to ask why on earth government is engaging with panels and experts and consultants if the government has no intention to listen. They are going to produce mounds of reports that, if this is any example, will amount to nothing.

Again, according to the terms of reference, the MSP review panel was to provide an analysis based on the following criteria: fairness, efficiency, business competitiveness, simplicity and revenue stability. Well, with respect to fairness, efficiency and business competitiveness, this government appears to have blindsided not only the entire business community in British Columbia; they also gave their own review panel short shrift.

The initial report of the MSP panel specifically recommended that the government should not double-dip with the new payroll tax. Here’s what the report says — not my words but the words of the very people selected by the government to provide them with advice: “First, whatever mechanisms are chosen to replace MSP revenue, we feel strongly that there should not be any phase-in of the new measures and phase-out of MSP. Rather, we suggest that MSP be eliminated as at a specific date and that the new revenue measures take effect fully at the same time.”

Furthermore, the initial report of the MSP panel had this to say about the so-called employer health tax: “A payroll tax would reduce the competitiveness of B.C. businesses at a time when they are facing several challenges, including expected increases to the minimum wage; CPP increases; and recent tax reform in the United States, which improved the competitive position of many U.S. businesses.”

The current government should have waited a few weeks and heard what the former NDP Finance Minister, Paul Ramsey, would have to say. But I guess the government is just too anxious to get on with spending and taxing their way to the bottom again.

With respect to their desire for a simple solution, the NDP can probably say goodbye to a lot of business potential in this province. And when a lot of existing companies in British Columbia pull up stakes and move out to greener pastures, we’re going to see whether or not this new payroll tax is “revenue stable.”

I think what bothers people the most — and it certainly bothers us — is that the NDP just keeps piling on new taxes.

[2:50 p.m.]

Since assuming office last July, the NDP is escalating tax increases — they are either in place or announced — to the tune of an annual $8 billion. Eight billion dollars’ worth of new tax measures, all in less than seven months. Given the fact that the Finance Minister has left herself only with a razor-thin margin in terms of a surplus — $219 million in the current fiscal year — we are very concerned about the sustainability of the fiscal plan. We see a highly ambitious plan to spend money, but there’s very little way of growing revenues in a sustainable way.

It’s worth noting that British Columbia is not an island on its own. However — and I will digress for a moment — you may have noticed the full-page ad that appeared in every single major newspaper this morning. We see a map of Canada with the province of B.C. distinctly separated from the rest of the country. It is, in fact, a message from the government of Alberta. The headline reads: “We Used to Be So Close.”

It’s a rather strong message directed at our government in British Columbia. It says that British Columbia and Alberta share the same goals. But it also says: “The B.C. government is now trying to break the rules of Confederation and ignore the national climate action plan, choosing only to agree with parts of the federal decision,” and furthermore, “this disregard for the rule of law puts our national economy in danger, and it could be the end to the national climate plan.” These are very strong words.

Interjection.

S. Bond: I know the leader of the Green Party is going to have his opportunity to speak any time now. I am the designated speaker.

These are very strong words. They’re not coming from the Official Opposition. They’re coming from a fellow NDP government and our closest neighbour, Alberta.

We are one province in a country that is currently facing an uncertain future with respect to the North American Free Trade Agreement. The same applies to the uncertain outcome of the softwood lumber dispute. It could be years before that is resolved. It’s one of the reasons that we are deeply concerned about the sustainability of this budget, particularly with a razor-thin surplus of just over $200 million. There are external considerations — North American Free Trade Agreement negotiations, softwood lumber. It could be years before that is resolved.

If we have a wildfire season anything close to last year…. All of us know how very difficult that was for British Columbians. It showed the strength, the spirit and the resiliency of people who live in our province, but it had a devastating impact on many regions in British Columbia, including those of many of my colleagues. If we have a wildfire season anything close to last year, costing well over $650 million, the rather thin margin of $219 million could definitely plunge British Columbia into deficit financing.

Furthermore, it’s worth noting that British Columbia was able to balance the budget over the past five years, but it did so — and we recognize that — in an era of very low interest rates. That era now appears to be gone. For the first time in years, the central bank of Canada raised the prime lending rate in July. It raised it again last September and again, barely a month ago, on January 17.

Rising interest rates usually indicate a strong economy. However, the Bank of Canada governor was quite frank about the uncertainty we face as a country with respect to NAFTA. That could mean that all bets are off with respect to this government’s rather optimistic economic forecast. A sudden downturn in the economy due to NAFTA and its uncertainty could throw a wrench into all of the fiscal assumptions. This would leave British Columbia very vulnerable.

While we do have a highly diversified economy, there is no escaping the fact that the United States remains our number one trading partner. But the simple fact remains that the economy is always cyclical. In a global context, the economy is subject to the ebbs and flows of various markets.

[2:55 p.m.]

On January 18, barely a month ago, Moody’s Investor Service acknowledged the many advantages that the current government inherited from the previous government: continued economic growth underpinned by a strong and diversified economy, five consecutive budget surpluses and a budget surplus of $2.1 billion.

However, Moody’s January update affirmed B.C.’s triple-A credit rating, with the following warning: “The province’s credit rating could be downgraded if net direct or indirect debt were to be sustained above 95 percent of revenue across multiple years, impairing the fiscal flexibility of the province. In addition, a loss of fiscal discipline and a return of consecutive deficits or a deterioration of debt affordability due to a faster-than-expected rise in interest rates would also exert downward pressure on the rating.” The message is very clear.

Yesterday I reminded this House about a fundamental fact. If there is one document that clearly helps to define a government, it is their provincial budget. It does provide an outline of government priorities, and it details its spending plans. I consider — and, I think, the members of the opposition, certainly having sat in government for a long period of time — that the provincial budget is an accountability document. It is a report card that voters can look at and see if this government is in fact delivering on its campaign promises.

Today it is equally important for us to talk about what is left out of a budget. During the last election, the NDP specifically campaigned on three notable promises. There were many but on three notable promises. I know that because even when meeting with my constituents — particularly families, those with middle incomes, people struggling and grappling with the issue of child care — I can tell you they understood.

The promise that was made was called $10-a-day daycare. There was a promise to build 114,000 affordable housing units and a $400 annual rebate for renters. While all three parties that are represented in the House today had various proposals on child care and housing, the NDP promises were very specific.

I know that there are lots of middle-class parents out there who voted, who wanted to see those promises delivered. They took this government at its word. There are lots of people who voted because they were expecting an annual $400 renters rebate. Where is that in the budget? It is nowhere in this budget.

There were lots more people who were looking for solutions on housing affordability. As I did yesterday, I commend the government for these steps that they have taken to look at the issues of child care and housing. But let’s not do that without remembering exactly what they told British Columbians.

It’s not a matter of debate between three parties in this House; it’s a matter of what they knocked on doors and told British Columbians. They said there would be a $400 annual renters rebate. They also said that there were going to be solutions for housing — 114,000 units. It wasn’t just: “We’re going to build a lot.” It was 114,000 housing units.

Budget 2018 doesn’t correspond to any of those campaign promises. In fact, they are broken promises. This government is walking a very fine line between too many election promises and pressure to spend more and more on services that will be paid for by tax increases and a reliance on economic growth, which we all know is cyclical. We can’t predict exactly how much the economy will grow next year or the year after that.

[3:00 p.m.]

We look at the promises that were made about child care, for example. All of us recognize that there are families today who, after this budget, will be in a better position when it comes to dealing with their child care issues. That’s an important recognition, whether you’re on the opposition side or whether you’re in government. That does matter. It makes a difference. Those steps are important. But this budget does not contain a $10-a-day universal daycare program. Today there are families who are realizing that their hopes for the kind of support that they were promised by this government on the doorsteps is not coming.

The same can be said for the promise around housing. While, again, there is certainly progress being made, particularly focusing on those families that are most vulnerable and most in need — and every member of this House agrees that those steps are important and necessary — it wasn’t the opposition that promised 114,000 units of affordable housing. In fact, this budget is about 80,000 units short.

Anyone that runs a household knows that it’s easy to spend money. The trick is trying to figure out how to find that right balance between generating the revenue, making the money and staying on budget. The people of British Columbia do not want to return to the era of deficit financing.

We remember a time when B.C. was a have-not province. I remember that it was one of the things that drove me to consider running for public office at the provincial level. It was an absolute embarrassment that a province so full of resources, the richness of the people that we have and the hard work that they do relied on equalization payments from the federal government just to stay afloat. We do not want to see that happen to our province again.

Canada is relying on us to lead the rest of the country through an era of uncertainty. While we recognize that important steps have been taken in this budget, we also recognize that promises were made. There are promises that British Colombians made choices about when they were told by this government that there would be a universal daycare program, there would be 114,000 units of housing, there would be a renters rebate, and the list goes on.

The most significant concern that we have as the official opposition is the fact that when you look at the spending rate, the growth rate of spending in British Columbia today under the leadership of this government, it is currently double that of revenue growth. The economy has served British Columbia well, as it did in this budget. But there are no guarantees that that economic growth will continue. Simply put, this is a budget that is based on increasing taxes, a raft of new taxes, in order to fund some of the initiatives that this government promised.

I appreciate the time that I’ve been given to speak on behalf of the official opposition. We intend to hold the government to account. We will be watching in the days ahead that the commitments made in this budget are carried out. It is an accountability document. We’ve already seen that there are major pieces missing that British Columbians expected to see. While progress has been made in important areas that every member of this House would agree on, there is still much work to be done. With that, I will end my remarks.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to Budget 2018. It’s refreshing to see a budget that puts focus back on people, and for that, I and my caucus colleagues are very, very welcome. The government has provided an excellent range of tools in the budget, but what matters are the details.

[3:05 p.m.]

While we have yet to have had time to explore in further detail what the actual implementation is that we’ll be discussing when we debate Bill 2, a budget implementation act, at this stage, I’ll say that we’re quite reassured that clearly, front and centre in government’s mind is an approach towards starting to think, which has been missing for some time, about intergenerational equity, about doing today what’s good not only for this generation but also for the generation afterwards.

British Columbia has lost ground on earnings since 1976, four decades ago, on average by about $8,000 to $10,000, while at the same time, the costs of housing and living costs have skyrocketed.

This budget focuses on two critical areas, one being child care — substantive investments in child care — and the other being in housing. I’ll come to both of those separately, discuss in detail what we like and don’t like with respect to the housing initiative, talk about our confidence and supply agreement and, as well, talk in detail about what we do and do not like. Well, actually, frankly, there’s not much we don’t like about the direction that the child care policy is moving forward, and we’ll be quite clear in our support of that.

One of the things I’d like to see at the get-go, as we move towards actually embracing the idea of intergenerational equity here in this Legislature, is that future budgets should start to report age trends in terms of government spending and revenue for those over 65, those under 45 and those in between.

Why this is important is when we start to look at it in this particular budget, we see that, for example, medicare gets a substantial increase, a dramatic increase, to the tune of $832 million. That’s 3.2 times the new investment in child care spending.

The 2018 budget once again grows by spending faster for seniors than for the youngest British Columbians. If you actually do an analysis and do a cost analysis, on average, every senior gains $421 in new spending in this budget, while each person under the age of 45 gets a mere $261.

Now, I’m not saying we’re going to criticize the overall budget. But what I will say is that we need to start reporting out the data as per the age groups. As our demographic, as our baby boomers, age, there’s a concern that we’ll continue to throw more money after health — more money after more money onto the health care system — while neglecting some of the issues, profound issues, facing the next generation. We need to start thinking about that generation a little bit more. I’ll come to that when I discuss the climate plan, or lack thereof, as detailed in this budget.

In B.C., there has been a growing inequity between those who have and those who don’t have. Those who don’t have, have compounding problems with costs that have been rising for them — fixed costs like MSP, fixed costs like ICBC rates, if they’re required to drive, and so forth.

Let me start by saying, with respect to MSP, that we’re delighted to see that government has taken steps in that direction to eliminate MSP in the coming years. We do have some concerns — shared, clearly, as we heard earlier, with the official opposition — that the plan to actually eliminate MSP precludes the actual submission of the final report of the committee that was struck and designed to advise government as to the plans it should do to reduce, eliminate MSP. It seems on the one hand, you have a committee. On the other hand, you’ve already prescribed an outcome.

With that said, we understand the rationale that government is taking for what members opposite have called a “jobs tax.” It’s not a jobs tax.

Right now in British Columbia, most major employers have negotiated benefits with their employees. Those benefits have negotiated contracts. Those contracts very often, more own than not, include a negotiated benefit where the employer pays the MSP premium.

That benefit, when it was negotiated…. I say that as someone who’s acted as the chief negotiator for a University of Victoria faculty two times in negotiating. That benefit that is negotiated is costed against a settlement. It’s a cost that would otherwise have been spent with workers in that organization on other issues. So the approach that the government is suggesting, while clearly going to meet some confusion and resistance, is one that is done in other provinces.

[3:10 p.m.]

There’s a recognition that as we move from a system where employers had to negotiate this benefit with employees to one where employers are likely going to pay about the same amount, in many cases, as they are already doing, perhaps some a little more than others…. But now, instead of negotiating it in future cost settlements, it’s part of the costs of doing business.

Now, we recognize and understand the concern that this came out of nowhere. The B.C. Greens, in the last election, campaigned, of course, on eliminating MSP through mirroring the progressive health care premium that we see in Ontario, which is one that actually has the person paying that. That would also have been able to have been a negotiated benefit. Again, I won’t have time to go into the details of why we favour that approach, as one that retained revenue, but it did so in a progressive fashion.

Please let me start by highlighting some numbers on what clearly is the defining issue in British Columbia as we speak: the issue of affordability in terms of finding a place to live, either through ownership or through renting.

Since July of 2017, at which point the B.C. NDP formed government, we’ve had some increases. We’ve had, from July to January, a 4 percent increase in the costs of condos in the capital regional district. We have had in the Lower Mainland, from July 2017 to January 2018, a 10.1 percent increase in the average cost of condos to an average of $665,400 now. In Victoria, it’s $450,600 on average. While we have been waiting for government to deliver and offer a plan on housing, the prices have gone up in the CRD by 4 percent and by 10.1 percent in the Lower Mainland.

In question period today, I was somewhat troubled by the answer I got when I posed the question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and asked what she meant in her plan when they talked about the issue of stabilizing our housing market. Does stabilizing mean we’re going to stop at present values? Does it mean we’re going to slow the development of the increase? Does it mean reverting back a little bit?

Frankly, I don’t know many people who could afford the average condominium price of $650,000, when the average salary is substantially below $100,000 for a family, in the order of…. I don’t remember the exact number, but I will say this. The housing component of the budget, while recognizing…. At least, finally, we have a government realizing there’s a problem. It’s not the bold action that we were looking for but rather a timid approach towards dealing with a problem that, frankly, I don’t think will be dealt with through the actions that are put forward.

I obviously welcome many of the steps that are in this. But when you have revenue projections in the budget for this year and future years that require substantial amounts on the revenue side to come in from the property transfer tax and the speculators tax, you start to recognize that, in fact, this is not dealing with the problem. The whole purpose of a speculators tax is to reduce speculation, to set us on the path towards a very little amount of revenue coming in from that because speculators are no longer in our market to the extent that they are now. But government has budgeted that way. They’ve budgeted $200 million, remaining flat in that regard, and that, to me, is worrying.

If I stand back and look at the housing aspect in this budget, what I see is government viewing this as a cash cow to create revenue for which they can deliver on their affordable housing supply-side plan. That is, we’re going to continue to allow speculation, foreign speculation, money coming in from everywhere in our housing market. We’ll tax it a bit more, and we’ll use that as a source of revenue to build affordable housing. It doesn’t deal with the problem. The problem gets bigger and bigger, and we’re trying to actually put a band-aid by creating supply that will not address the fundamental problem.

[3:15 p.m.]

Right now in British Columbia…. Real estate, leasing and renting. Those three things — real estate, leasing and renting — account for 18 percent of our GDP. Eighteen percent of our gross domestic product comes from real estate, leasing and renting. Government has clearly recognized the substantial component of our economy associated with such sector, and rather than recognizing that this is unhealthy, it’s viewing it as a source of income to build for the future.

Let’s take a look at some of the specifics in the policy. In terms of stabilizing the market, one of the things government is proposing to do is to tax speculators who are driving up housing costs. The annual charge will be half a percent in 2018 — which is clearly a barrier to nobody, a half a percent speculation tax in 2018 — moving to 2 percent in 2019.

The first question I have is this: why would you do half a percent in 2018? Why would you start so low? Why wouldn’t you increase that? If you wanted to have a transitional one, why not 1 percent in 2018, 2 percent in 2019? We’re not sure where that number comes from.

We recognize that there are upfront exemptions for long-term rental properties and so forth and for most principal residences, but I’d like to outline a number of problems that I see with this speculators tax approach.

We all know, everybody in British Columbia will know, friends and family who live in the Prairies in the summer. That is where they grew up. That’s where their home is. But they recognize, for financial reasons, for other reasons — they may be elderly, and it may be unsafe to walk around in the cold — that they want to live in a warmer part of Canada during the winter months. So they might have a condo in downtown Victoria, in Parksville, in Nanaimo, on the Sunshine Coast or in Kelowna — an apartment that they spend four months a year in, a primary place to live.

These people now will be subject, if things go ahead as I read it, to a speculators tax. They are not speculating; they are living there for four months. They’re contributing to our economy by buying food, by buying electricity, by spending their money in our stores, by buying music, by buying records…. I buy records. Others might buy records too. Those are the vinyl ones. Yes, I do. Sadly, I sold my records, and then I buy them all back. But that’s another story that we won’t go into today. That’s a problem.

There are also British Columbians who may, for example, have a condo on Mount Washington. They might have a condo on Big White. They might have a condo in Apex or some other ski resort, Silver Star. This is not speculation. In many cases, these condos are given to friends and family if they’re not being used. I have troubles and concerns that this will be treated….

This budget is missing what the real problem is. The real problem — we all know what it is — is government is afraid to take it head-on. The real problem is offshore money flowing into our market here purely in terms of speculation, purely in terms of an investment to use our housing stock, our land as a commodity that can be traded or bought and sold — much like potash or gold or wheat or natural gas or oil.

Housing is a place for people to live, a place for people to rent to others, to vacation to. It is not something that we should view solely as a speculative place to dump and, heaven forbid, launder, in some cases, as we know, offshore capital.

We know that jurisdictions like New Zealand and Australia have stepped in and dealt with it. We know it was successful in Australia. We know Prince Edward Island stepped in and dealt with this years ago. We know that jurisdictions all across Europe have stepped in to deal with this — some in much stronger measures than others, like in Denmark. You must live in Denmark for five years before you can own property.

The reason why is quite simple. When you are a stable democracy, particularly in one of the most beautiful parts of the world, your land, your capital is viewed as a safe haven to park money.

There are 4.6 million people here in British Columbia and 7.6 billion people in the world. There are an awful lot of millionaires in the world looking to park their money in safe havens. They can stick it into offshore bank accounts in the Bahamas, or they can stick it into real estate here in British Columbia.

As we’ve seen highlighted in many of the stories, whether it be through Kathy Tomlinson’s good work in the Globe and Mail or Sam Cooper’s good work in the Postmedia, there are an awful lot of shenanigans going on in terms of money transfer into our market here. That’s what we should have dealt with. That’s why we put forward our bold plan for housing action, not the #timid plan that we see here before us today.

[3:20 p.m.]

That’s not to say that there aren’t good first steps here. There are.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I say “hashtag” for all those people at home riveted to this who are live-tweeting out our budget response here today.

Again, I come back to that. I worry that government is treating the speculators tax as a form of revenue, as opposed to actually dealing with the problem. Why is it we’re afraid? I know after we introduced our #boldaction plan on housing, the public support was overwhelming. I have never seen public support at that scale like I saw for that issue.

Recall about three years ago, when I stood here calling for the elimination of MSP, and we initiated a campaign for public support. All of us in this House were inundated with emails about people who felt it was a regressive one-size-fits-all tax. All three parties campaigned on eliminating it.

The response to the foreign or offshore capital ban pales in comparison to the response that we saw with respect to the call for a foreign buyers…. When I say foreign buyers, it’s people who don’t pay income tax here in Canada. Again, government’s collecting the data to know who they are, because government is now going to have the speculation tax based on where you pay your income tax.

If you’re going to have the speculation tax into where you’re going to pay your income tax, you’re putting in place the structure to actually collect the data to know where people pay their tax. It’s very simple there, at that stage, to say: “If you pay your tax and you’re not paying your tax in Canada — or you’re not a Canadian resident who happens to be posted in some other jurisdiction but you are actually Canadian — you should be able to own property here.”

We don’t think it’s right for somebody sitting in an office tower in Luxembourg to recognize that they have a windfall of $1 billion that they need to actually park somewhere. “So let’s park it in land in British Columbia.” That’s fundamentally wrong because it ends up increasing the costs for all British Columbians. That Luxembourg office tower, when they invest, is not paying the social costs associated with affordability. They’re not paying the food costs associated with affordability.

I had a delegation from northern B.C. come and see me when I was at UBCM, profoundly troubled by what was going on there with thousands of hectares being bought up by foreign corporations and converted to produce hay, not for British Columbians or Canadians but to freeze-dry or vacuum pack that hay and ship it abroad.

What is the social cost of doing that? The price of hay goes up in the area because much of it’s being shipped. That’s one. Two, access to land goes down and prices go up. So we end up paying the consequences of not dealing with this foreign capital flowing in. Frankly, I think government has failed on that aspect of dealing with the housing issue.

The government response is to say: “Let’s increase the foreign buyers’ tax.” Okay, another policy instrument that you have. But again, in what can only be described as one of the greatest examples of Whac-a-Mole, the government proposes to move it from not only the Vancouver region but into the CRD, Nanaimo and the Central Okanagan.

Well, I can tell you, as a matter of certainty, what’s going to happen here on Vancouver Island. It’s going to have zero effect on the input of foreign capital. But I will say that Cowichan Valley regional district, in between Nanaimo and Victoria, is going to see a massive spike in property. Parksville, Qualicum, Comox, Courtenay, Campbell River — just watch what’s going to happen up there on top of what already exists in these communities in terms of housing. You look at the Okanagan. Well, good luck, Kamloops. Watch what’s going to happen there.

You can’t play Whac-a-Mole on an issue like this. There needs to be a policy solution that is broadly applied across British Columbia. We increase the buyers’ tax from 15 to 20 percent. Again, what’s the signal it’s sending? It’s saying we’re going to generate more revenue from those who are buying. The interpretation I have on that is that government is seeking a source of money to build the affordable housing that they plan to build, but not actually taking steps to deal with the problem.

It’s a little bit like a child’s story that I read, and I still read it today to schools when I go in. It’s a story about a king who likes cheese. The king likes cheese so much that his castle gets infested with mice. The book’s called The King, the Mice and the Cheese.

The king doesn’t like these mice, so what he does is call in his wise folk and asks them: “What are we going to do?” They say: “Well, we have the solution, the only solution. Bring in cats to get rid of the mice.”

[3:25 p.m.]

The king does that, and his castle gets infested with cats. What do you do? Wise folk come in and advise him to bring in dogs, which get rid of the cats, but you’re left with a dog problem. So they bring in lions to get rid of the dogs, and you’re left with a lion problem. They bring in elephants to get rid of the lions, and now you have an elephant problem. How are you going to get rid of the elephants? You bring mice back in to get rid of the elephants. Now you’re back where you started.

When I do this with kids in class, the metaphor I usually attach it to is climate change. But this metaphor actually applies directly to the housing plan here. I ask the kids in the class: “What do you think the wise folk are going to do now that they’re back where they started?” Invariably, and in unison, the children will say: “Stop eating the cheese.” But that’s not what the wise folk do in this story. They decide that they have to share the cheese with the mice. The analogy with climate change is direct. The adults can’t give up what they’re doing. The kids say: “Stop using oil.”

Now, in the case of housing, it’s exactly the same thing. We know what the problem is. The problem is the eating of the cheese. The problem is offshore capital. Rather than dealing with the problem, we skirt around it with all sorts of this and that and others — Whac-a-mole here and policy over there and second-guess over here. We’re not actually dealing with the problem.

Again, I look forward to exploring some of this in Bill 2, when we debate that at some point in the future.

Another component of their plan, another component that is odd, is increasing property purchase tax on the value of homes over $3 million. That’s less odd than actually increasing school tax on houses over $3 million. Now, I get that this acts as a little bit of a barrier to sales of homes above that, and it puts a little clamp on. It’s not a bad step for tax fairness from the property transfer tax point of view. It’s kind of scary, when we’re one of the very, very few jurisdictions that has property transfer tax, that we are relying so heavily on revenue from that to meet our general revenue targets. It’s a little scary that we are hoping that this windfall continues. But the real problem is the school tax.

The reason why that concerns me is that there are many people, who for no reason other than the fact that they live in a house that’s gone up in value, will now be required to pay a substantive increase, or 3 percent increase, in school tax. It’s small, actually. I forget the number, but it’s an increase in taxes which they otherwise would not have to pay if their home wasn’t valued so much.

I know we can say, if it’s seniors who are living in the home, that seniors can defer their property taxes until such time as the house is sold. But I can tell you of personal stories that I know of individuals whose parents died. Those individuals whose parents died were living in the home. It’s the only asset they have. They’ve grown up in the home. They might have special needs. They might need a little different support. They’re barely struggling to make ends meet, but they have a home to live in.

Now, for many cases, you might argue: well, they should sell the home and find another. That’s not always possible for people. So here I worry that by broad-scale taxing — again, on everyone, for school taxes — we’re not actually dealing with the problem. We know what the problem is. If you want to reduce the cost of the homes, deal with where the money is coming from, and that’s from offshore.

I do like the fact that there is some legislation being brought forward — from a tax fairness perspective, it’s quite good — to allow cities to regulate Airbnbs and the likes of that. But again, it’s not dealing with the problem. The problem is the growing amount of our supply that’s used in a fashion to actually have short-term vacation rentals.

Again, we could empower much more interesting ways of doing this, by requiring a business licence, slightly different zoning restrictions and so forth. I would have hoped that we’d have more discussions on that.

To the issue of cracking down on fraud and closing loopholes. My expectations were extremely high here in this area, and I was profoundly disappointed in the lack of action that I saw in terms of the actual closing of loopholes. The government’s response is: “We’re going to collect data.” Okay, I recognize that collecting data is always a good thing.

[3:30 p.m.]

The reality is we know that there are loopholes. We know, right now, that there are people who are actually going into partnerships and avoiding foreign buyer tax by having one of those partners a Canadian and the other one a partner who’s not a Canadian. We know that’s ongoing. In fact, if you want to know how to do it, all you’ve got to do is read the Chinese-language signs on bus stops in Burnaby or Richmond. They’ll tell you how to do it.

We know that these are being abused. These are existing loopholes that are there. We don’t need to study them more. We need to close them.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The bare trust loophole that the now Attorney General, when a critic, was pointing out time and time again needs to be closed. The government response: collect the data, study it, maybe something in the future.

A crisis requires bold action. A crisis does not require standing back, reflecting upon it and then maybe making a decision down the road. If we look at…. Some of the registry issues are good. The requirements to have accurate data.

Again, the presales offshore. We’re requiring developers to collect information on presales. That’s not dealing with the problem. The problem is we know that condos are being presold in offshore markets at below the amount they are actually being sold for here in British Columbia. So rather than collect more data, we should be closing those loopholes. I’m saddened that the government did not take the bold action that would have led to us doing that.

I worry, in terms of auditing and enforcement powers. Although there’s discussion here, in fact the budget does not have the staff required, not only in enforcement and compliance in the housing issue but also in all other sectors. Whether it be Environment, FLNRO or others, we see an increase in civil servants, but the discussion of that increase is not containing language about the need for more compliance and enforcement staff in these areas.

In terms of the ALR, the agricultural land reserve, I’m dismayed that government has not taken steps to limit foreign speculation in the ALR. It’s out of control now. Again, the foreign buyers tax. You put it in, in Vancouver. We know that the foreign buyers tax put a temporary damper on single-family homes, but people just parked their capital in agricultural land in Delta. They parked their capital in the Interior. They parked their capital in condos in Kelowna. They parked it in condos in Victoria.

We should have been closing the agricultural land reserve loopholes in this budget. Really, delay is not an excuse.

Again, it’s refreshing to see that there was some language about working with the federal government to protect tax evasion and put in place permanent provincial-federal government action to combat money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance. These are obviously good first steps in addressing tax fraud and money laundering to ensure that governments have the necessary information to enforce real estate taxation, but they’re not adequate on their own.

We were looking for far more substantive action. Where are the people? Where is the budget announcement that there will be an increased number of people enforcing these rules here in British Columbia? Where’s the funding in that regard?

We find that starting in 2019 — why not 2018, in July? — the province will collect SIN numbers, social insurance numbers, as part of the homeowner grant application process. We know that there is some fraud going on in homeowner grant applications, and it’s good to see that there’s enforcement there. However, again, this is but a small, but important, step in terms of dealing with the overall plan.

The government continues to focus, much like the former government did, on the issue of supply. Somehow, if we build more, we’ll solve the problem. I can tell you that every time I drive to Vancouver along Cambie Street into town, I can see that there’s a lot of construction — large land assemblies going on. If you go to Burnaby, Metrotown — lots of highrises going on, lots of them being built, lots of vacancies in them.

What’s happening here is you’re displacing low-income renters, the duplexes on Cambie Street, with high-end condos and townhouses. This is not dealing with the issue. Again, if we dealt with the offshore capital coming in, we’d temper that.

[3:35 p.m.]

It’s not only happening there. You can see the land assemblies in downtown Kelowna. They’re happening all over downtown Kelowna. You see the land assemblies happening in Victoria. These are land assemblies that are happening to change what’s typically lower-end rental housing with upper-end condos.

It’s not against condos. But we need to have a plan, a bold plan, to actually deal with our housing crisis, rather than a Whac-a-Mole plan, putting band-aids on little areas of it, which is not actually getting us to where we need to go.

There are some other good things. Of course, I was pleased to see that partnerships are being built in the area of affordability. The housing hub is an interesting idea, particularly in light of the fact that it’s being funded by the elimination of the B.C. HOME partnership. It clearly was an utterly outrageous plan brought in by the B.C. Liberals to incentivize those who can barely qualify for a mortgage to take on more risk than they should otherwise take on.

What sort of economic principles were they building their policy on? The economics of causing bankruptcy was basically the plan. I guess they were concerned about not enough people having foreclosures, which is why the government wanted to incentivize foreclosures. The fact that the government introduced those, when the last government was here, was, frankly, a reckless approach to incentivize purchases with people who couldn’t otherwise.

I’m pleased to see that the government has eliminated that. It’s creating something called the housing hub. It’s an interesting idea: an organization that will partner with NGOs and others to actually look about ways of funding and moving forward with affordable housing. That’s a good idea that we could support.

It’s also interesting to see that the municipal and regional district revenues are going to be able to be expanded to actually be used for affordable housing. It’ll be interesting to see how that goes, but there’ll also be some concern that municipalities will take that as somehow being downloading of federal jurisdiction or provincial jurisdiction onto municipalities.

I was looking for other things that we didn’t see in the housing aspect of the budget. We didn’t see a tax on flipping. We know, everybody here will know, somebody or some other people who go into a home, they’re there for six months, and then day they move to the next house. They’re there for six months, and one day they move to the next house. They’re there for six months, and one day….

There are means and ways that we can actually step in to ensure that houses are treated as places to live, not ways of avoiding capital gains tax, which is basically what’s happening there. We also noticed that there was no ability for local governments to tax empty homes. Jurisdictions across British Columbia have said they want the ability to tax vacant homes if they so choose.

Ours — what I like to call #boldactionplanonhousing, as opposed to #timidstepplan, which we see before us — was actually to empower municipalities, without bringing the House back, to enable them to introduce vacancy taxes or, frankly, a foreign buyer tax, if you didn’t have a foreign buyers ban in place. But again, we didn’t see that there.

If we look in general…. I like to give letter grades. You can take the academic out of the university. You can’t take it out…. It’s like the speaker…. You can take the teacher out of the classroom. You can’t take the classroom out of the teacher. The letter grade on this housing plan — C. Not a very bold housing plan.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has requested a meeting in office hours. We will do that after. The member for Chilliwack has suggested that great inflation is occurring here in British Columbia. That’s a good sign. If I have both extremes, it must actually be a fair grade that’s being offered here too.

I want to move to child care. While I’ll give a C to the housing plan, I’ll give a high A-plus to the child care plan. It is an exceptional plan. We would have….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Thank you.

The building of a child care and early childhood education system presents us with an unparalleled opportunity to provide the next generation of British Columbians the best possible outcomes for success to set B.C. on the path forward. We’ve heard a lot about: “You didn’t say $10-a-day.” But as we’ve said all along, and if you actually look at the policy embedded in the $10-a-day plan, you’ll see it coming forward right now.

[3:40 p.m.]

What matters in British Columbia is good public policy, and we see that brought forward in this very innovative approach to child care, a historic investment in child care.

Mind you, had we had a B.C. Green majority government in this Legislature, there would have been an even more historic investment, as we had campaigned on over $4 billion over four years through sources of revenue that we had identified as to where we would have collected it — $4 billion over four years and $4 billion in education over four years. If you want to make it a priority, you can make it a priority. It’s clearly a priority to this government. There’s no question.

We know that the first years of life are a phase of prolific neural development. MRI studies indicate that 80 percent of all neural connections are formed by age three. It’s also a time when children’s brain development is highly influenced by their environment. For infants and toddlers, research quite clearly suggests that they’re capable of complex thought, and their development at this stage can impact the course of their life.

We know that there’s broad consensus that children who have access to high-quality, affordable child care enter adulthood healthier, better educated and less likely to be involved in the criminal justice system. These outcomes contribute to long-term health, happiness and higher earnings as well as higher tax revenues for government and reduced government spending.

That’s why, in our campaign, we recognized that the single most important investment you can make in any society is in early childhood education, child care and the K-to-12 education system. It’s because if a child gets off on the right start, you don’t need to provide the social services — the housing issues, the fentanyl crisis services — down the road. You save money by investing up front.

While this is a good step in that regard, we look forward to seeing how this actually plays out as we move forward. Without any doubt, this is critical, this child care plan. In our confidence and supply agreement, we argued that what’s important to both parties, in terms of shared values, was an investment in child care and early childhood education — to improve quality, expand spaces, increase affordability and ensure child care is accessible for all families — with a focus on early childhood education.

One of the things that’s clearly missing in this is a recognition that one of the barriers to effective child care and early childhood education is access to people who are actually going to work as early childhood educators and child care providers. The reason why it’s missing is…. We talk about investment here in the budget in terms of training new people. That’s great. But if you’re going to offer these trained new people minimum wage, which is not much different in many cases…. It’s hard for these people to want to aspire to go into the career of early childhood education or child care if they could earn a better wage being a waitress, working on a construction site, building a house.

We want to ensure that when we have professions in our society that are so critical — teachers, early childhood educators — we attract the best and brightest into that field by valuing it as a society and ensuring that we pay them what we, as a society, believe they deserve. We saw that missing in the budget. We didn’t see a focus on how we’re going to actually raise the wages of people to encourage people into this area.

In the budget we see language about increasing more spaces — that’s good — and increasing more educational opportunities. That’s good. But we did not see substantive discourse on how we’re going to increase the wages there. That’s what we look forward to. That’s still an A-plus.

It’s not there, member for New Westminster. If it were there, I would be delighted to see it, but we don’t see there any statement about how we’re going to actually increase the wages of these people. You can say: “Okay, we’re going to give families some more, by allowing them access.” But again, it’s about the wages of the people there in order to get the people to actually be early childhood educators.

The focus here has largely been on child care, too. There’s some language on early childhood education, which is important, but we need to recognize that not every family chooses to put their children in child care. There are some families who make the decision that the husband or wife — or husband or husband, or wife or wife, one of the partners — will stay home with the child, and the other partner may go to work.

[3:45 p.m.]

Now, in my colleague’s case, my colleague for Saanich North and the Islands stayed at home with his children. He stayed at home with his children, and society doesn’t value that. One of the things we campaigned for in our platform was recognizing that child care is a choice. For many families, the choice is they’d like to have high-quality, licensed services where they could have child care occurring and education occurring through child care. For others, their choice is to stay home.

We believe that fairness would require both to be treated equally. Fairness would be that you actually…. When we campaigned, it was to create a benefit for those people who chose to stay home, so as not to incentivize third-party child care, but also to recognize that, for some, staying at home is an option. That, we would have liked to have seen in this budget. I see some of the members opposite are in agreement there.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Some of them. At least one of the members, but I suspect…. Two of the members opposite, and there are only…. I can’t say which, and there are only….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I can’t say. Not all members opposite are there. So 33 percent of the members opposite.

Three years from now, some single parents currently paying $1,250 a month for infant and toddler care will pay no fee at all if their income is below $45,000 a year. That’s great. That actually gives those parents who choose to put their children in child care the ability to do so. It doesn’t deal with those parents who choose not to. Therefore, it is incentivizing more people to choose to put their children in child care.

We all know the single best care a person can get is with their family. Many, many parents choose to actually have one person stay at home. In many cases, some people choose to have a nanny to come and live in their house with them. Again, that would not be accounted for here, because in that case, there’s an option that people have that would not be rewarded here, too.

Maybe it’s a grandparent who comes to live, as in many, many Eastern European, my family, South Asian or Asian communities. Part of the family structure is that as the children age and have their own children, the grandparents play a key role, in that tight family unit, of looking after their grandchildren. That’s how my children were raised. I suspect that’s how members opposite…. I look to the member for Delta North. That’s how he was raised, and maybe his children. The grandparents looked after our children. The grandparents stepped in. It’s a very common cultural value. We’re not actually rewarding that here.

We recognize that there’s some home-based licensed child care, but not everyone wants to take in other kids as well. The grandparents might want to come and look after the kids. Frankly, we think that they should be rewarded. They should be rewarded because they are providing a key service, generating some income, perhaps. But in this system, the service is much more expensive if it’s done elsewhere, and that’s what we’re incentivizing.

With that said, there’s no question we support this plan. We think it’s A-plus. But there are things, I think, that have not been thought. A third one on that — and my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands might address it— is Indigenous communities, where in fact the model of child care might be somewhat different from the model that’s being thought about here. We have to be very careful that we don’t try to impose a one-size-fits-all option.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Well, exactly. I have a lot of time for the comments from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast because he comes from this issue, and he’s providing validation in many areas here. It’s not heckling.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Okay. The member is suggesting it’s included. We’re having a discussion here. It’s not clear to me. I didn’t see it. During office hours, I look forward to having the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast also bring forward the issue of how it’s included.

The creation of 22,000 spaces is clearly good. It’s putting us on track to where we need to be, and $237 million over three years to do so is a non-trivial investment, coupled with a substantial capital investment as well.

Coming to the issue of quality. Child care workers generally, as I mentioned, don’t earn pay equity wage levels. It’s a reality. We in society seem to think that if you are driving a truck, you should be paid more than if you’re caring after our youngest infants and toddlers. That is a messed-up society, in my view. It’s not that way if you go to progressive nations in Europe.

[3:50 p.m.]

Progressive nations in Europe do not share that view. They recognize that child care education is a critical aspect of a thriving, successful society. I don’t see the measures here that I would like to have seen. We need budgets to anticipate that child care workers should be better compensated.

The budget proposes new investments in post-secondary training for child care providers, but it is very short on details about plans to raise wages for early childhood educators to be on par, for example, with school teachers. Why do we think it’s okay for teachers of children in the ages of three to four to be paid, in many cases, a fraction of what teachers of children at the age of five would be paid? It seems to us that we have some priorities here.

Well, if we move then, again, with that letter grade of A-plus for the child care, to the issue of climate — another issue that is quite important to me — I’ll give a solid B on the issue of climate. There are many As in other areas that I won’t have time to address.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I will give the government As on the way they’re actually applying the increased funding for renters into the RAP and SAFER programs. Without a doubt, that’s not an A. That’s an A-plus. There’s recognition that we have federal programs coming in on stream in 2021 that would mirror beautifully with the existing RAP and SAFER programs. It targets people when they need it and who needs it — seniors and SAFER and people with lower income requiring rental subsidies in the RAP. So without a doubt, there’s an A-plus there. I’ll give some more A-pluses to the members in government as we go forward.

The solid B in climate. I appreciate that government is reiterating its commitment to take steps to meet our climate targets. I very much appreciate that. I very much appreciate that government has sent a signal to the market that the price of carbon, the levy that’s attached to it, will increase by $5 per year to meet the federal target a year before the federal target comes into place. That shows leadership, and that shows certainty. It gives business leadership, and it gives business certainty.

I appreciate that the government is also taking steps to ensure that those people who cannot afford to pay this will have means and ways to deal with it through rebates, much like we have right now with the carbon levy rebate. I appreciate that government recognizes that some industries — like Rio Tinto Alcan, for example — have already made major investments in terms of greenhouse gas reductions. It’s difficult for them to make further investments, in light of the fact they’ve just spent billions of dollars to do that. There’s going to be language in there, steps to ensure that there’s no penalty for people who’ve been early adopters or people who will be put at a competitive disadvantage if they aggressively move forward.

I was saddened to see that we had no mention of bringing back in the cap-and-trade legislation that the B.C. Liberals repealed when it created its greenhouse gas increase and LNG act back in the day. The cap-and-trade enabling legislation was a critical component of Gordon Campbell’s climate plan, at the time, in 2008. It is what the B.C. NDP campaigned for back in the day, when they finally came up with a climate plan after the tax attacks campaign.

The cap-and-trade enabling legislation could work in concert with the carbon tax to actually capture heavy industries, to pull them out of the carbon tax, include them in the cap and then allow British Columbia to join Washington, Ontario, Quebec, the eastern U.S. — many, many states and jurisdictions that have such a plan to allow for the most efficient reductions in greenhouse gases to occur. I would like to have seen that.

Again, the problem with climate mitigation plans is it’s not too dissimilar to the same problem that Indigenous people have been dealing with for years. Words, aspirational goals and targets are so easy to offer. What matters is real action. We have words in the budget, but where are the actions? There’s a general worry that the government’s present reconstitution of the climate leadership team will give it an excuse to delay action when we know that the civil service has spent years, since 2008, developing the instruments, the pathways, the regulations that we could implement.

[3:55 p.m.]

Why did we not see in the budget a recognition that British Columbia should have a zero-emission vehicle policy like Quebec has? British Columbia should have zero-emission vehicle policy. Why didn’t we see in the budget a statement along the lines of: “British Columbia will change a small regulation” — it can be done through order-in-council — “that will actually allow people to charge for electricity if they’re charging their charging stations”?

Companies like ChargePoint, which install electric charging vehicles, or Sun Country are not actually allowed to charge for the electricity. So what we have is…. We have to wait for the goodwill of schools, the goodwill of hospitals, the goodwill of municipalities or homeowners like me to actually provide free electricity to somebody if they want to charge up their car, unless you’re B.C. Hydro.

B.C. Hydro has — get this; I’m not kidding — 29 fast, high-voltage DC charging stations in the province. For a province that claims to be wanting to see leadership in this area, that’s pretty woeful. That’s more than pretty woeful. It’s quite pathetic, really. You can’t drive from Victoria to Kamloops because there are no high-voltage DC stations. Even the ones that are there are down so often.

The stories I get from across British Columbia — station in Kamloops down. Duncan goes down. Duncan goes down for months because they’re repaving the parking lot. Well, people who drive from Victoria to Courtenay need a fill-up in Duncan or Nanaimo, and they’re both out at one point.

This is a joke in terms of what we’re saying here. We want to be leaders, but we’re not willing to invest in the infrastructure. It doesn’t even require public investment. It requires allowing industry to put the charging stations in and actually, for example, charge 35 cents a kilowatt hour, like B.C. Hydro has been allowed to charge because of the application before the BCUC, which permitted it to charge 35 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity.

You or I, hon. Speaker, couldn’t do that, unless we registered as a utility. Well, there’s no way in a million years I’m going to go and register as a utility. New Westminster — the member for New Westminster is here — has a registered utility. They can actually charge for power in New Westminster with their charging station. Nelson, I believe, is another one.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Yeah. I’m hoping. It’s not in the budget. But I would have liked to have seen more signalling, either in the throne speech or in the budget, because the budget sends a direction. The direction…. Child care: A-plus. Housing: sorry, C. Climate: B. Then there’s a bunch of good things in the budget.

I know some of the stakeholders out here in the community are quite excited by what they’ve seen. I like to quote the Sierra Club. To me, the Sierra Club reaction is quite critical in light of the fact that the Environment Minister — who I have enormous respect for, who I think is doing an incredible job — was former executive director of the Sierra Club. This is what they said.

“There’s no question affordability is a huge issue for far too many working families. But longer-term affordability issues are being neglected as a result,” said Sierra Club B.C. communications director Tim Pearson. “Budget 2018 attempts to address intensified climate impacts, which will continue to get more and more expensive, but does not allocate nearly enough resources to this growing challenge.” It’s not only the Sierra Club saying that. We had, last week, the Auditor General in British Columbia saying the same thing.

To the issue of transportation. Transportation: A-minus. The step forward in terms of the infrastructure and moving toward the direction of the mayors plan — I’m very pleased to see that we’re seeing a start down in that area.

Something that I would have liked to have seen, something that I think is critical, is we should see, sooner than later, investment in light rapid transit, light rail from Abbotsford and the valley directly into Metro Vancouver. We know that one of the biggest problems in terms of congestion in Metro Vancouver is investment. We need investment.

We have B.C. Transit, and we have TransLink. But heaven forbid you cross the boundary and take public transit across the TransLink and into B.C. Transit zone — B.C. Transit being in the Fraser Valley, TransLink being down in the Metro Vancouver region.

Light rapid rail. Why are we not talking about that in Victoria? Why are we not talking about actually getting people from A to B, efficiently getting people out of their cars? If you start to increase…. Part of the problem, again, we have with some of the perspective of the climate strategy is that there is going to be substantive revenue coming to government through rising carbon levy.

[4:00 p.m.]

Ideally, some of that money would be invested in public transportation so that you generate a source of income to provide people alternatives to actually get out of their cars, with the goal that you actually reduce income coming to you through increasing carbon tax, and increase income coming to you through people paying to go on public transport.

This is the kind of direction we’d like to see and, hopefully…. Again, there’s lots of good stuff in this budget, lots of good stuff for seniors. Ferries. Finally, we have a government that recognizes that ferries are pretty important in British Columbia. I’m sure my friend from Powell River would agree with that.

One of the things that we would have liked to have seen is a discussion — I recognize why it doesn’t happen — of bringing B.C. Ferries back into the Ministry of Transportation. We know that there’s a debt that would be incurred, and it would potentially have issues on credit ratings and all of that. But again, it didn’t stop government from removing tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges which, frankly, brought $4.7 billion of debt — which isn’t too much below the B.C. Hydro debt. So it’s a question of priorities.

Again, lots of roads being built. That’s what governments do these days. They build roads. They build bridges. I’m sure the communities that are affected will be quite excited about that.

On the topic of building, one of the things that I should have mentioned and am delighted to see — a subset of the housing strategy; A-plus for this — is allowing universities and colleges across British Columbia to actually build student residences. This is critical.

We know that students in Victoria, Vancouver, Nanaimo, Nelson, Cranbrook, Prince George, Powell River — pick your community — are living in basement suites. They’re living in apartments in the community. But the institutions that they’re attending want to build housing on campus to bring those students onto the campuses. The students want to be there, and that would free up rental space in the broader market, reducing pressure on rents. But universities and colleges are not permitted to borrow money to actually make the buildings.

This is one of the most important steps that could have been made, in terms of an investment, in terms of dealing with student supply on campuses. For that, it’s actually 100 percent. There’s no A-plus there. You got a full home run on that piece of policy, from our perspective. So thank you. Well, thank you on behalf of the University of Victoria and Camosun College, both of whom I’ve met with on this very issue, both of which are in my riding and both of which are just dying to move forward with this plan. It’s the same thing with every one of you in this House, I’m sure, as well.

Another A-plus. Sorry, A. It’s almost there; it was already announced. It’s good to see measures in there, the steps to make access to PharmaCare a little more affordable. That’s great public policy.

Coming back to health care again. The health care investments are good. We love to see and we’re very supportive of the focus on seniors and team-based care. This is the way health care has to move forward. Again, the worry, coming back to what I said up front, is if you look at the new spending in this new budget on the average senior, the average senior gets $421 and the average person under the age of 45 gets $261.

I recognize that you can’t fix the health care system all at once, and this emphasis on team-based care and focus on seniors is a very fine way of moving forward, nudging the system in a new direction, hopefully cleaning up some of the mess behind.

Let me tell you. I’m but one MLA, but I’m sure everyone here has heard from constituent after constituent with their horror stories about access to health care, not in terms of the quality of the doctors, nurses and providers but in terms of the bureaucratic nightmare that exists in some of our health care systems here in British Columbia.

I’m concerned, as we move forward, about access to doctors and nurse practitioners and the ability for us to fund and retain people. I don’t think that as a society we recognize that many of the new doctors and nurse practitioners coming out are looking for a different style. They don’t want to be small business owners; they want to be salaried. They want to be able to be salaried, and they don’t want to spend one of their five days a week filling out papers and doing administration. So again, the focus on team-based care is a good direction in that regard. I hope we complement that with increased access to actual primary care.

I had one constituent who got his degree in another country. This constituent is now a doctor practising in hospitals, in emergency rooms in another country.

[4:05 p.m.]

This gentleman wants to come back to his family here in British Columbia. He wants to be able to practise here in British Columbia, and he can’t. The only reason why he can’t is because he has to go through an entire new education and training program.

One of the best ways we can actually get to bring increased capacity in doctors and medical practitioners here is to actually allow those who’ve been qualified in jurisdictions across the world, in very fine institutions, to be able to practise here. I don’t know how many stories you all have, but recent immigrants that I know who come to my riding were practising medical practitioners in their country, and here they’re working in a restaurant.

They get in through our points program, speaking multiple languages, but they’re working in a restaurant, not because they want to, not because that’s…. I’m not criticizing that. I have family who owned restaurants, as the member for Delta North did. In fact, ironically, it was the same restaurant, just in a different generation.

It’s to point out that we could actually alleviate some of the pressures if we started to think about how we could better use the Canadians and British Columbians who’ve been trained abroad who want to return and give them ability to do so.

The total of $548 million over three years provided in the budget to improve services for seniors is fantastic. A-plus on that, no question, particularly in the investment in home and community care, which we know is a much more cost-effective way of dealing with that. The same with the $150 million investment in team-based approaches. We like to see where that direction is going.

Education. Another very solid high rating, a solid A. A first-class rating there in terms of providing the resources needed to deliver public education.

Again, I’m a little concerned that the focus here is about building schools and walls and retrofitting. Success in education does not depend on the colour of the paint or the type of wallpaper. Success is ensuring that teachers have the resources they need in the classroom to deliver the curriculum to the best ability they have, and that children have the resources and access to the services they need when they need them.

A story I told in response to the throne speech…. Why is it that we as a society think it’s okay for teachers to use their salary to buy the textbooks and the resources that are used in the classroom? They shouldn’t have to do that. It’s not all about paying for playgrounds; it’s also about ensuring that in the classroom, teachers have access to the resources they need to ensure that they can deliver the curriculum, and that students also have their access as well.

Opioid overdose emergency — another aspect of the budget. Without any doubt, both the previous government and this government are committed to dealing with the opioid crisis in a manner that deals with it from harm prevention. From a harm prevention perspective, I would’ve argued that the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. NDP both get a solid A. They both recognize that this is a crisis.

The problem I have with both is that the largely central focus on harm reduction doesn’t, in the longer term, talk about a pathway to recovery and a pathway to prevention. Had we, perhaps — I mean, I’m speculating — as a society, recognized 15 years ago that investment in children in our classrooms, giving them the support they needed at the time they needed it when they needed it, which would give the social services the resources to deliver the services they needed, we might not be experiencing the harm reduction plans funding we’re doing today.

Children, we know, are influenced by the services they get when they’re young. They wouldn’t be the same children who today are struggling with mental health and addiction issues, on the street, homelessness, etc. Investments early on, as many European nations do, lead to a form of prevention that down the road actually saves society. Again, that’s not to criticize the good steps being taken here in terms of overdose prevention.

Some of this is not unrelated. We see that one of the issues raised by the Globe and Mail, Kathy Tomlinson, is the link between the drug crisis and the housing crisis. Many of these issues are not totally separate from each other. We know that a lot of the money laundered through the drug industry is actually being laundered through our real estate issue, and it’s good to see that the Attorney General is taking some steps there.

[4:10 p.m.]

Good to see continued movement towards investing in higher education, skills training and the workforce. In particular, we’re very excited with the agreement with young adults whereby $30 million over three years will be put to increased support for young adults aging out of care — a particularly vulnerable group in our society — where the care is used to offset living costs while they attend school. Again, an absolutely fundamental investment.

In our platform, we proposed applying a basic income pilot project to youth aging out of care. In essence, this is a very similar approach, but rather than calling it a basic income pilot project, what you’re doing is actually assisting youth out of care. I hope government collects the longitudinal data that is required to ensure that we can assess the effectiveness of this investment.

There are investments in wildfire resiliency, investments in new agrifood sector — again, really strong, solid investments that we support. Many of these…. I could go on, a litany of As in this area, but there are a lot of these smaller investments that we think are wonderful — in terms of the $29 million over three years for the Ministry of Agriculture to expand the sector by supporting a variety of initiatives that are part of the Grow B.C., Feed B.C. and Buy B.C. network.

Again, maintaining transportation networks: $36 million there. Increased funding for arts — the arts community has been dying for this: $15 million. It doesn’t sound like a lot, but $15 million will certainly have an impact — and having an additional $3 million for Creative B.C. to promote and strengthen motion picture, music, publishing and digital media centres. All of these: solid A-plus. If there was more money, give more money, but we recognize that decisions ultimately have to be made on any particular issue.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Forty-five more minutes? The member opposite told me I have a full 45 minutes to continue.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I see the member from Kamloops South has now come in, joining the member for Kamloops–North Thompson here. South, north — same thing, Kamloops. The Loopsians. The Loopsians are here.

The problem again, coming to the agrifood sector, is we don’t want to forget that while we promote the agrifood sector, there are also things that I would’ve liked to have seen, cautionary tales being told, in the budget and throne speech.

We have had a very profound release of Atlantic salmon south of the border in Washington. Washington has now taken steps to actually remove all Atlantic salmon fish farms from their coastal waters. We don’t see a discussion in the budget about any potential costs or benefits associated with doing what we need to do in British Columbia, which is take strong steps to no longer renew the permits for the fish farms in the wild migratory path of our sockeye salmon here in British Columbia.

That will be a small loss of revenue on one side, but it’ll be a particular gain in revenue in other areas, particularly if we can reinvigorate our wild salmon stocks — our chinooks, our chums, our sockeyes, etc. — through conservation initiatives and investments in science, as well as restoration of the creeks and seaside where these fish spawn.

To the issue of Indigenous people, this is incredibly refreshing, and I’m sure my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands will speak more to this. The investment of $50 million into revitalization of Indigenous languages is one of the most important investments the province can make, because we know that language is part of culture. When you invest in language, you’re investing in culture. To me, that will be received very, very well.

One of the things I was quite excited about throughout this budget, throughout the discussion, is the recognition that we must implement and agree to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and implement the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In doing so, you can’t just throw it all in the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. You have to recognize that there are certain issues in government that transcend all ministries, and this is one of those ministries.

It’s very good to see that we have investments in education, in community and outreach, in language revitalization, in housing, a multi-pronged approach to investment in First Nations and Indigenous people in this province, who I think will be — obviously, I can’t speak for them — pleased to see a full recognition in this budget, both in terms of the importance of UNDRIP as well as the investment in their communities.

[4:15 p.m.]

Again, coming to the full-time equivalents for the B.C. public service. Year after year, we’ve seen cuts to the civil service to a point that we now end up with compliance and enforcement divisions, no matter which ministry, cut to bare bones. We start to see environmental issues that we spend a lot of time talking about, a lot of money cleaning up, a lot of problems dealing with, that, in the first place, may not have ever got to where they were if we’d had proper compliance and enforcement — whether it be wildlife issues, mining issues, forestry issues, and so forth.

We know in the budget there’s a projected increase in full-time FTEs in the public service from 28,900 in 2017-18 to 29,400 in 2018-19. That’s a 500 full-time-equivalent increase in people in this province. But when we read the details and we learn more about where it is, it’s increasing staffing requirements that are there to implement government’s child care and housing initiatives — of course, we understand that — as well as front-line service positions, including sheriffs, court service staff — clearly, there’s been a problem there — to deliver social assistance services, again, long overdue; and conservation officers, also critical.

What I didn’t see, and language I would have liked to have seen, was in compliance and enforcement as well, where we have the regulators going out to ensure that our rules are actually being followed. Our mining rules. There are good companies. There are companies that are a little loose with the rules. We end up having situations that if they get out of control, they can taint and brand an entire industry, when in fact it’s not the entire industry. If we had been forthcoming in our compliance and enforcement, we might have actually never got to the situation we are in.

We also clearly have issues with respect to staff increases required for cannabis legalization. That presumably will be a self-funding increase through income coming from taxation of the cannabis when it comes to play, whenever that will be.

WorkSafe matters, wildlife recovery efforts, land use planning and environmental management. I would have loved to have seen the words “compliance and enforcement” in there, and I’ll be seeking to explore that in further detail as we discuss the various bills that arise from this budget in the months ahead.

To schools and to post-secondary institutions. The fact that there’s substantive investment in schools is good. The fact that there’s a substantive investment in post-secondary education and capital spending is good. We’ve got buildings that…. We’ve got the sustainable energy and environmental engineering building at SFU. That’s great, and 515 students will benefit from that. We’ve got a new industrial training and tech centre at Thompson Rivers — fantastic.

What struck me about this budget is that when you look at where the investments are, I could not tell you if they were in a Liberal riding or an NDP riding or a Green riding because they were in all ridings. It was truly an investment that spanned all parts of British Columbia.

We have construction of a new heavy-duty mechanics building at College of New Caledonia in Prince George — clearly, not an NDP stronghold right now. The two members here are, for now…. It’s going to be Green in the future. I get that. But for now, it’s not.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Yeah, if people would actually show up to vote.

We have renovation and renewal of the trades facilities at Selkirk College in Nelson. This, too, is important as we’ve got to recognize here that in fact not everybody needs to go to university. In fact, it’s not healthy for a society if people all go to university. We need to support our trades, our skilled labour — labour that’s going to be required as we transition to a low-carbon economy. The number of jobs that we’ll see in this transitional economy will be profound.

Obviously, I’m excited, from a purely selfish perspective, to see that there’s a new health sciences centre at Camosun College that will house 18 science programs, such as community mental health, athletic and exercise therapy, nursing and university transfer health programs. This has been long overdue.

It’s not only in Victoria. It’s also at Vancouver Island University. There’s a new health and science centre there. We’ve got capital infrastructure projects in Campbell River; in Dawson Creek; in Okanagan College, Vernon campus; and on and on and on. Again, in Okanagan, it’s the trades facility there that’s going to get an injection of funds. At Northern Lights College, a college I’ve been to and visited, the trades campus replacement will occur.

Again, these are not NDP ridings, so I commend the NDP on this for recognizing that it’s important to represent all British Columbians, not just those people who happen to elect you. That, to be honest, is quite refreshing.

[4:20 p.m.]

Coming to the health care facilities, we also see, over the coming three years, $3.1 billion of capital spending that will be put forward in terms of health care — new hospitals, revising hospitals, and so forth. All of these, of course, we support.

We’re a little concerned about what this will do to the debt. We’ll have to follow that carefully. However, investments in these areas have been long overdue. Some of these investments, clearly, will have come from previous governments’ commitments to investments in other projects, which may or may not have been deemed as important as these projects here. Almost certainly, we would agree with the present approach, as opposed to the former approach.

To the issue of ICBC. This is where there’s a bit of an uncertainty. We see that ICBC is in financial troubles. We could point fingers and blame. It’s pretty clear that the present government cannot be blamed. It’s pretty clear where blame goes in this. But I don’t want to get mired down in that. What I want to talk about is ICBC annual net loss, results which are included in the province’s fiscal plan and their reported results. The reason why this is important is that there’s uncertainty embedded in this.

The causes of the losses — like rising injury claims; rising numbers of crashes; rising costs of minor injuries; emergence of older, large, complex claims; basic rates not covering growing costs; lower investment returns; and capital reserves deterioration — are known.

There are a bunch of problems here in terms of knowing to what extent the measures being put forward by government to reform pain and suffering claims, to increase accident benefits, to make sure that more minor claims are reviewed through a civil resolution tribunal, to reduce crashes through steps to be taken on piloting technology to curb distracted driving and so forth…. What is not known is whether or not the steps that are being taken will actually deal with the debt that’s being incurred. So the uncertainty in the budget, moving forward, is to determine how effective these are.

Finally, in terms of miscellaneous items, we’re very pleased. All of these get high marks from us. That is why, overall, we gave this budget a B-plus to an A-minus — which we can talk about in office hours afterwards, member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

It’s that we have a lot of these smaller issues here. They may seem small from an overall financial investment, but they’re critical to the stakeholders and the groups that are being funded. The $51 million, over three years, to improve access to justice is critical, particularly the $26 million being put to the Legal Services Society for the expansion of legal aid services. Those who can afford to hire lawyers are able to do so; those who can’t, deserve access to the judicial system. We’re pleased to see that.

We’re pleased, particularly, to see that $11 million of that is going to support the expansion of Parents Legal Centre — which is consistent with the recommendations of Grand Chief Ed John and his report on Indigenous child welfare — and $15 million of that, of course, is going to be added to increase the number of court sheriffs and increase staffing for court services branch. Nobody wants to read another story about somebody committing a crime and getting off solely because there was no sheriff there to escort that person from where they are to be in the court at the time.

It’s good to see $10 million going to the Ministry of Attorney General initiatives that are related to family dispute resolutions and so forth, particularly in the fact that it’s increasing digital access to these judicial services in remote and rural communities. Again, $51 million doesn’t seem like a lot, but it’s critical in that area.

Another area that we completely support and are delighted to see is $18 million over three years, an additional $8 million per year in 2020 to 2021 in the area of women and children affected by violence — another critical aspect of our society that will benefit greatly from an investment of funds now. This funding will provide support for domestic violence units. It will be used to meet demand for programs and services such as counselling, outreach and crisis support for women and children who experience domestic violence, sexual assault and other crimes.

In terms of social services, we see $6 million being applied over a period of three years to the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction to increase staffing, reduce contact centre wait times and help provide reliable and responsive service. We also see $6 million — again, critical, very supportive of this — over three years to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation to increase funding for Aboriginal friendship centres, which play integral roles in terms of ensuring communities are able to have places where they can go and meet and discuss issues affecting them.

[4:25 p.m.]

A small increase — $9 million for conservation service officers. Not one of these many, many really good things that we apply…. One of them that we think is a little bit on the weak side: $5 million to maintain 1,900 campsites. We can do better than that in the province of British Columbia, and I hope we can do better than that as we move forward. Five million bucks for 1,900 campsites. You know, we want people to experience the beauty of our outdoors, because you don’t protect and retain that which you don’t experience. We would have hoped to have seen more in that. Hopefully, in years ahead, we will see some more.

I’m getting assurances, nods from government members, from the one MLA, who’s the all-seeing and all-knowing MLA. It’s the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

Finally, the Victoria Regional Transit Commission — of course, I live in the broader area, in the Saanich component of that — will be pleased to know that there’s an increase in the motor fuel tax rate from 3½ cents a litre to 5½ cents a litre to clear gasoline and clear diesel in the CRD, to assist in transportation plans as we move forward.

To conclude, I have spoken a lot, and I recognize some members have been here….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Oh, I’ve got lots more to say, a lot on this issue. Overall, one of the key things that we’re supportive of and one of the reasons why we’re quite pleased to support this budget is that it begins to start to get us on the path of ensuring that intergenerational equity is a guiding principle in our governance. It doesn’t go all the way. We still fund health care for seniors at a much greater rate than we do fund, for example, issues like child care, which affect younger families. We expect the younger families, working families, to pay, through their taxation, for their health care, which is being applied, typically, at the latter part of your life.

One of the things I do hope government does is…. If you actually look at the Canada health transfer and look at what British Columbia gets, we know we’re hundreds of millions of dollars in a shortfall. It’s directly because the Canada health transfer — if government is interested, I’ve done the calculation — is based on your population. It’s not based on your age-weighted population. British Columbia is a destination where people retire. Other jurisdictions like Alberta, Saskatchewan and elsewhere are places that typically have a younger demographic. People work in these other areas, retire here. They pay taxes in other areas. They retire here.

We also know that health care costs increase dramatically as you age. If you age-weight the population in British Columbia, we’re owed several hundred million dollars than what other provinces are getting. I hope that there’s a continuation of lobbying in this regard. I do know the former minister, hon. Terry Lake, did bring this up with Ottawa. I think we could be a little firmer on that, because frankly, it’s not acceptable the way that people pay taxes elsewhere and we pay their health insurance here.

The key issues that affect intergenerational equity are housing, child care, climate change, environmental management and something that I’ll come to in a second that I believe was missing.

Housing — good first steps. Finally, we have a recognition that this is a critical issue. I’m not sure that the outcomes that are being sought are going to be met by the plans put in place. It appears to me, in summary, that government is viewing the housing crisis as a way to tax and create revenue to provide affordable housing in another sector, rather than dealing with the problem, which is the offshore capital.

Child care. We have an excellent first step, which, to be blunt, mirrors the community plan, sometimes known as the $10-a-day plan, in terms of the priorities. But it ensures that people who need child care get child care when they need child care. One of the things that isn’t embedded in that, we think, is some of the recognition that not everybody wants to put their child in care.

Climate change. I have great confidence and faith in the Minister of Environment, but I hope that we actually start to develop the plan as we move forward and start to implement policy measures. I look forward to working with him. Dealing with this is not a big stick. It’s not a big, huge challenge. It’s an opportunity — an incredible opportunity, which I’ll come to in a second.

The budget takes us some of the way to these issues, very far towards dealing with these issues in the case of child care. But ultimately, it’s not fundamentally rooted in the principle and isn’t bold enough to achieve lasting change for future generations. What, I would argue, is lacking in this budget is a step-back vision of the direction this province needs to have.

[4:30 p.m.]

The budget focuses largely on fixing many of the problems that have been created over the last 16 years as we went down one path. Now, I and my colleagues recognize that there need to be some checks and balances to fix a lot of this stuff. But there isn’t a longer-term vision.

Again, we didn’t want a vision of hope grounded in a fallacy of LNG. A vision of hope grounded in what we are good at. The previous government rattled on incessantly about 100,000 jobs, a $100 billion prosperity fund, a $100 trillion increase in GDP, the elimination of PST, thriving schools and hospitals — those unicorns in all our backyards. Literally each and every one of us would be happy and have Maseratis. We’re all happy but not because of LNG.

The government, in sending that signal…. That was their vision. It was a vision that was desperate. It was a Hail Mary pass in an election campaign that nobody thought they would win. They caught the touchdown. They tried to deliver the impossible. The result is colossal failure. The result is 4½ years of sitting there in a time-out. [Laughter.]

The member for Prince George–Valemount is laughing. I’d just like to point to the issue that the former Minister of Natural Gas told me….

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Wow. We’ve switched Speakers twice since I’ve been talking here.

The member for Prince George–Valemount was laughing, but I’d like to remind members in this House of the sage words of the former Minister of Natural Gas and Housing. The Minister of Natural Gas and Housing told me that I knew not from which I was talking and that he was much smarter than everyone else in this House because he knew what Crown corporations were. He was looking forward to coming to dinner where I would have to eat my words because he knew what was going to happen. Well, that was in 2015. Here we are in 2018. The only words I’ve eaten…. Well, I haven’t eaten any words.

The fact that the former minister has the gall and the audacity to come to this House and still talk about natural gas is mind-boggling. Honestly, if there was justice in this society, the member for Langley East would resign. He would resign because he failed. He failed — a very, very serious failure.

He sent this province in a direction that misled Terrace, Kitimat, people in northern British Columbia who invested in the creation of hotels, people who invested in hotels in Terrace that are empty, people who invested in new housing in Kitimat that’s empty. People who’ve been told this, that and the other — that we’re all going to get LNG — are empty. Those people in education systems across British Columbia who were told that they better start preparing for the LNG economy and train all those people to deliver LNG were failed.

This is a colossal failure of public policy in British Columbia, which is the reason why this government needs to sit in time-out for a full 4½ years, as they rediscover who they are and what they stand for, because LNG did not happen, will not happen. Frankly, I was the only person in this Legislature, since 2012, pointing out the fiscal folly of sending a signal to market that was so irresponsible that it actually lost opportunities in British Columbia that we could now be leaders in.

We recognize that in the throne speech that we’ve discussed earlier, there’s an investment in the economy of tomorrow. But I would have liked to see a vision of that economy. The vision of the economy that recognizes that British Columbia needs to build on our strategic….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: To the member opposite, do I talk to the tech sector? I have talked to more CEOs in the tech sector, Member, than probably most of your caucus have done collectively over the past four years. But that’s okay.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has the floor.

Please continue.

A. Weaver: It’s wonderful that the Liberals got all feisty here. It’s about time.

The member opposite is talking about: “Have you talked to the tech sector today?” If this opposition, when they’re talking about what’s going on in this Legislature, had one-half ounce of credibility and actually spoke truth in terms of what they’re saying, instead of talking about a jobs tax, rhetoric about a jobs tax…. Instead of claiming that somehow a dinner on Bowen Island led to a $800 million loss of shareholders’ value….

They’re looking at the wrong stock. They’re looking at KMI on the New York Stock Exchange, which is Kinder Morgan Inc., whereas KML, which is the Trans Mountain stock in Canada, actually did the opposite.

[4:35 p.m.]

This is the kind of rhetoric we have here in the province of British Columbia. This is why we have the tension that exists in our society — because the B.C. Liberals care not for the people of British Columbia. They care about their own political aspirations and their desire and quest to get into power no matter what. They’ll say anything. They’ll sell anything to anybody, and truth be gotten out the window because all they care about is power. It’s quite shameful that this is the way they are. Hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

A. Weaver: Again, I have sat in this question period for more than two weeks. I have yet to hear a question — apart from today. Credit to the few questions at the end of the day. Substantive questions on housing from the members opposite — nothing. Questions on child care and mental health — nothing. We get questions…. It’s all about the gotcha politics. All about the gotcha politics because what matters is the quest for power.

What matters, in the words of the Leader of the Official Opposition, is that he get under the skin of the government and that he drive a wedge between the B.C. Greens and the B.C. NDP. That’s what he thinks his job is. No, his job, and this opposition’s job, is to serve the people of British Columbia and ensure that their interests are actually represented — not their petty power quests but the people of British Columbia. Bring the issues forward like the member from Cariboo did, a critical issue about….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Member, please pause.

Members, we all know that moderation and temperance are the hallmarks of parliamentary debate. Let’s keep it going.

Thank you, Member. Please proceed.

A. Weaver: Thank you. My only wish is that Hansard is able to record the banter coming from opposite. It would be quite delightful.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: My comments will be in Hansard. There’s no doubt about that.

Coming back to the end, the vision that I would like to see is a vision that actually defined where we should head, based on the strengths of British Columbia. What do we have in British Columbia that no one else in the world has? We are the most beautiful province to live in, in Canada and one of the most beautiful places in the world, if not the most beautiful, to live in. We know that that’s a strategic strength.

We have one of the top education systems in the world, right the way from K all the way through advanced and post-secondary education — and up soon in terms of ECE and child care, as well, with this new investment. That is a strategic strength. If you don’t believe me, you just have to go to the international PISA assessments, where B.C. ranks No. 1, or a number in the top ten, in all issues — top of Canada. We know that we have that as a strategic strength.

We know that we have a strategic strength in terms of the access to unbounded energy, renewable energy; unbounded fibre, in terms of wood; and unbounded access to water. These are strategic strengths of our geographic location. So rather than trying to chase the weaknesses of others, we need to recognize these strengths. And there are sub-strengths in regions that I’ll come to.

What does that mean? What that means is that rather than thinking that somehow we will compete in a global market by racing to the bottom, by throwing out any internalization of any externalities, by doing things in the cheapest possible way, by cutting social programs, that’s not how we’re going to compete. We know we’ll never compete with Indonesia. We’ll never compete with a jurisdiction in sub-Saharan Africa in terms of digging dirt out of the ground. The reason why we won’t compete is because we do have environmental and social values here in British Columbia that we believe are important to internalize, that are less important in other jurisdictions.

That’s the way for us to compete. Rather than chase to the bottom, which the B.C. Liberals tried to do with their reckless approach to LNG, we need to be smarter. We need to bring our tech sector together with our resource sector, to actually ensure that when we extract our resources, we do so in a smarter, more efficient way. Efficiency is where we’re going to get it, efficiency and cleaner ways.

That’s why companies like MineSense, B.C.-based companies, need our support as they bring new technologies right to the rock face, which can allow us to actually compete in the extraction of resources, as well as the selling of secondary resources. This is why we should be looking at a place like Terrace.

Terrace in British Columbia. What is the strategic strength of Terrace? It’s on a rail line between Prince Rupert — the gateway to Asia, with an amazing deep-water port there — and Chicago, the gateway to eastern U.S. We seem to think that what Terrace should be is a service centre for a non-existent LNG port in Kitimat. But no, what Terrace can recognize as a strategic strength is that we should be getting the companies like BMW, which set up shop in Washington, to build their factories in Terrace, where they have access to the rest of the world, where they have access to a stable, skilled workforce that they can attract and retain because of the quality of the environment that we can offer and the quality of life we can offer.

[4:40 p.m.]

We can offer them access to boundless clean energy, which will allow them to brand themselves as a company of the 21st century, a clean company, which so many are doing. But that was not the thinking of the B.C. Liberals.

A $10 million investment would have allowed broadband redundancy into the city of Prince George, to allow companies like Google to come up there, and not be beholden to a single carrier that owns all broadband access into that region. Government abdicated its responsibility for 16 years to actually bring broadband into communities across British Columbia, because government in the past seemed to think it is solely in the hands of the multinationals to bring in broadband.

Government had no problem building roads and highways, thinking that we need to get people from A to B, but couldn’t think beyond this early 20th-century thinking — didn’t think about information highways, bringing broadband to rural communities across British Columbia. That is why I’m excited to see that here in the budget.

Government does have a role there in the information highway. When you do that, you start to make our resource sector, bringing it together with the tech sector…. We start to be competitive if we send a signal to market that this is the direction we want our society to go.

We want our society to go down to a sustainable, resilient, 21st century economy — not the way that the B.C. Liberals want, not to chase back to the 20th century, not to go back to becoming hewers of wood and drawers of water.

If I hear one more time from the B.C. Liberals that somehow they are stewards of rural B.C., I think I’m going to stand up and scream. The reality is northern B.C. is hurting right now because of the reckless fiscal policy of the B.C. Liberals for the last 16 years. If you go to northern B.C…. Go to Fort Nelson. You’ll find that the dry-gas fields are dried up, there. What was their plan? Nothing.

We have timber lot licences owned by the multinationals that are not being accessed. We can’t even have the city of Fort Nelson heating its own town through a biomass facility that’s there, because of regulations put in place by this government. We are in the situation we are in because of their policies.

Finally, after 16 years, we have a government working together in a minority situation, with people who want to actually make the economy start to thrive in the north, make the economy want to thrive in the industry, recognizing that value-added is the way forward, recognizing that we have successes — like Structurlam in Penticton. We have successes in the agrifood industry. We have successes across British Columbia.

This former government was so unconcerned with that. They threw them under the bus as all they talked about was LNG. Jobs, jobs, jobs. LNG. Like cheerleaders. If I had given them pompoms, they would be shaking the pompoms with: “LNG. LNG. Rah-rah.” And nothing. Sixteen years of this.

Thank goodness we have a budget, finally, that puts people first, that recognizes that prosperity is local, that recognizes that British Columbians can be innovators. British Columbians are innovators. This budget will actually lead to a better B.C. across British Columbia. We each can assure you that that is change you can count on.

Hon. J. Darcy: I am very excited to rise and speak to Budget 2018. I have to say that there are no words to describe how proud I am to be part of a government that is introducing this bold budget that truly does put people first. This is why we run for office. This is why I ran for office — to make a difference in the lives of people in New Westminster, to make a difference in the lives of people across B.C. And that’s exactly what this budget will do.

I want to thank the people of New Westminster from the bottom of my heart for the honour of being able to represent our wonderful community for a second term in this Legislature. I want to thank the Premier of British Columbia for the great honour of asking me to serve as British Columbia’s first Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and, indeed, Canada’s first Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

I want to thank my constituency assistant, Laura Sunnus, who does such amazing work every day in the office, and Nadine Nakagawa, who recently left my office after 4½ great years. I want to offer heartfelt thanks to the exceptional staff in my minister’s office: Meaghan, Anna, Debbie, Kate and Raymond.

[4:45 p.m.]

I want to thank the awesome and dedicated team in our start-up Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

People are at the centre of every choice that our government has made in this budget. We’re committed to working each and every day to make life more affordable, to improve the services you count on and to build a strong, sustainable economy that supports jobs in every corner of the province. And with this budget, we are charting a path to a more affordable, more balanced and hopeful vision for B.C.

Let me start with child care. What a place to start. I can’t tell you how many parents in New Westminster have told me that child care, for them, is nearly as expensive, sometimes even more expensive, than housing and that it’s harder to get. Businesses tell us that when parents can’t find child care, they lose a worker and their business suffers. I am proud to say that Budget 2018 marks the beginning of a made-in-B.C. universal child care plan — a quality, affordable and accessible child care plan — the largest investment in child care in B.C.’s history, with a $1 billion investment over three years. That’s billion with a “b.”

Last night I spoke with Laura Cornish, a young mom in New Westminster with a four-year-old and a ten-month-old. Laura said she wasn’t sure how she was going to be able to send her children to child care, but now she says: “With Budget 2018, I think I can.”

“I’m really glad,” she says, “to see that people making less than $45,000 will pay little or almost nothing for child care. That’s the kind of place I want to live in.” She said: “I’m really excited to see training for early childhood educators. I want my kids to go to daycares with qualified staff. The child care benefit and the direct benefit to child care facilities is a big change in support for families.”

Laura went on to tell me that as it stands, her daycare fees were going to be going up 15 percent for both kids. That’s $2,425 a month as of August 1, 2018. Laura said that she had become cynical after 16 years under a Liberal government, but she said: “This is a real investment in child care. It’s exciting, and it will make a big difference for me.”

This really says it all. We will be lowering fees for tens of thousands of B.C. families, and we will be creating 22,000 new licensed child care spaces. These commitments set us on the path to universal child care in British Columbia. They represent real transformation and change in our society.

Another key priority our government is tackling in this budget is housing. No matter what issue people come to my constituency office with, part of their story is always housing. Parents describe the dilemma of not being able to stay in crowded homes as their families grow, so they have to move far away, increasing their commute, leaving their extended family and leaving behind the community they have built in New Westminster. Students at Douglas College talk about not being able to find affordable housing.

Renters have told me how afraid they are of raising issues with their landlords as they fear eviction at a time when vacancy rates are so low and when rental costs are going through the roof. They are very concerned about being evicted due to renovictions, due to renovations, because they know so many of their neighbours have faced these traumatizing events. Seniors talk to me about struggling to meet rising housing costs on fixed incomes and about being at the risk of homelessness.

The people in my community say very clearly that this housing crisis has been ignored by the B.C. Liberals and that they are paying the price. They want their government to take action, and we are — with a 30-point action plan that commits to long-term solutions. Our comprehensive housing plan is working to curb speculation, crack down on tax fraud, support renters and build the homes they need. We will stabilize the market with a number of measures, including a new annual speculation tax.

The other side of the affordability question is supply. We are going to help build the homes that people need, a mix of housing for families, people with disabilities and seniors, which will range from supportive social housing to market rental housing for people with moderate incomes. We’re going to help to preserve and protect our existing social housing stock.

We can’t fix this housing crisis overnight, but we can act now and plan for the future. That’s why we will invest more than $7 billion over the next ten years.

[4:50 p.m.]

Our investment will support almost 34,000 units of affordable rental housing, supportive as well as student, the largest investment in housing in the history of this province. We are charting a path to help build 114,000 affordable housing units, but this can only be done by building partnerships with local government, with the federal government, with faith groups, with not-for-profits and with developers.

My community of New Westminster has a very high percentage of renters, almost half of households. People who rent their homes also deserve to be able to plan for the future, so we’re working on a number of different options to support renters.

As first steps, we’re going to increase the benefits of the rental assistance program, RAP, so low-income families will see their average payment increase by approximately $800 per year. Seniors who receive SAFER, the Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, will see their average payment increase by more than $930 per year. These changes will help more than 35,000 households. In September, we strengthened renters rights, and we’ll be taking further steps to protect renters and manufactured home owners who are at risk of losing their jobs.

One of the issues that I’ve heard the most about over the last five years from my constituents is MSP premiums — a flat tax, the most unfair tax of all. In September’s budget update, we cut MSP premiums in half, effective January 1 of this year. We’ve reduced the small business tax. We’ve cut PST on electricity for business. In Budget 2018, we are eliminating all MSP premiums effective January 1, 2020. That means families will save $1,800 a year and individuals will save $900 a year. It will help to make our tax system more fair and progressive.

We’ll be bringing in an employer health tax, similar to other provinces, but small businesses with payrolls of less than $500,000 will not pay it at all.

There are so many other important investments in this budget: expanding PharmaCare coverage for 240,000 people who will no longer be forced to make the unacceptable choices that they come and tell me about — choices between paying for prescription drugs or buying proper, nutritious food; expanding home support to help seniors live at home independently longer; increasing staffing in residential care so that seniors start to get the dignity and respect that they need and that they deserve; investing in our classrooms and our children’s education by hiring 3,700 more teachers.

We’re investing over half a billion dollars to strengthen or replace seismically unsafe schools. That’s certainly good news for children and parents in New Westminster.

Wonderful news for my community and for the entire Lower Mainland. The Pattullo Bridge will be replaced. Nearly 70,000 cars and trucks cross the Fraser River via the Pattullo every single day. I know. My condo is just a few hundred yards from it. I could do the CKNW traffic reports. So 70,000 vehicles bringing people to work and home and goods to market…. Replacing the bridge will also improve safety for commuters. It’ll get people home to their families faster. It will move goods to market more quickly, as well as having bicycle and pedestrian lanes. My constituents are delighted that we finally have a government in Victoria that’s going to stop treating New Westminster as nothing more than an intersection.

In fact, we are making record-level investments in capital projects — including schools, hospitals and transit — that build our strong, successful economy. That’s $26 billion over three years in infrastructure, creating 50,000 direct and indirect jobs in all corners of B.C. We’re increasing grants for the arts and the creative economy. We’re investing in agriculture with our Grow B.C., Feed B.C., Buy B.C. programs.

We’re supporting and promoting B.C. enterprises and entrepreneurs and building a sustainable economy. We’ve appointed an innovation commissioner. We’re creating a small business task force, cutting the PST for electricity and reducing the small business tax. At the same time as we reduce greenhouse gas emissions with an increase in the carbon tax, we’re creating a clean-growth incentive fund.

Let me turn now to Mental Health and Addictions. This ministry was created so that there would be one ministry and one person in cabinet that is focused on mental health and addictions — mental health and addictions alone.

[4:55 p.m.]

Our ministry has two urgent priorities. Combatting the devastating overdose crisis that is causing thousands of families, friends and loved ones unimaginable pain across this province, as we lose, on average, four people a day as a result of a toxic drug supply.

Secondly, my mandate is to create a better, more coordinated and seamless system for mental health and addictions care with a focus on prevention, early intervention and improving access to treatment and recovery. As I talk to people right across this province — and I’ve spent a lot of time doing that these last seven months — what I’ve heard over and over and over again is: “The system is broken. It’s fragmented. It’s uncoordinated. It’s confusing, and it has huge gaps and barriers to treatment and recovery.” Let me be clear. This is a direct result of 16 years of neglect by the B.C. Liberal government.

Having said that, I want to pay tribute to the amazing people who work on the front lines in mental health and addictions, from community and social services workers to health care workers to first responders, volunteers, not-for-profit agencies, family members and people with lived experience. They give so much of themselves every single day, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude. They are the first to say that we need a seamless, coordinated system of care.

Our government has committed to taking action to address the gaps and barriers that exist and to build a comprehensive system of care, focused on prevention, early intervention, treatment and recovery, a system where British Columbians can ask once and get help fast. We know it won’t be easy. We know it won’t happen overnight. But British Columbians deserve better, and we’re going to make sure they get it.

I’m very proud that in our September 2017 Budget Update, our government announced an investment of $322 million over three years towards actions that save lives, end stigma, improve access to treatment and recovery services and begin building a better system for mental health and addictions care in B.C. And the centrepiece of our strategy is to develop a comprehensive plan for child and youth mental health.

The story of Joshua’s life, a teenager who took his own life on the grounds of Children’s Hospital, is a tragic reminder of the work we need to do to protect vulnerable children, youth and their families. That’s why we’re establishing Foundry youth hubs across the province — one-stop shops where youth at risk can access mental health and social supports all under one roof. We have five centres up and running, and we’re working to open more. In all the work we do, we are breaking down the silos and providing holistic support to people living with mental health and addictions issues.

The investments we’ve made in Budget 2018 are central to our commitment to work across government on real, lasting solutions, on upstream investments that really will make a difference. Investing in quality, safe, affordable child care is also an investment in prevention — supporting vulnerable children and providing them the best possible start in life.

Secure housing has a direct link to people’s mental health and addictions, and I’m so proud that our government has invested $291 million in two years to build 2,000 temporary modular supportive housing units for people who are homeless in B.C., the majority of whom are living with mental illness and addictions. Whether it’s in Smithers, Vernon, Nanaimo, Surrey or Maple Ridge, we are taking a truly holistic approach to homelessness. That means providing supportive housing, affordable rental housing and targeted mental health and addictions care.

We’re also making exciting improvements like the one in Vancouver last week — a $20 million investment to build 100 affordable rental homes as well as a new withdrawal management centre for people seeking treatment for addictions, including 20 new spaces so people have a stable transition from detox to treatment. Initiatives like these are critical to helping people on their pathway to recovery, their pathway to healing and to hope.

We’re also increasing supports for survivors of violence and building 1,500 housing units for women and children fleeing abusive relationships, which is critical to addressing their mental health and well-being. We’re spending $150 million to help connect British Columbians with team-based primary care — including, very importantly, mental health practitioners — and 3,700 more teachers means more people supporting our youth in our schools and more chances of identifying potential mental health or substance use issues early on with our kids.

[5:00 p.m.]

Youth who age out of foster care have higher rates of drug dependency, of homelessness and school dropout rates — the result of a failed system. That’s why we’re investing $30 million to increase financial supports for over 800 former youth in care.

Budget 2018 will help to create stronger communities where everyone is valued, and this is critically important to the work we are doing in my ministry to save lives and to create pathways to hope.

Let me now turn to the overdose crisis. I don’t need to tell anyone in this room that we are in the midst of the worst public health emergency this province has seen in decades. It is a national and international crisis. The latest numbers from the B.C. Coroners Service are staggering. More than 1,400 people died in 2017 due to overdose.

The human impact is unspeakable, and we cannot allow this to continue. So we are working with all of our partners to stem this terrible tide, and Budget 2018 continues our government’s commitment to bold and innovative action. We are truly using every tool at our disposal, and then some.

We’ve launched an exciting new public awareness campaign with the Vancouver Canucks to knock down the walls of silence and combat the stigma attached to mental health and addictions. One of the compelling posters says: “Co-worker, teammate, drug user, hockey fan. People who use drugs are real people. Get involved. Get informed. Get help.” Another says: “Cousin, student, drug user, friend. Get involved. Get informed. Get help — stopoverdosebc.ca.”

This campaign sends a powerful message that there is no one type of person who uses drugs. It’s about ending the stigma that leads to people who use drugs alone to not seeking out help. It prevents people from asking for help before it’s too late. We have to get to a place where every person living with an addiction is treated with the same dignity and the same respect and has the same access and quality of care as people living with any other kind of illness.

The goal of everything our government is doing in our overdose response is to save lives and to connect people to treatment and recovery as soon as possible, recognizing that recovery and healing looks different for every person.

We have taken a number of significant actions. We now have eight supervised consumption sites and 45 overdose prevention sites provincewide. Staff at these sites have reversed hundreds of overdoses, and no one has died at either a supervised consumption site or an overdose prevention site. We’ve made drug testing available at all of these locations.

We are connecting people more quickly to treatment and recovery and to safe prescription medications across the province. Naloxone kits are now available at over 1,000 locations, including hundreds of pharmacies in every corner of B.C. Almost 14,000 naloxone kits have been used to date to reverse an overdose.

In December 2017, we launched the overdose emergency response centre, a new provincial hub, staffed by a core team of experts from across all sectors, including people with lived experience and our First Nations partner. This centre is closely monitoring overdose data to tell us where people are overdosing and when and then coordinating with regional response teams and community action teams, which really are the boots on the ground in 18 communities right across B.C.

Our partners on the ground, I have to say, are really welcoming the financial resources and support. At our announcement in Abbotsford a few weeks ago, Mayor Henry Braun says he is: “extremely grateful for the critical community action team funding that will support Abbotsford’s community action team and help to save lives by providing the resources to implement and deliver services where and when they are needed the most.”

[5:05 p.m.]

We’ve allocated a total of $15 million over three years for community crisis innovation grants for any community in need to take bold and innovative action.

In British Columbia, we are leading the country in response to the overdose crisis, but we need to do more. Everyone who has died is someone’s father or uncle, someone’s sister or brother or loved one or friend.

We know that Indigenous communities are particularly affected, disproportionately affected. Indigenous people are five times more likely to suffer overdose and three times more likely to die of overdose. Unlike in the population at large, where 80 percent of the people dying of overdose are men, Indigenous women are dying in equal numbers with Indigenous men. Therefore, right from the beginning, our ministry has been working in close partnership with the First Nations Health Authority as well as working with regional health authorities to improve mental health and addictions services so that they are truly culturally safe and accessible for Indigenous people.

Just two weeks ago we were proud, in partnership with the First Nations Health Authority, to announce funding of $20 million over three years to implement their own overdose action plan to save lives and to support First Nations communities and Indigenous people on their healing journey.

I know from our partners at the First Nations Health Authority that they were flooded with 183 applications for these community grants, and 55 community grant projects have been approved, projects that will have a significant impact on Indigenous communities across B.C.

For example, on Vancouver Island, the Tsawout First Nation local youth will run what they’re calling several youth naloxone boot camps, with wonderful prizes to encourage youth to receive training in harm reduction and in how to administer naloxone. They’ll also hold a harm reduction and cultural health and wellness gathering for elders, with traditional food. This is work that truly matters.

I have heard and our government has heard Indigenous people when they say: “Nothing about us, without us.” The actions of our ministry reflect that we are listening. We know this is critical to addressing the devastating impact of these overdose deaths, which we know are part of a larger problem that has its roots in the dark history of colonization, of dispossession of lands and resources, of intergenerational trauma, racism and stigmatization.

The overdose health emergency, like the shared history of colonization and current efforts towards reconciliation, belong to all of us. My ministry, as well as every other ministry, is mandated with implementing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people and the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Addressing reconciliation is our shared responsibility, and you’ll see support for Indigenous communities throughout Budget 2018.

I am so proud to be part of a government that is putting its money where its commitment has been made, and that includes committing more than $200 million to Indigenous priorities over the next three years, including expanding culturally based Indigenous child care to give children a good start; bringing 1,750 new units of supportive housing on line for Indigenous people; additional funding for Aboriginal friendship centres, who do amazing work; $50 million to support the preservation and revitalization of Indigenous languages.

By committing these resources, we are truly investing in the kinds of relationships our government wants to build with First Nations. We are building a path towards reconciliation through action.

In addition to our government’s three-year investment of $322 million and the commitments I’ve touched on in Budget 2018, we will also be receiving targeted federal funding for mental health and addiction services in British Columbia, $170 million over three years, the first phase of the federal government’s ten-year funding stream to B.C. So we are working actively across government to identify key initiatives that are building blocks for a better system of mental health and addictions care, and we know exactly where we need to start.

We’ll be focusing on prevention; on early intervention with our children and youth, starting in our schools; and on treatment and recovery. That means intervening early to support children and youth who might be facing mild to moderate mental health challenges. It means supporting children and youth who have experienced adverse childhood events or trauma.

[5:10 p.m.]

We need to give them the care they need before problems develop into more severe mental health issues or into substance use issues. That means continuing to work in partnership with First Nations, with Indigenous organizations and with Métis Nation B.C. on mental health and wellness strategies that serve their communities.

Let me say in conclusion that this will take an entire province. It will take all hands on deck to combat stigma, to save lives and to set the foundation, the building blocks that will give British Columbians the kind of mental health and addictions care that they deserve, where every door is the right door and where you ask once and get help fast.

I am incredibly proud to stand in my place and support this bold and historic Budget 2018, a budget that puts people at the centre of every single thing our government does, a budget that is balanced and fiscally responsible, a budget that will make a real difference in the lives of the people I’m proud to represent in New Westminster and in the lives of people right across British Columbia.

T. Stone: It is indeed a pleasure to rise today to speak to Budget 2018. Before the Minister for Mental Health and Addictions leaves the chamber, if indeed she’s leaving the chamber, I would just like to wish her all the best in her role. This is an issue that absolutely cuts across all partisan politics. I think this is definitely a function of government that all British Columbians are praying, hoping, wishing will work well, because we all have friends. We all have loved ones. We all have been affected by the crisis of mental health and addiction that exists in all communities, so good luck.

It is a pleasure to represent the fine folks of Kamloops–South Thompson in British Columbia’s Legislature, from Savona to Chase, Cherry Creek to Pritchard, Westwold to Monte Creek to Adams Lake, Knutsford to the south shore of Kamloops. I’m very proud to be here to speak on behalf of the hard-working men and women of such an incredible place, Kamloops–South Thompson, within the traditional territory of the Secwepemc peoples.

Kamloops is where I was raised. It’s where the values of hard work, resilience and community were drilled into me. It’s where I worked in the mining industry. It’s where I started and grew my tech company. It’s where Chantelle and I are raising our three daughters. So to the folks of Kamloops, as I proudly stand here today to represent you and continue to represent you in our Legislature, I also want to thank all of you back home for always having my back as well.

The government inherited a booming economy, the best job creation record and the strongest balance sheet in Canada. This province was admired across Canada for the strong fiscal foundation that British Columbians built. It was viewed as a safe, reliable place to invest by folks from all over the world. Unfortunately, all of this is now at risk after only seven months of an NDP government backed by the Greens. And this is only their first full budget.

It is a budget that provides a blueprint for growing the size of government, not growing the economy. It’s a budget that illustrates the NDP’s default belief, their philosophical belief that all of society’s challenges can just be solved with more government, as opposed to embracing the enterprise and the spirit of the individual, that the NDP knows better how to spend your hard-earned money than you do.

[5:15 p.m.]

It’s a budget that hardly mentions the economy and, in fact, puts continued economic growth at risk, massively increasing taxes for British Columbians and for job creators while providing poor value for taxpayers. It’s a budget that fails to deliver on a number of key election commitments of the NDP. As my colleague from Prince George–Valemount so ably spoke to in her comments earlier today, this is truly the ultimate accountability document for any government.

Now, I believe that government has two overriding functions. It’s government’s role to create the conditions within which enterprise can thrive, where jobs can be created. Equally important, it’s also the role of government to make sure that the investments that British Columbians need are there for British Columbians. Government does have a role to make sure that the services that people need are there, that we can look after our citizens, that we can look after our loved ones.

I think we can all agree in this chamber that that certainly was the message that we all heard loud and clear in the last election. Additional investment was, arguably, expected by the citizens of this province and, in many cases, was needed. To that end, there are some aspects of this budget which I acknowledge represent good investments in the people of this province.

I just participated in a gruelling leadership campaign. I was not successful, but it was an incredible opportunity to talk about ideas. It was an exhilarating opportunity to criss-cross the province and to meet with British Columbians in communities all over this great place that we call home and to talk about their challenges, but also to seek out solutions to those challenges.

The number one priority that I heard from British Columbians, not just in the last election but in this recent leadership campaign, was the need for additional investment in child care and early childhood development — the number one priority. So I acknowledge that building upon a strong record, a strong foundation that was there from the former government, which I was part of, the new government has acknowledged and has added additional investments to the most important resource we have in this province, and that is our children. They are our future.

I also acknowledge that the investments in a number of other areas are good investments: additional investments in seniors care; additional investments to invest in outreach and counselling support for women and children affected by violence; a $50 million investment for the preservation of Indigenous languages in B.C. — that’s a great idea and a worthwhile investment; investments to help communities prepare for and better deal with wildfires. I would have liked to have seen a bit more on that front, but at least there’s an acknowledgment that more needs to be done.

Of course, I think all of us in this Legislative Assembly can agree on the importance of continued investments in capital infrastructure — our hospitals, bridges, roads, schools, our post-secondary institutions.

That all being said, the scope and the scale of the spending increases that are included in this budget are breathtaking. It’s breathtaking especially when compared to the projected revenue increases. Spending in this budget is projected to increase twice as fast as revenue — well over $5 billion in new spending over three years. In fact, spending is up by almost 10 percent in only seven months of this new government, but revenue growth is expected to average 4 percent annually over each of the next three years.

Quite ominously, for many of us who represent communities that still are largely rooted in our traditional natural resource economies of forestry, mining, energy and oil and gas, this budget actually provides for a decline in revenues from our staple resource industries. That is an ominous sign.

The budget projects a surplus this fiscal year but really only because of the good fortune that the government had in inheriting such a strong economy, one that actually saw the 2017 GDP estimate revised upward to 3.4 percent for the fiscal year that’s ended.

[5:20 p.m.]

The NDP seems content to push the outer limits of what most would consider to be reasonable expectations for B.C.’s economy, including a fiscal plan that rests so fully on a foundation of favourable GDP growth in years ahead.

With that in mind — I know I speak for most of the folks in my community, lots of British Columbians in the Interior and the north and, certainly, the members of the opposition — there are a lot of reasons to be concerned and worried about the significant risks that lurk on the margins and that stand a very real possibility of disrupting this government’s best-laid plans as outlined in their budget.

The risks to the government’s fiscal plan include massive tax cuts in the United States. That’s now a contrast to some of the most significant tax hikes that we’ve seen in British Columbia’s history in this budget. There are uncertainties relating to the softwood lumber dispute, to NAFTA, a potential for further interest rate hikes and exchange rate and commodity price uncertainty. There are lots of economists who are worried about a slowdown in China or that the growth in Europe may not meet expectations, particularly as the European Union grapples with the exit of the U.K. Of course, there’s always the risk of a slowdown in domestic economic activity.

In addition to all of these external risk factors, there are also additional risks that flow directly from the choices that this government has made in this budget. I’m talking about the negative signals that are beginning to have a cumulative effect on foreign investor confidence in this province, like the cancellation of the George Massey Tunnel replacement project, within weeks of a contract being awarded to a proponent. These multinational firms, which in good faith had entered into an RFP process in this province, had incurred real cost, only to have the plug pulled on that project within weeks of that project being awarded.

We know that the government and their Green colleagues have done everything that they possibly could to get in the way of LNG investments in this province. We know that the NDP are doing everything that they possibly can — in fact, it’s no secret to anyone that they are going to continue to “use every single tool in the toolbox,” as they say — to thwart the Trans Mountain pipeline project, a $7.4 billion project that’s been approved by the federal government, that has actually received all of its approvals and that will provide 15,000 jobs during construction — 15,000 jobs for British Columbians, 600 jobs in my community in Kamloops — that are jeopardized by the NDP government’s actions.

Economic spinoffs from this project include an $11 million increase in the property taxes that will be paid to the city of Kamloops. The city of Kamloops has a community benefit agreement of $700,000, and our university, TRU, has a benefit agreement of $500,000 — not to mention the dozens of First Nations, up and down the pipeline, which recognize the economic opportunities of this project for their communities and have signed economic benefit agreements.

Of course, flowing from the NDP’s reckless action in relation to this federally approved project is the trade war that we now find ourselves in with the province of Alberta — which, as an initial impact, is threatening our wine industry and could threaten a pipeline to take natural gas from the Montney basin in British Columbia through Alberta to customers east. That would be a multi-billion-dollar impact. We are hearing, daily, stories of contractors, businesses in British Columbia and communities across this province that have contracts being compromised, and this government continues to shrug their shoulders.

[5:25 p.m.]

Let’s not also forget that on top of these negative signals, through these efforts to thwart these major projects in British Columbia, we see the hallmark of this budget: a massive increase in taxes. Today in question period, the government was giddy about that. The Finance Minister stood up and actually proudly rattled off all of the taxes that she was so proud to institute in this budget.

Taxes are actually up $8 billion since the NDP took power seven months ago. They were handed the keys to this Legislature seven months ago, and taxes have been increased by $8 billion — $5½ billion of new taxes over the next three years in this budget alone. Personal income taxes are up 11 percent in just seven months. The revenue from income taxes is projected to increase by another 4.1 percent in ’19-20 and 4.5 percent in ’20-21. Income tax is up nearly $1 billion in this budget, which is going to cost the average family $1,000 per year.

Gas prices are up. If it’s not tough enough that the carbon tax is no longer neutral…. If it’s not good enough that the carbon tax is no longer revenue-neutral, let’s stick it to drivers just a little bit more. Let’s increase the gas prices — hundreds of dollars of additional cost to the drivers of this province.

The doozy of all of the tax increases in the seven months that this government has been in power is a massive assault on job creators in this province through the new employer health tax, the replacement to MSP premiums. This will raise $463 million in 2018-19 alone, and it will raise $4.2 billion over the next three years.

Now, it’s important to note that while this jobs tax — and that’s exactly what it is; it’s a tax on jobs — will be introduced on January 1 of 2019, the second half of the MSP premiums that the government is committed to phasing out won’t be phased out until the following year. The government is double-dipping here. The government isn’t following the advice of their own task force with respect to the MSP. That’s a real shame.

It means that the government will collect $463 million from MSP over this last fiscal year of ’18-19 before it’s phased out. Guess what. That’s a heck of a lot more than the projected surplus over this year. They’re balancing their budget, projecting a surplus, by continuing to collect MSP premiums for half the year and imposing this jobs tax on employers. That’s not how you create the conditions for strong economic growth in British Columbia.

Now, the government makes a great deal about how only 85 percent of businesses will actually ever pay it. You and I know that the vast majority of businesses in the government’s calculations here are businesses of one or two people at home. If you take those businesses out and you take the tech company in Kamloops with 20 employees with an average salary of $75,000 per year, you’re at $1½ million of payroll. If you take a contractor in the logging industry in Quesnel that’s got ten employees, you’re at $1.5 million of payroll.

These businesses are being hammered by the NDP through this tax, and this government is proud of that, which is good. It’s a good contrast, I think, to what we represent on this side of the House. We are hearing from small businesses across British Columbia that they are just appalled at the attack, the assault, on their businesses. We’re talking about family businesses here — ten to 15 to 20 employees. It doesn’t matter to the NDP. It doesn’t matter. While we’re at it, why don’t we increase the minimum wage by 11 percent this year? Why don’t we increase the minimum wage by another 9 percent next year? Let’s hammer small business even more.

[5:30 p.m.]

This government’s entire fiscal plan rests on very shaky legs. You cannot create wealth in this province. You cannot create the resources that you need to invest in all of the services that we all agree need more investment if people aren’t working.

I would caution the government to be very, very careful moving forward with their continued policies with respect to taxation and regulation when it comes to small business in this province. Because the economic growth that British Columbians have come to enjoy, the job creation record that we have come to expect in this province and the ability to invest in services rests on continuing to have a healthy and vibrant economy.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Now let’s move to the two other key themes of this budget. First, housing. Most of the focus in this budget on the housing question tends to focus on the demand side. Now, I think most of us support additional measures to reduce tax fraud and close loopholes. The measures around ending hidden ownership and stopping tax evasion in presale condo assignments, strengthening audit and enforcement powers…. I think these are all things that we can all get behind.

Speculation tax sounds great until you actually dive into the details, until you actually look at the details in the budget documents. You know, the NDP took…. It took a long time for them to shed their reputation for imposing that terribly destructive corporate capital tax in this province. And what they’ve essentially done here with this speculation tax is they’ve imposed a personal capital tax.

Interjection.

T. Stone: It is a catchy slogan, and it’s going to be coming to a community near you.

This is a 2 percent personal capital tax. All homeowners in the affected areas are going to have the onus of having to fill out a form and send it in to prove that they shouldn’t have to pay this tax. On a $750,000 condo, this is a $15,000 tax. This is a whole new level of Big Brother taxation.

We also worry about the unintended consequences of increasing the foreign buyers tax to 20 percent and extending it to the Fraser Valley, Central Okanagan, Nanaimo and capital regional districts.

A couple reasons for that. One is — as was pointed out by the leader of the Green Party earlier; I agree with him on this point — it seems a bit odd that the government would expect that this tax is actually going to work better than it has up to this point. The data is pretty clear that the tax, to this point, hasn’t really worked.

Furthermore, where they’re expanding it doesn’t seem to make a heck of a lot of sense either. Whistler and Squamish are still not included in this. My own community of Kamloops…. I guess we can expect now to see some significant pressure, seeing as we are neighbouring the Central Okanagan or the communities of West Kelowna and Kelowna that will have the tax. What about Lake Country, which has some of the highest assessed values of homes in the Okanagan? Very, very odd how they have decided to structure this.

I also worry about increasing property transfer tax and the school tax on homeowners who buy their own homes valued at $3 million or higher. There are many folks, particularly in the Lower Mainland, who may live in a home that’s valued at $3 million or higher who may not actually meet the NDP’s definition of being rich. There will be unintended consequences here.

There’s not much mention of initiatives on the demand side. I think that’s where there are some lost opportunities. There are 120,000 units of housing today in Metro Vancouver which are languishing in varying stages of approval within local government. Why were there no initiatives in this budget to encourage or incent work with local governments to accelerate the timelines it takes to approve those permits? And more needs to be done on densification along key transportation and transit corridors.

I would have liked to have seen in this budget some initiatives around encouraging the development community to be incented through, perhaps, tax credits or some other incentives to actually build market rental housing.

[5:35 p.m.]

Part of the challenge I think that we have, in the Lower Mainland in particular, is there isn’t enough market rental housing being built. So let’s consider incentives for spurring on that kind of development.

Then, of course, when it comes to housing, there are some pretty, a whopper of, big broken promises. The renters rebate which, we understand, the government is still…. While they still want British Columbians to believe they’re working on it, it’s mentioned nowhere. This was a signature commitment in their election campaign — $400 per renter, coming to a mailbox near you. It appears to be dead.

Of course, this massive backtrack on their commitment to 114,000 units of affordable housing. I mean, give me a break. An 80,000-unit reduction is now their target? While it’s laudable that there is investment moving forward over the next ten years in affordable housing, this government committed to British Columbians 114,000 units of affordable housing over a ten-year period, and they’ve reduced that by 80,000 units in this budget.

In fact, what they’ve actually delivered in this first year is 3,700 units of affordable housing, 2,000 of which are modular. The 1,700 others were already in the budget that we had put forward last February. Of course, their plan at this point is going to cost $1 billion. This is a great example of how the NDP talk a good game, but they are terrible at implementation.

With respect to child care, I did mention earlier that I acknowledge the investments being made in child care and early childhood development. I applaud the focus there. But it cannot go unmentioned that the $10-a-day daycare which, again, was a signature election commitment of this government…. That is dead. That is nothing more than a slogan. There is no mention of it. They have as much as said that that is done.

It’s our job as the official opposition to highlight the government’s commitments that they make to British Columbians and whether or not they follow through on those commitments. That is a broken promise.

Of course, there’s no completion grant for post-secondary students in this budget, no mention of school capital in my neck of the woods. The Minister of Education has been up to Kamloops many times and, I will say, led them to believe that there would be some good news on the horizon in terms of capital for the schools that are bursting at the seams in our community. Nothing in this budget.

Of course, I’m very concerned about the level of transportation investment to address the congestion that is getting worse in the Lower Mainland. When you cancelled the George Massey Tunnel project, the removal of the tolls has had the perverse effect of actually driving up the volumes on the bridge. Accidents are way up. Now the time it takes to get from Langley into downtown Vancouver is up dramatically.

Commuters in the Lower Mainland need some action. We want to know why the six-laning project from 216th to 264th on Highway 1 has been cancelled. We want to know when a replacement of the George Massey Tunnel is actually going to figure into the government’s plans.

In my neck of the woods — lots of talk from this government in seven months about accelerating Trans-Canada Highway projects east of Kamloops. Lots of talk. All I’m aware of is the number of projects that have actually been delayed. There’s a large project. Salmon Arm west has been pushed out a year. There are a couple of other projects that have just been…. The dates have moved. There’s been no acceleration. I mean, just come clean. Just be upfront and honest with people. It’s bad enough that projects are being delayed, let alone suggesting that they’re actually being accelerated. People are not stupid.

When I look through the eyes of my three daughters that I spoke about earlier…. I’m like every parent in this place, every parent in British Columbia. I want the best future possible for my kids. I certainly worry about what kind of province they will have in the years ahead, based on a number of the decisions that are included in this budget.

I want B.C. to have the strongest economy possible, one that’s growing, one that’s attracting investment, one that’s creating jobs. Whether forestry, tourism, tech or construction, every one of those new jobs represents a paycheque. This is why I go to work every day to be part of a team that’s focused on doing everything that we can to create jobs and opportunity for British Columbians. This budget does not do that.

[5:40 p.m.]

The sad reality is that the NDP has not changed. Delay, defer, dither, review, review, review. Taxes up, spending up. That’s the story of this government. No financial discipline. They’re incompetent economic managers. The NDP say: “This is a budget that works for you.” Well, British Columbians say: “No thanks.” British Columbians have worked hard in recent years to build a strong, growing, diverse economy. British Columbians saved their money, and now the NDP want to spend it — all of it and more.

I believe that British Columbians will become increasingly dismayed at the NDP’s systematic dismantling of B.C.’s economic leadership and advantage. Our economic momentum truly hangs in the balance. The choice is clear, and it’s not a choice between backing business on one hand and promoting fairness on the other. There is nothing progressive about attacking business and undermining our economy. There is nothing progressive about turning your backs on multi-billion-dollar investments and walking away from thousands of jobs.

If the economy fails, it’s not the richest who suffer; it’s the poorest. Everyone loses. Despite having the best of intentions, you can’t provide jobs, livelihoods, growth and the supports that actually matter to people without a strong economy.

So in that spirit, and on behalf of my constituents of Kamloops–South Thompson, I can say that I cannot and will not support Budget 2018, which fails not only British Columbians today but fails my kids and British Columbia’s kids for the future.

Hon. K. Chen: I’m pleased to stand on the traditional territory of the Lekwungen-speaking people and to respond in support of Budget 2018, which allows our government to deliver services that make life better, increase opportunities and ensure a better future for all.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Burnaby-Lougheed constituents for giving me their trust and electing me to represent our beautiful and very diverse community.

During my years of work in the community and also when I was door-knocking during the campaign, I have heard stories of and have witnessed firsthand how government policies can really make a real impact on local people’s lives. Every day when I’m working in this House, I think of the people. I think of the families I’ve worked with that I have met from our community and think about how our policies will make a positive impact on their lives. I will continue to work hard to ensure that constituents from Burnaby-Lougheed are well represented in this House.

I would also like to give a special thanks to my staff at the Burnaby-Lougheed community office, my hard-working constituency assistants Gurveen Dhaliwal, Lynn Hardy, Jessica Wei and Derek Sahota, for working hard every single day serving constituents in Burnaby-Lougheed. I worked as a former constituency assistant for over ten years, and I know how hard our constituency assistants work in our community office, making sure that families are connecting to the services that they need, getting the support that they require. Also, they work hard to manage the office and support our work here in Victoria, and I’m very thankful.

I also want to take the time to thank our staff here, especially our staff from the Ministry of Children and Family Development, for their hard work, especially during the past few months, working on a very important historical child care plan, which I’ll talk about a bit more later on. I really want to thank them for their hard work here in Victoria, supporting our work in this Legislature. And I really want to give a special thanks to my ministerial assistant, Niki Sharma, who has supported me a lot, has worked hand in hand with me as we develop a universal child care plan and has put in a lot of hours making sure that we are working for the best interests of British Columbians.

Of course, I need to thank the volunteers who have worked on my campaign, who have helped me at community events, and for my constituency association for all of their support and hard work. People like our volunteers from our community donate their time because they believe we can work together to make things better for local residents, and I’m forever grateful.

Last but not least, I have to thank my family, especially my husband and four-year-old son, for all of their support in order to allow me to do this work. Mommy always works crazy hours, and I’m very thankful that they’re always waiting for me at home and supporting my work along the way. I really want to take this opportunity to thank all my family and friends. I know I would not be here without all of their support.

[5:45 p.m.]

I also thank all the colleagues in this House for all of your hard work. We may not always agree on everything. We may have different points of views and may be coming from a different party, but I know we’re all here because we believe that we’re here to make things better for families and children and residents in our community. Thank you for all of your hard work.

It is the support of many people in my life that has allowed me to follow my passion of serving the people of British Columbia. The strength of an organization, an institution and, indeed, a province is decided by its people. That is why I’m proud to be part of this government that puts people at the heart of its decisions, actions and intentions; a government that is committed to meaningful reconciliation through actions; a government that believes the voice of the people should be front and centre when we are making decisions that affect them.

The proof of that was apparent just a few months into our government’s term by cutting MSP premiums in half and now on the pathway to eliminating MSP premiums. Also, by cutting student loan interest by 2.5 percent, our government is easing the burden on students and putting money back into the hands of hard-working people.

Last September our government announced free tuition at all 25 B.C. public institutions for young people who have been in government care. In the four months since that announcement, the number of former youth in care signing up at B.C. colleges and universities has jumped 20 percent compared to the entire school year last year. That is the type of progress that tells us that we are on the right track, that people are capable, resilient and determined to succeed. All they need from their government is to make sure that there are opportunities available, to make services more affordable and to remove the barriers that keep people from thriving. We are doing just that.

By investing $30 million over the next three years, we’re expanding the agreements with the youth program, which will make opportunities available to more youth as they turn 19 and age out of foster care systems. By giving these young people financial support to finish high school or learn a job or life skills, we are helping to remove the barriers to a successful transition to adulthood for these children. This is the type of support our youth have been asking for, and I’m proud to be part of this government that listened and is delivering. Under this government’s leadership, no one will be left behind.

As a government, it is also our job to listen to the people, understand what they need and make changes that truly make a difference. We know that for many, many years, people of our province have been facing a number of challenges that have made life difficult. For far too long, working families have experienced little wage increases, part-time, unstable work and fewer opportunities to get ahead.

As a parent of a four-year-old and someone who came to Canada as an immigrant, I started over again, and I had that firsthand experience. For example, as an immigrant, I have little extended family support here locally. When my son was born, I had a short maternity leave of just three months. At one time, I had to work multiple jobs, and I remember the challenges that we experienced as a family during that time.

We eventually had to make the tough decision that my husband would put his career on hold to look after our son while I continued my career with his support and with my son’s support. But it was not without some sacrifice for our family. We have to remember that we are fortunate enough to at least have that option, because many people in B.C. don’t even have an option. We are the fortunate ones, despite the difficulties.

Raising a family on one income is not possible for many families in B.C., where many are working two or three jobs just to get by. As someone who has worked on the front line for over a decade, I heard some of the most heartbreaking stories from people who are just looking for a little help to lift them up. Some of the stories are with me to this day and are among the reasons why I decided to join politics to make life better for them and for the countless other families struggling every single day.

As the Minister of State for Child Care, I have heard from families and parents across the province about the daily difficulties they face getting affordable, reliable child care services they can count on.

[5:50 p.m.]

I’ve met parents who could not find child care services or, even if they’re lucky to find child care services, the cost of child care is almost as high or even higher than their monthly rent or their mortgage payment, and they simply just did not have a choice to decide how they could survive. I have met single mothers who were struggling between work and their child care needs, with little family support. Some of them ended up living in poverty simply because they were unable to find affordable child care.

People are frustrated after years of rising living costs, cuts to services and fewer opportunities. That is why they expect this government to take actions to make life better, and that is exactly what we are doing here.

I’m honoured and humbled to have the opportunity to work with so many parents, providers, advocates, community members and organizations, and also with a lot of colleagues in this House here, to make sure that we are finally building an affordable, quality and accessible child care system in B.C. I’m proud of our government’s first steps to deliver a comprehensive, made-in-B.C. child care program.

As the Minister of Finance has laid out in the budget, our government is making the largest investment in quality, affordable child care in B.C. history and finally building a child care system. We could become one of the first few provinces in Canada to have a universal child care system. Why? It’s because we know that investing in a child’s early years and supporting their family is also the key to their future well-being.

We know that investing in child care benefits our economy. A strong child care system would allow parents to rejoin the workforce, pursue higher education and have more opportunities. That is really good for our business, for our economy and our community. A strong child care system gives parents the peace of mind to know that their children are getting safe, quality care by the best providers.

Investing in child care means more than strengthening the economy. Evidence shows that a child’s first six years can have a major impact on their personality, brain development and future prospects. I’m pretty sure many members in this room who have young children or have had young children or grandchildren know how valuable those early years are to a young child and to their future.

This means that investments in early learning and quality child care are crucial to keeping kids healthy emotionally, physically and mentally. We are taking the steps to build a strong, safe, quality child care system for all. That is why we started in December by announcing $33 million in funding for more than 3,800 new licensed child care spaces in B.C. communities through our child care capital grant. That includes 500 new licensed child care spaces for Indigenous child care providers — the largest investment to build Indigenous child care spaces.

Last fall we also hosted a child care forum, which brought together child care advocates, providers, families and parents to discuss how best to implement a universal plan — a child care plan that will make child care affordable and provide quality care to all families in B.C. We wanted to hear directly from them — from the experts, from the providers, from the early childhood educators and parents — to better understand how we can support our shared vision for child care in B.C.

That feedback has helped us to take important steps in our ten-year plan, with a three-year detailed implementation plan, to introduce affordable, accessible and quality child care for all. I really want to thank them for all of their hard work, a lot of advocates and parents who have been pushing for this movement for years and years.

You can see in the budget details how this feedback has shaped our investment for the coming years, because our government is investing $1 billion into child care over the next three years. We will offer immediate relief for parents by investing $630 million as we make child care more affordable for up to 86,000 families.

Affordability is crucial. I know the opposition members love to talk about — and it’s interesting to hear the opposition members talking about — the $10-a-day plan. They probably haven’t gotten the opportunity to really look at the $10-a-day plan, which talks about three major pieces — that is, affordable, quality and accessible child care. Those three pieces are exactly the three things that our government’s plan is working on.

[5:55 p.m.]

That is the core of our plan — that we are going to make child care quality, affordable and accessible. Affordability is a huge piece. That is a very major part of our plan. While we are building a universal child care system to benefit everybody, all families in B.C., we need to make sure that vulnerable families continue to be — and they will be — protected under our plan and that they’re getting the significant support that they need from our plan.

You’ll see that while we do an across-the-board fee reduction to licensed providers to help to reduce child care fees significantly, we also have a new child care benefit that will help many families reduce their fees significantly. Some families will actually receive free child care or child care with very little cost — less than $10 a day. Families are going to be benefiting from this plan, and there will be over 100,000 families that will see that support in the coming year.

Yesterday, as soon as the budget was announced, we received overwhelming positive feedback from providers, parents. People are just excited, and providers are excited to join our plan. The Coalition of Child Care Advocates also declared that this is a victory and that this is a historical time in B.C.’s history when it comes to child care services.

Other than making child care more affordable, we also want to make sure that we make a significant investment of $237 million to go towards creating more than 22,000 new licensed child care spaces across the province, which is the largest investment ever in B.C.’s history. We will work with municipalities, school districts and local non-profits and partners to make sure that we accelerate the creation of child care spaces in B.C. — quality child care spaces. We also need to ensure that information on providers, including on licensed providers, will be more available to parents in the future, to make sure that parents know that their children are safe and happy and are receiving quality care.

Talking about quality, it is a very important piece of our plan. We are committed to investing $136 million to deliver support for new and existing early childhood educators to ensure that there are quality staff so that our children are in good hands.

We are already working together with the sector to put together recruitment and retention strategies, including looking at support for ECE workers, education, remuneration and other initiatives to make an early childhood educator an attractive career. ECE workers know that our government is committed to working with them to enhance the quality of child care and to making sure that those workers who are supporting our youngest citizens, they and their work, are also supported.

In addition, our government is also getting $153 million from the federal government to help provide additional support on top of our provincial child care plans. Those moneys will go to where the needs are the highest, including, for example, supported child care development to support children with special needs. That is an area that has been neglected for years. The families with children with special needs are having an even harder time to get the services that they need.

I always remember that when I was knocking on doors during the campaign, I met some families with children with special needs. There was one mother who shared with me her struggle to get assessments, to get her child with special needs some services or even just to get a simple assessment. That could take over a year. That is not acceptable. She was struggling to find the services that could look after her child with special needs, and she had to stay at home to look after her young child.

That is why our government is committed to making sure that we use the support from the federal government to address where needs are the highest, including supported child care development, and making sure that we address their child care and early learning needs as soon as possible.

There will also be $10 million per year of our early learning and child care agreement with the federal government to enhance Aboriginal Head Start programs on and off reserve. The expanded program will benefit nearly 600 families by 2019 and ’20, and another 400 children will also benefit from 13 new Aboriginal Head Start programs in urban areas.

[6:00 p.m.]

We are also investing funds into Aboriginal supported childhood development to address the wait-list issue. We know that future investments will be needed, guided by our partnership with Indigenous leadership. It will take time and continued effort, but we are off to a great start.

I’m also very excited to work and be part of this implementation of this crucial, long-awaited and much-needed investment in the people in B.C. Thousands of families will benefit from our child care B.C. plan. Families really have been waiting for too long, and change may not have come fast enough, unfortunately, for some families.

We know that children are our future. My four-year-old son and many children like him will be the future leaders and citizens of this province. So our government is making sure that we’re investing in our young children, giving them a strong foundation today and for a successful tomorrow. We know that investing in child care is the right thing to do for our children, for our families and for our economy.

Speaking of a strong foundation, a place to call home is also a basic need for all. When we are not staying awake worrying about providing a roof over our families, we’re free to pursue opportunities that benefit our children, our families and our economy.

However, for years and years, government has neglected citizens’ needs when it comes to affordable housing. Many people feel ignored and left behind because they’re unable to find affordable housing solutions in their community. Too many families have been struggling with not being able to find affordable housing. Families are having a hard time paying their high cost of rent and mortgage. I’ve also personally worked with many families who were forced, unfortunately, to move away from the community where they grew up, where they’d have loved to raise their families, simply because of the high cost of housing.

I remember that there was a family I met, a family with three young children, who shared their struggles with me. They were renting a home in Burnaby, and they got a two-month notice from their landlord asking them to move. They thought in two months they’d be able to find something else in the same community where their children go to school. They tried and tried, and they still could not find anything within that two months.

They thought of moving away from the community they loved, where their children grew up and where they grew up. They thought of moving away, even to a different province, but then they decided this is where their children go to school. This is where they have their family support. The community they live in is where they have all their support network — their doctors, their appointments and all of their services are nearby. They simply could not…. It was a hard decision for them to move away.

They decided to continue searching while they actually had to live on someone else’s couch for four months before they finally were able to find a suitable option. They were, in fact, homeless with three young children for a four-month period of time. That is why our government is taking actions to help to make housing more affordable.

This is going to be a historical and significant investment that will address the housing crisis by putting together a comprehensive set of actions, including addressing speculation and a crackdown on tax fraud in B.C’s real estate market and also making the largest investment in affordable housing in B.C.’s history to build more homes for people, including students, seniors, Indigenous people and middle-income families, and providing security and safety for renters, including better protections for renters facing renovictions and demolitions.

These are the kinds of changes that make me confident that our government’s priorities are aligned with the people it is entrusted to serve.

There are many changes our government is making to put people first and improve the services they count on. That includes, for example, creating a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, eliminating tolls on Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges, increasing income and disability assistance rates, taking steps to increasing minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2021 to help B.C.’s lowest-paid workers to get ahead, also supporting many workers in our community, including the agriculture industry, tech sector and tourism industry, and really standing up for workers in B.C. and defending B.C.’s best interest.

[6:05 p.m.]

We all saw what happens when a government’s program, policies and decisions only favour a few people and leave many people behind. Years of rising costs, cuts to services and reduced opportunities have driven our province into an affordability crisis, one that’s compounded by problems at ICBC and B.C. Hydro. But our government is hard at work on solutions and actions to make life better for all British Columbians, not just the wealthy and well-connected.

With the largest investment in housing, child care and infrastructure in B.C.’s history, we are taking steps to make life more affordable for hard-working people, who are the true backbone of our economy. B.C.’s first-ever poverty reduction strategy will also be a truly cross-government effort as it will rely on the work of ministries across government.

When we invest in housing, health care, mental health, child care, education and the workforce, we can lift people in our community onto the path of prosperity. That kind of change will take time, commitment and meaningful action, but with Budget 2018, our government has taken important steps on that path.

Like mother of two Ms. Kate Spence has recently said on CBC radio, when she commented about our child care plan. “I think this government is the one that finally listened to parents and advocates and said: ‘We’re not just listening. We are going to act.’” That is exactly what we’re doing. We are going to make sure life is getting more affordable, services are going to be better and there are going to be good jobs created locally for our communities in B.C.

I’m so thankful and proud to be part of this government that is committed to making sure that no one is left behind and bringing every British Columbian along with us on the path to prosperity.

J. Martin: It’s always a pleasure to rise in this House, particularly for an occasion as significant as the annual budget.

I know earlier on the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who has spent a great amount of time in the world of academia, was evaluating the budget, and he was grading it section by section. Like a lot of academics, I’m afraid my friend the doctor from Oak Bay–Gordon Head is a little bit guilty of grade inflation. It’s actually quite rampant throughout the college and university sector.

I’ve managed, in my decades in the classroom, to stay a little more old school with respect to standards and traditions. Literally having graded tens of thousands of papers, assignments and assigning course grades…. After careful thought, I’m going to give it an F-plus. I’m not a big fan of it, but it’s not all bad. I think an F-plus is, basically, what this would receive.

I do it with the caveat that I would send it back, and I would give the NDP an opportunity to do a rewrite and resubmit it. Sometimes a little bit of careful second thought, and we can come up with a superior product.

I won’t be supporting this in any way, shape or form. It is not a budget that British Columbia needs. It’s a budget that is going to take us backward, and as well-meaning and well-intended as it is in many sections, the overall impact of this budget is not going to be good for the province.

Like many, I have great concerns about us taking steps backwards and returning to an era when B.C. was not first, when B.C. was not the envy of the rest of the country. The NDP has taken us from first to worst before, and let’s all hope, in this House, that it doesn’t happen again.

What we need to understand, and I think this is one of the troubling points for this government, even when they are well intentioned, is that a strong economy is not a creation of the government. It’s by the people of British Columbia.

[6:10 p.m.]

The government can often contribute to a strong economy, sometimes by just getting out of the way and letting the private sector do what needs to be done. There are very few things that government can do better than the private sector. When it comes to the economy, government intervention, more often than not…. It doesn’t end well.

The wealth in this wonderful province that I’m so proud to call my home is generated by people who work in the private sector. That’s where the primary source of jobs are in our province. Government jobs in the public service and all that they all contribute…. We can’t minimize that whatsoever, but government doesn’t create jobs, doesn’t create wealth. The private sector does.

Business in British Columbia can only prosper if government steps aside and allows the private sector to be competitive. Over the last several years, we certainly have been competitive. We can go toe to toe with just about any jurisdiction on the planet.

When government supersedes its authority and acts in the case of special interests and not the province overall, that’s when the private sector has trouble competing. As well-intentioned as the government’s initiatives may be, when you hamstring the private sector, when you make it difficult for the private sector to move forward and respond to changing conditions, it typically is not something that turns out well.

Under the previous government, British Columbia led the rest of the country in economic growth. It did so to the extent where no one was really second. There was no one even remotely close to the economic success that British Columbia has enjoyed over the last several years. That’s something that, despite a change in government, I would really, really like to see continue. I have concerns that that’s not going to end up being the case.

One of the ways we did that was we diversified our economy. We expanded our trading partners. But a huge piece of that was we had a competitive tax regime, and that competitive tax regime allowed business to take root in British Columbia and flourish while still paying their fair share.

Our competitive edge is under siege. With a number of significant tax changes contained in the budget update back in September, we’ve already seen an erosion of the ability of the private sector in this province to not just be competitive but to be the best. That is something that should concern each and every one of us that has been elected to this chamber.

We used to have, for instance, the lowest corporate tax rate compared to all western provinces. That attracted investment. It attracted expansion. It gave confidence to entrepreneurs, to investors, to the private sector. It created jobs. We see that dwindling away.

When the NDP had their update to the budget last September, they increased that rate from 11 percent to 12 percent. That’s not a 1 percent increase. It doesn’t work that way. That’s not the type of math that we need to be fooling ourselves about. That is a significant increase that really changed the landscape and changed the competitiveness of the private sector in the province.

What we’ve seen since there’s been a change in government are these endless, seemingly silent tax increases, over and over and over. What’s happening is that every year, this is going to account to roughly $1.4 billion. Most of it is going to be in the transportation sector. The tax increases are going to hamstring the ability of this province to meet the challenges that are coming up.

When business experiences the rising cost of overhead, that expense is not necessarily just covered because business always has a big fat wad of cash in their back pocket. No. Typically, it’s passed along to the consumer and makes life more unaffordable for British Columbians, which goes exactly in the opposite direction, as the antithesis of what the present government claims to be their motto.

[6:15 p.m.]

These tax increases…. A point comes when they can’t simply be absorbed, when they can’t just simply be incorporated into the existing business structure. Decisions have to be made. When a business is faced with not one, not two but multiple increases in their level of taxation, they have some hard choices to make. Are they going to lay people off? Are they going to cancel the plans to hire more individuals? Are they going to cut hours? That expansion they were thinking about: are they going to put that on hold? Or are they going to consider moving that out of the province, maybe have to consider moving completely out of the province?

We have seen an exodus of capital and the private sector from this province before. Back in the ’90s, you had trouble getting a U-Haul to go out of British Columbia because they were all sitting in Alberta. None were being brought back here. People were just losing their deposit on them rather than returning them.

It has happened before, and not to be facetious, I do not want it to happen again. I’m sure nobody in this House wants it to happen again. But it’s a very real possibility when we dismiss and we minimize and we just sort of brush off the impact of tax increases on the private sector.

An increase in, for instance, the minimum wage is something that for many family businesses is going to be very, very challenging. Typically, family businesses pay themselves last, if they pay themselves at all. They can’t simply dip into reserves they don’t have to make this up. So what are the choices?

Talking to one couple that own a Vietnamese pho restaurant…. I tell you, I love my pho. There’s nothing better than Vietnamese beef pho. It’s as good as it gets. But what are the choices they have? They’re already working 14 hours a day. Well, maybe they’ll work 16 hours a day and lay someone off. Maybe they’ll just have to think about raising the prices and putting a delicious bowl of pho soup out of the ability of maybe a young student to go and have lunch there. Choices have to be made, and this is across the board.

Automation. One of the big reasons not to invest in automation has always been the initial buy-in. Now a lot of places are going to have to consider that they amortize these costs over the long haul. “Maybe that’s what we need to do. Maybe we need to think about robotics. Maybe we need to think about more automation.”

The fast-food restaurants don’t have to have a young person there who’s in his or her first job of their life. There’s going to be a touch screen to do your order. They don’t have to have somebody there. They don’t have to be paying them.

We all share that people need to be treated fairly and that we need to remunerate and compensate people properly. We need to do so in a manner that appreciates that there may be a diminished ability for some entrepreneurs to be able to do this. I think this is something that the government in British Columbia at this moment doesn’t really give much consideration to. They don’t have to continue hiring people. They don’t have to continue hiring young people. They don’t have to consider hiring more people for additional shifts. They can look at options. They always do have options.

As I mentioned, we’ve seen in the past that this has not turned out very well when you do have an exodus of capital and entrepreneurship leaving British Columbia.

This is what we’re up against. British Columbians are all going to feel the pinch at the gas pump commencing April 1. To simply say: “Well, yeah, you just pay more….” Some people are going to have a problem doing that. If you’re a business owner in this province, you have to give some very, very special long, hard, considerable thought to the budget that was presented yesterday.

[6:20 p.m.]

The whopping new payroll tax that is being levied against the backbone of our economy, our private sector, is problematic. Business in this province has just learned the reality that the government now expects them to pay about $4.2 billion more in taxes over the next three years. Well, they have options. Sadly, some of those options mean that there will be people who lose jobs. Some will not be able to absorb that.

This government has a very, very different perception about what constitutes a small business than most economists and other observers do. The threshold at which this tax kicks in could be a company with as few as eight to 12 people. We’re not talking about major corporations — the big, evil, fat cat entrepreneurs that we tend to portray business owners as being. We’re talking about family-owned businesses here that are going to be under siege to meet a new tax regime that they may not be able to endure.

For some, this is happening at basically the same time as the hike to the minimum wage. This is kind of interesting. The government took a full seven months with the Fair Wages Commission to come to the conclusion to do exactly what the government said they were going to do and what they campaigned on, and that was to increase the minimum wage to $15 by 2021. That was in your campaign brochures. That was part of the platform that was repeated over and over. When the change of government happened, that was stated as a continued ambition of this government.

Rather than just simply do what governments are supposed to do and get on with the job, they struck a commission. It took seven long months for that commission to come back and report to the government: “Yeah, you should raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2021.” Well, that seven months…. The first phase-in of that increase is happening June 1. So the government gets seven months to decide to do what they said they were going to do, and the family-owned businesses get 12 weeks to institute a significant increase to their labour costs.

I know this may come as a bit of a surprise, but most businesses have a longer-term plan and strategy. They budget way beyond the 12-week portion. They have contracts with their suppliers. They have their revenues forecast. They’re looking at different opportunities to expand. All of a sudden they’re given 12 miserable weeks of notice that you are going to be hit with a major increase to your labour costs.

It’s interesting. It really speaks to the government, the men and women that make up the government, about the absence of bodies over there who have ever met a payroll, who have ever created a job. I mean, I’ll fully concede that there’s an awful lot of experience, a wealth of experience, of signing the backs of cheques over there but not so much signing the fronts of cheques and having an appreciation of what it takes to meet a payroll.

I know, speaking to a lot of family-owned businesses, as I mentioned, they pay themselves last, if they pay themselves at all. When they are blindsided by not one but two unannounced and unpredicted significant increases in taxation or their labour costs, this, for many, is going to be nothing short of devastating. We are going to see job losses. We are going to see plans for expansion curtailed. We are going to see — and I wish I could say that I’m wrong, but I just can’t bring myself there — businesses shut down or relocate altogether.

To add insult to injury, this government has decided they’re going to double-dip with the MSP premiums. Starting on January 1, 2019, the new payroll tax kicks in, a year before the MSP is phased out the following year. What does this end up meaning? The small business community is already being hit with a 34 percent increase to minimum wage in the next four years, and now they get this dumped on them. What this means to family business, small business, medium business is double taxation.

[6:25 p.m.]

Meanwhile, government gets to rake in an additional $2 billion windfall because of all those overlapping taxes.

One of the first things the government announced was a medical services premiums review panel. That was last November, just a few months after forming government. This panel was going to report to government on March 31 of this year. Well, why is the government hiring all of these consultants, all of these reviews, all of these commissions when, at the end of the day, they may have no intention whatsoever of listening to what they do?

They’re going to produce mounds and mounds of reports that amount to nothing. They were advised not to do this, and they turned around and did exactly what their consultation process concluded is the wrong thing to do.

Since assuming office last July, the new government is escalating tax increases to the tune of $8 billion. That’s in seven months, and there are new tax increases either underway or scheduled, of $8 billion.

I didn’t hear much yesterday in the budget about bringing an additional $8 billion of revenue in through forestry, mining, agriculture. It’s interesting, because agriculture was the only sector that was even mentioned. That was the only one that was even mentioned. Nothing about energy. Nothing about natural gas.

Where do you think the $8 billion is going to be coming from? Where is the new revenue coming from? What about growing the economy? What about expanding the economy and creating jobs? There was virtually none of that in the budget whatsoever. All we really have is an NDP government that is going to increase taxes and spend more. Income tax is increasing by nearly a billion dollars a year. The calculation is that this is looking at about an extra thousand dollars per family, for a typical average family.

The carbon tax, which is no longer revenue-neutral, is going up. Government is just collecting that as regular revenue. What does that mean? More expense at the gas pump. No corresponding tax cuts to neutralize it. It’s not just the tax cuts. That’s home heating and a number of other areas where people are going to be paying this additional tax.

The speculation tax — much spoken about and a lot of confusion around that. It would seem that the government spokespersons are even having trouble communicating who it applies to and who is exempted and what the conditions are. This one certainly needs to be sent back for a rewrite. The speculation tax is not going to help anyone buy a home. Everyone is going to be paying the new 2 percent tax. It’s just going to increase the cost of living, and family-owned businesses are not getting any assistance out of this budget at all. Job-killing tax, replacing the MSP, a host of other levels of taxation, increased costs, increased regulation….

We see the NDP certainly has a plan to grow government. I’ll give full credit over there. The NDP has always known how to expand government, but there’s no plan to pay for it other than raising taxes. Well, every government finds out that a point comes when even that hits a ceiling. It is not infinite — the amount of taxation you can take from people.

It’s the same old NDP. We’ve been here before. We’ve seen this dance — spend and tax, tax and spend — and what this has done to British Columbia’s economy.

The saddest chapter in this province’s history is when the NDP turned beautiful British Columbia into a have-not province. Once the pride and the envy of Canada, we basically became dependent on other provinces that had the good fortune not to be governed by the NDP to support us. Those provinces had to cut cheques and send them to the province so we could keep the lights on.

[6:30 p.m.]

The province with the richest abundance of natural resources, of risk-takers, of people that dream big, of people who have goals and see them through…. We became a have-not province. We relied on equalization payments from other provinces who knew how to govern themselves.

At the rate this government is off to — and remember, it’s only been seven months — those days may be coming again. Since taking office, as I mentioned, the NDP has or will increase taxes by $8 billion, and they’re just getting started. That’s a $5.5 billion increase in this budget alone — a $5.5 billion increase. It’s an 11 percent increase in personal income taxes.

Gas prices. Again, one of the most innovative moves that we’ve ever seen was the neutrality of that carbon tax that Gordon Campbell’s government introduced — to make it fair, to make it so it was not onerous on consumers. That’s been taken away so that it is unfair and it is onerous. That is not something that the government should be proud about. They’re raising gas prices, and they’re going to be keeping that revenue all to themselves — hundreds and hundreds of dollars per year per driver.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

While that is a certain level of problem in the Lower Mainland and the capital regional district, that problem is multiplied many times over when we go north, where people have to drive bigger vehicles. They need transportation, reliable transportation. They need their big Ford pickup. They drive longer distances, and they drive more often. Those are the people that are going to be specifically singled out for punishment by this government because of their postal code.

There’s a huge tax increase to job creators. It’s a massive tax increase. This is not a small, little tweaking of the tax code that can be absorbed, that can be off-loaded by making some other change. Maybe a big corporation can do that. They’ve got lots of ability to move things around. But on smaller and family-sized businesses, they don’t have that particular option.

I’ll say it right now. I think this payroll tax is the poorest decision that this government has made in the seven months that they’ve been in office. I think there’s going to be huge, huge regret for doing that. It will not end in a good place.

What about some of the other commitments of this government? What about the promise of 114,000 new affordable units? Apparently, we’re going to come up short by a whopping 80,000. This is not going to help families buy a new home.

It’s certainly not going to help the housing situation in my community of Chilliwack. We’re experiencing a massive population increase that significantly outpaces the province overall. We’re getting a lot of people who are selling and downsizing and moving out to the eastern Fraser Valley, and we’re seeing this massive increase. There’s no corresponding effort in the budget to think about schools in Chilliwack.

Certainly, our transportation needs…. Looks like the six lanes of highway wasn’t even mentioned. Anyone that commutes regularly from the eastern Fraser Valley or from Abbotsford into the Lower Mainland will have no end of stories about how often things are problematic on that particular route. It wasn’t even mentioned. In fact, with the exception of the much-needed Pattullo Bridge, there was absolutely nothing mentioned whatsoever in there.

Interjection.

J. Martin: I’ve got three minutes? Well, okay. Three minutes? I’ve got more than that. I’ve got lots of time. You’re trying to trick me.

Interjections.

J. Martin: No.

Noting the hour, hon. Speaker, I’m going to keep going. I’ve got lots of time. I feel like I just got here.

[6:35 p.m.]

Hey, where’s the $400 renters rebate — or, as we heard it in popular culture being passed about, beer money. Where’s that $400? People that rent were looking forward to that $400. Where did it go? What happened to it? It was in your platform. It was in your campaign, sure, and it’s not in the budget.

I mean, this is pretty straightforward. A lot of things that government initiates, and they promise…. They’re in their platform, and they have to introduce it. A lot of them are very difficult. A lot of them need…. “Oh. This is going to be a little more problematic. We’re going to have to take our time.” This one is simple. You just give every renter a cheque for 400 bucks. What could be easier to fulfil one of your campaign promises than giving every renter 400 bucks? It’s just a slam dunk.

At the end of the day, there’s no relief for commuters. There’s no immediate relief for housing shortages. We’ve got issues in my riding, still, with needing another school. We’ve got it zoned. We need assistance from the provincial government. We, along with Surrey, have a significant problem with portables.

I did notice that there was some assistance. For instance, the Premier’s office budget went up more than $2 million. Ministers’ office staff budgets have gone up 14 percent since the budget that was tabled last February. That’s a $2.1 million increase.

I do see that the green light actually is on for real this time. Nice little try there.

I, regrettably, will not be supporting the budget. I had higher hopes. There was certainly a lot of talk. Maybe it was just aspirational, or maybe it was just sloganeering. I don’t actually know. But I thank you for the time, hon. Speaker.

R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure to stand today to speak in favour of this budget. I want to acknowledge my colleague across the way, who had some unkind things to say about the NDP and some unfriendly things to say about our budget. But I’m not disheartened because I know he has said much worse about the party he’s with and the leader that he served for many years. Just as I know that his mind has changed before. I hope, by the time that we vote for this budget, I can convince him to change his mind. There you go.

It’s my pleasure to be standing here to speak in favour of this budget. It was clear to me, through the election and the last seven months, from talking to so many people in my community — the fine people of North Delta — and the entire region that people want a better B.C.

We had three major commitments that we made to the public in the lead-up to the election. One was making life more affordable, improving the services that people count on and building a strong, sustainable economy that supports jobs in every corner of this province.

Even when I’m not on duty in this House, I’ve had the opportunity to come in here just to hear people speak, and one thing that has become fairly clear to me is how we judge whether the economy is working. There’s a clear distinction between the members on the opposite side and our side on how we judge how the economy is working.

The previous government would announce their budget. They would cheer loudly and make some noise. They’d go to a $10,000-a-plate fundraiser with their biggest donors. They would tell them: “Hey, great. The 2 percent top earners get a tax break. You guys are doing a great job. Keep it up.” They said: “Well, guess what. Shareholders are making record profits. The economy is working well.” Well, we judge the economy by how people are doing. This budget reflects that.

[6:40 p.m.]

This budget is about people and making sure that people are benefiting from this economy that we have, and their lives are becoming better. So it’s my pleasure to be speaking about it.

Before I talk about all the great things that are in this budget, I think the Minister of Finance deserves huge credit for finding a nice balance in this budget, addressing the critical things that people desperately have requested from us and, at the same time, having a balanced budget, building in some space for contingencies and for things that we can’t predict. I think she’s done an excellent job, and I want to tip my hat to her. I know she’s watching. There you go. She deserves a round of applause, I think.

First off, I want to acknowledge a few of the things that we did in the seven months. Seven months — where has the time gone, hon. Speaker? Increased the minimum wage. I’ll start with that, as I see the Minister of Labour just walking in. Yes.

I think that for far too long, people that are being paid the least in our society have not seen anything go up. For the Fair Wages Commission to come back with $15.20 by 2021 — with a predictable scale so that business can plan and so that people can see that their wages are going to go up — is a huge step. I know for so many people that I talked to, this was their biggest thing: “When are our wages going to go up? Everything is going up — ICBC, hydro. All these things keep going up. Our wages are not going up.” So I thank the Minister of Labour for his good work and coming through on a commitment that I think was critical for many people in our society.

Increased income and disability rates. I think everybody in this House felt that when many of these advocates came here last year asking for the government to raise rates…. Rates hadn’t gone up for so long, and for us to be able to do that in the early days was a very important step for us. We invested in 1,700 new affordable rental units, and we’re starting to see action already. I saw that in Surrey we’ve now got seven units going up, and it’s much needed in our region.

The work that we’ve started on the poverty reduction plan, I think, again, is critical. It’s shameful that we are the only province that does not have a poverty reduction strategy. I’m grateful that we’ve started taking steps in that direction.

Of course, one of my favourites: eliminating the tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears Bridges.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: Yes. My colleague here will be very happy with that. I’m delighted about that. We’ve seen a decrease in traffic on both of the bridges that are close to my community, as traffic is now…. We’re fully using the capacity that we built in all of the region. So I was delighted about that. It saves a lot of money for constituents in my riding and ridings in the whole region. I just think it’s unfair for one region to pay tolls and be punished for new infrastructure, so I think it was an important step. Again, I thank the minister for taking that.

We have made investments in education. I am grateful to the Minister of Education for coming to North Delta and announcing funding for seismically upgrading the last elementary school in my community to be seismically updated. I’m grateful that Delta has…. Now all our schools have been seismically updated, and there are good people at the school board that have done some good work over the years. I know that there’s some good staff that are now heading over to Richmond, actually, to help the school board there get their plans up and running so that they can get some seismically upgraded schools as well.

I do want to mention two more things before I go on to the budget. This removing of tuition for former youth in care — we’ve already seen the effects of that. Young people are finally seeing hope. Young people are seeing that they can actually get an education and have a strong future. When that came, when that was announced, and you saw the uptake in participation, it was quite moving. That’s making a real difference in many people’s lives. That’s a real difference.

[6:45 p.m.]

Then, finally, ELL. I think we saw a 22 percent reduction in people participating in English language learning when the fees came in, and we’ve seen it rocket up. That is a critical thing for people who have immigrated to this country, who want to participate, who want to ensure that the skills and talents that they’ve brought from other countries get fully utilized here. All they need are supports for English language learning. I think that there are many members across the way, even — some of the new members — who would acknowledge that that is a critically important step for communities. I’m grateful that we took those steps.

This budget. We’ve heard the debate from both sides of the House. They say: “There’s not enough about the economy in there.” Well, I want to start off with child care. Because child care is an economic issue. Child care is not a social issue. It’s an economic issue. I was reading the paper today, the Metro. It says: “‘It’s truly historic,’ accountant and economic analyst Lynell Anderson told Metro in a phone interview. ‘Not just its historic financial investment but also historic in what it seeks to accomplish.’”

When you hear that…. This person was involved in an economic benefit study. It was a socioeconomic impact analysis on child care. What the study found…. It was a very important study because it really changed the context of what we see when we think of child care. People always thought it was a social issue.

They put it on the radar about the true impact it has for the economy. In the report, it said:

“Economic gains via the short-term economic stimulus generated from expanding and operating the new child care system; benefits to households from lower child care fees and increased utilization that is manifest via mothers’ labour supply effects; benefits to businesses from reduced staff turnover, absences and increased productivity; benefits to governments via higher revenues from increased economic activity and employment and lower spending in other areas.

“A multiplier shows the rise in overall economic activity or GDP in the short-run per-dollar increase in expenditures.”

Ontario also had a study when they started taking action. In the Ontario study, they found that every dollar they invested in child care added $2.47 to the Ontario economy. These numbers are astounding, and it’s not just these studies. I think all the chambers of commerce and many of the spokespeople for various economic sectors in our society all acknowledge that this is a critical step to help strengthen our economy. I think this one wins praise all across…. I heard the member from Kamloops also singing the praises of it, and I’m grateful to him for his comments.

The Leader of the Third Party was also speaking about it, and he made an interesting point. He was talking about how some immigrant communities prefer to have grandparents support their grandchildren, and he’s correct. That is an important piece. I was raised by my grandparents. Along with this plan, we are also very strong supporters of family reunification. We also urge the federal government to continue that access so that grandparents can join their children here and help take care of their grandchildren. It’s not just one; it’s a combination of things.

Too often, I think, we hear about seniors coming with families, and people say, “Well, they’re a burden,” and this and that. But they don’t realize the effect that they have on strengthening families, the impact they have in helping with child care. We need to continue to support that. I’m grateful to the Leader of the Third Party for mentioning that important piece.

Affordable child care. Part of our plan was introduced and laid out for everyone. Starting April 1, the child care fee reduction program will provide funding directly to licensed care providers. It will provide up to $350 a month for a child care space. The reductions will benefit an estimated 50,000 families per year by 2020 and 2021. It’s an astounding number. We’re also increasing and introducing a new affordable child care benefit starting in September 2018. It will provide up to about $1,250 each month per child. That will help 86,000 families per year. That’s not a small number.

[6:50 p.m.]

Again, the largest investment in child care in B.C.’s history. [Applause.]

Yes, I think it deserves long applause.

I think I’ve a few more minutes here, so I’ll continue to go.

The highest level of benefits will apply to infant and toddler care. That is where the greatest need is. That is the most least-affordable. It’s the most difficult place to find space.

Again, I think about how fortunate we were, my wife and I. We have a young child who…. We actually had a big party when he was out of child care. We invited family and friends over. They didn’t know what was going on, and then we brought out a cake, and they said: “What are we celebrating?” I said: “Well, Naven is going to elementary school, so we don’t have to pay the child care costs.” So we had a little party with everybody.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: It was. It was like when you pay your mortgage off. I don’t know what that feels like. Maybe some members might know that feeling. I don’t think I’ll ever know that feeling.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: Okay. Someone told me it’s a good feeling. Well, I can only pray that one day…. I hope my son one day inherits it, and then he can pay it off.

Families earning less than $45,000 will pay little to nothing. This is going to have a huge effect. This is going to help families. Again, I reiterate: this is the largest investment in B.C.

Part of this also is providing incentives for licensed providers outside centre business hours. I think it’s a real challenge for families, and I’ve heard this in my community. Sometimes people are working late into the evening. How do you find child care space for families that have not the traditional work hours? So having information in the plan and thought put in the plan on how to address that is also critically important — and, of course, building spaces.

Again, we were fortunate that we found one. When you’re paying $1,200 a month in a suburb community, you can find those spaces. But not everyone has the same opportunities.

I have a lot more to say, but….

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: I’m told to keep saying it. Well, then I’ll go into housing. I spoke about it in my throne speech. I was at a dinner party, and you can’t avoid a dinner party without talking about housing. It’s like when you meet people for the first time. What do you do? Well, you can talk about the weather, or you could talk about housing. The weather conversation is usually short, and the housing one is usually long.

When I spoke in my throne speech response, I was talking about this tech sector. He owns a company. He’s got employees, and he was saying the only reason why he can’t expand is that…. He’s worried because he’s in downtown Vancouver. He’s worried. He says: “I can’t find talent because they can’t afford housing here.” He says: “I can’t compete with Seattle.” He said it’s much cheaper over there for housing, and it’s much cheaper in many other ways. He said: “I can’t lure the talent over here.”

He was asking me about PNP and all these other programs that the province has. I wish the solution was: “Well, you know what? We’re going to provide housing.” Well, we’ve taken steps in this budget to address that. We’ve taken the first step to address demand with the speculator tax.

The minister said it perfectly. It will tax foreign and domestic speculators. The tax will apply to property owners who don’t pay income tax here, including those who leave units vacant and people who are parking their capital in our housing market simply to speculate, driving up prices and removing rental stock.

There’s, of course, expanding the foreign buyers market. Now, this is an interesting one. I know the member across is going to enjoy this. “What we have done instead is put together an elegant, simple, straightforward, easily administered tax program whereby non-Canadians” will be able to pay a percentage on the purchase price of properties. “That is an elegant solution to a difficult problem that will cool the real estate market and allow people…into the market who’ve been shut out because of the level of demand induced by foreign capital.”

Now, some people might chuckle at that, but this is a direct quote from Hansard from the now Leader of the Official Opposition when they introduced the speculation tax. So if he’s got any concerns about that, I hope he can address his quotes from then.

Noting the hour, I reserve my place, and I move adjournment of the debate.

R. Kahlon moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.