Orders of the Day

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

[2:35 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

G. Kyllo: It is truly a privilege and honour to rise today and continue with my remarks in response to Budget 2018. I also would like to say that, this morning, I had the opportunity to present a private member’s motion to talk about B.C.’s competitiveness and about the importance of supporting small businesses across our province, providing them with competitive tax rates so that they are able to compete in an ever-growing global economy.

Here we are at this time where we should be looking to attract investment and telling companies from around the globe that B.C. is the right place to station their headquarters. Here we have the NDP hammering our businesses’ bottom lines, reducing our international competitiveness. As made clear in recent question periods, this government believes that local, family-owned businesses somehow don’t understand how taxes work, dismissing them and their concerns.

Businesses in my riding have been reaching out to me, expressing their grave concerns with respect to the impact of some of the increased taxation that has become part of Budget 2018. My friends at North Enderby Timber reported that a payroll tax of 2 percent would cost an additional $120,000 a year and that most businesses would be looking to cut benefits when faced with a burden similar to this tax increase or looking at cutting back and reducing employment.

Another firm in my riding, Valid Manufacturing, would see costs increase to the neighbourhood north of $150,000 a year. Another small business in my area, Waterway Houseboats, would see an increase of $23,000. These new payroll taxes, as laid out in this year’s budget, send a clear message to businesses in B.C., to job creators and to investors. That is: if you are successful, we will bleed you until you are no longer.

It’s extremely concerning when we see a number of different issues that have been presented as part of Budget 2018. We have an increase in minimum-wage rates. We had, in September of this past year, the NDP mid-term budget that came out with a 1 percent increase in corporate taxes as well as a 2 percent increase on the tax rates for B.C.’s brightest and highest-income earners. It’s really important that we have a look. We can’t have a look at….

Interjection.

G. Kyllo: The member is chirping at me here from across the aisle.

I think it’s really important that we have a look at the need to continue to look at growing the economy. We have been extremely successful in the previous Liberal government of taking British Columbia to having the fastest-growing economy in Canada. Rather than taking the existing pie of taxation and trying to determine how we can actually pull more and more taxation away from existing businesses, we were looking at how we could grow the economy, create a bigger pie so that those businesses that are actually operating in British Columbia are not faced with increased tax pressure which, again, as I mentioned earlier, only forms to reduce our competitiveness.

We have an increasing global economy. We have small companies operating throughout British Columbia. We’re a small economy here, and for most companies to continue to grow and to provide economic opportunity and to create those family-supporting jobs, we need to have a look at encouraging British Columbian companies to export.

Whether you’re a small manufacturer up in the interior of British Columbia at the Salmon Arm industrial park and you’re looking at growing your business, and you’re looking at expanding by sending products and services into other jurisdictions around the globe, the tax competitiveness of your business is extremely important. It has a critical role in ensuring that you are able to compete at an international stage.

[2:40 p.m.]

No different when we have a look at our tourism sectors, whether we’re looking at houseboat rental operations on Shuswap Lake or folks that might be up at Silver Star Ski Resort, people that are coming skiing. We have to have a look at how taxation is going to impact the overall pricing, because in a global economy, folks have a choice to determine where they’re going to spend their holidays.

We’re also seeing the recent initiatives undertaken by the NDP government to make unconstitutional demands causing grief with the Trans Mountain pipeline. It is doing nothing to improve relationships with other provinces across Canada and certainly not with our federal counterparts in our Canadian government. I’m extremely concerned about some of the initiatives that our current government has undertaken with part of Budget 2018 to reduce the competitiveness and to stifle the growth of businesses here in British Columbia.

When we have a look at rural British Columbia, areas of the province are not having the record growth and not seeing the record reductions in unemployment levels that we’ve seen in larger major centres — areas that actually rely extensively on the resource community, whether it’s mining, forestry or natural gas development. We need to have a look at how we can provide that support for small communities across British Columbia to have that opportunity to take advantage of the resources that are within their communities and provide those family-supporting jobs that I know we so rely on.

Yet what do we see? The now Premier and former Environment Minister, prior to the last election, writing a letter to the federal government asking them to rescind the environmental permit for Pacific NorthWest LNG. Now, what kind of a message does that actually send to folks that are trying to develop LNG facilities in British Columbia?

It was of no great surprise this past summer when Pacific NorthWest LNG decided to pull out of a $34 billion investment that had created huge economic opportunities for rural parts of our province. It’s of no great consequence when we see what actually went forward.

As well, the budget mid-term update in September of this past year…. What did we see the NDP do to help to support and encourage and attract other businesses? They raised the corporate tax rate by another full percentage point to 12 percent. They raised the income tax rate for B.C.’s brightest and most productive workers by another 2 percent. These do not send messages to our international investment community that B.C. is open for business.

Budget 2018 — I share the critic role for Jobs, Trade and Technology — actually shows a reduction of 12½ percent for the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology. The one ministry that is there to actually help support business growth in our province, to help encourage businesses, saw a 12½ percent reduction in the budget for this current fiscal. Obviously, that shows there’s little support for growing B.C.’s economy and providing those necessary supports for businesses across B.C.

I must say, it’s really starting to feel like the 1990s all over again, the decade when B.C. went from first to last in terms of GDP growth in Canada. In fact, GDP growth was negative, a far cry from leading the nation like it has under the leadership of the B.C. Liberals.

In 1996, B.C.’s GDP per capita was below the Canadian average and 33 percent lower than Alberta’s. Investment dropped by 10 percent between just ’94 and ’96 alone, and B.C. ranked last, dead last, in investment growth. For the first time, B.C. was a have-not province. Shameful.

B.C. also had the highest unemployment rate west of Quebec, and in the latter half of the decade, it experienced some of the greatest job losses of any province. In 1998, the Business Council of B.C. said: “We are deeply concerned about the state of British Columbia’s economy, public finances and long-term competitiveness.”

The Toronto Dominion Bank of Canada said: “B.C. is on the verge of recession.” A headline from the Vancouver Sun on March 14, 1998, read: “Jobless rate hits four-year high. Bucking the national trend, B.C.’s unemployment rate rises to 9.7 percent.”

[2:45 p.m.]

The sequel is upon us. Last week — just last week — what did we see as far as a response to the NDP budget from the Business Council of B.C.?

“The new employer health tax, the EHT, comes as an unwelcome surprise to the business community. Set at 1.95 percent of payroll for all but the very smallest firms, the tax will generate almost $2 billion a year by 2019-2020…. The EHT spells higher labour costs for B.C. employers, even those who currently pay MSP premiums on behalf of their workers. Moreover, in 2019, many employers will find themselves paying both the new payroll tax and MSP premiums as the government effectively double-dips for almost a year.”

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan.

G. Kyllo: They go on to say:

“The most glaring missing piece in Budget 2018 is the failure to acknowledge or tackle B.C.’s lagging investment performance…. British Columbia is losing ground to the United States on competitiveness, capital formation and business attraction, owing in part to higher taxes, increased regulation and rising carbon and energy prices on our side of the border, at a time when the U.S. is moving in the opposite direction. Nothing in Budget 2018 suggests the government is keen to confront that problem.”

Economists know full well that if we intend to spur investment, we should lower taxes on the earnings of capital, and if we intend to increase employment, we should lower taxes on workers and the businesses that hire them. What the NDP have done with Budget 2018 is going in the opposite direction, reducing the competitiveness of B.C. businesses. Their supposed elimination of the MSP premium is clearly falling flat, squarely right on the backs of small businesses across British Columbia.

We seem to be heading back to the dark days of the 1990s all over again. Higher taxes, broken fiscal framework, uncompetitive taxation and policies — clearly, an assault on businesses — all efforts of an NDP government that appears on the path to destroying B.C.’s economy.

Hon. D. Donaldson: It is my pleasure to rise today to respond to the budget presentation, the budget speech tabled by our Finance Minister last week. Before I start, I will just take an opportunity to acknowledge the people in Stikine who elected me MLA three times now and the incredible responsibility I feel to represent their views — views of northern, rural and remote rural communities — in this Legislature.

It’s been, as I say, an honour, a privilege and a pleasure. I ran in 2005 and wasn’t successful and then was able to be elected in 2009, ’13 and 2017. That’s after ten years sitting on the Hazelton municipal council as a councillor. It’s been a real pleasure to be able to articulate, even in the pathetic way I’m able to sometimes, the views of people, like I say, living in areas of the province that aren’t necessarily familiar to a lot of the population.

Of course, all members of this Legislature understand that it’s an incredible effort by family when one gets elected, and also the continuing support, so I just want to acknowledge my wife, Anne, for the continued support and incredible encouragement and really positive criticism of the role I play in the Legislature, as well as the two constituency assistants I have now.

[2:50 p.m.]

One is in Hazelton — Julie Maitland. It’s the first time there’s been an MLA office in the community of Hazelton, the community I come from. As well, there’s Shelley Worthington in Smithers, the community office there.

They do an incredible amount of work and relay to me, especially now that I’m a cabinet minister, the concerns that are brought through the doors. We’re always looking for individual cases to work on, and they do a lot of that work these days — much more so than when I was an official opposition MLA. Also, they help us to aggregate themes that can mean a lot to government policy and legislation.

Stikine, the constituency I represent. I know many of the members of the Legislature on both sides are new, so I wanted to spend a couple of minutes on Stikine. It’s the largest geographic constituency in the province. You could fit several European countries into it and still not fill it up. It’s also the least populated of any constituency in the province, at about 21,000 people. That’s just a real representation of what it means to be in a remote, rural area and a constituency that represents that.

If I was able to jump in a car in Hazelton — which is in about the middle of the constituency, in the bottom half — and drive continuously, without stopping for snacks or any of those other breaks, I would eventually get to Atlin, in the northwest part of the constituency, in about 16 hours straight. It gives an idea of the largeness of the landscape. That landscape impacts the way people approach the world and approach life in Stikine.

There are six First Nations whose traditional territories are part of Stikine. Up in the northwest corner are the Taku River Tlingit. In the northeast corner are the Kaska. In the central area are the Tahltan. A little further south, they border with the Gitanyow. Then there are the Gitxsan along Highway 16 and, a little further east, the Wet’suwet’en. There’s a small part of Nisga’a territory in Stikine as well. The First Nations people who have called this area home for time immemorial have a huge influence on the way I approach my duties in this Legislature.

For the people in Stikine, much of the lifestyle — some people call it a lifestyle, but it’s really a way of life — is a connection to land and a connection to kin. There are a lot of settler families, as well as First Nations families. People are connected to each other in large, extended families. For that reason, many people find it undesirable to leave. They have extensive family networks that really kick in, in times of need. Also, it’s simply a way of keeping connection to those who are closest to you.

As well, there’s a close connection to the land. That can’t be separated from the culture, whether that’s settler culture, First Nations culture or newcomers to the area. You know, we’ve had several waves of newcomers to the area, whether it was during the ’70s, during the days when the U.S. was involved heavily in Vietnam, or even more recently.

We’ve had many newcomers in the community I live in, which is an unincorporated area in a regional district, who have become priced out of the communities that they lived in, in other parts of B.C. and Alberta, and have found areas in Stikine where the land is relatively inexpensive and the ability to own a home is higher than in other areas of the province. We’ve had an influx of people recently in that way as well.

What I want to emphasize, though, is that although in many parts of the province people are connected to a career that’s the major consideration about where they live and the kind of education they pursue, many people in Stikine organize their work for money in order to continue a way of life. That way of life, as I said, is connected to the land and connected to kin. So it’s a different way of proceeding with how you continue in your life, and it’s no less valid in other areas of the province.

[2:55 p.m.]

That’s something I continually advocate for, whether it was during my days in opposition or now when I’m in government and able to advocate with my fellow cabinet ministers and government caucus around the way of life experienced in rural communities.

That is why I was very pleased in the budget speech when…. In a general sense, I’ll talk about impacts to rural life that were enhanced in the budget, as well as those that have more, and some impacts on the budget that directly dealt with my ministry.

In child care, that connection to kin — in the rural communities I represent and when I look around the province — is really, really high in First Nations communities and in other smaller communities. Youth are seen in the Gitxsan terminology as majagaleehl gali aks. The youth are the flowers of our culture. So when we have introduced in this budget ways to improve quality, secure and very high-standard child care, it really speaks volumes to those in rural communities as well.

The affordability issue is always an issue. If you look at unemployment numbers across the province, for those living in smaller rural communities, the unemployment numbers are higher than in urban areas. That’s been what we’ve been left with as we’ve inherited government.

That is why the initiatives that the Minister of Finance announced last week around more accessible child care through improving the cost aspect has been so important. It’s not just important from the aspect of children, but also of the workforce.

There are many companies that I run into in rural communities that are finding it difficult to attract, let alone retain, qualified workers. So when you have people already living in the community, and if you can unleash that labour force by making child care more accessible and more affordable, which this budget does, it supports small business in communities to a huge degree.

This isn’t lost on the organizations in the province that look out for small business like the B.C. Business Council and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. They’ve advocated for more affordable and accessible child care. We’ve listened to them, as well as to parents, and made that happen.

When I hear about logging truck companies not being able to find drivers because of a lack of labour in small communities, I directly think about child care and how that’s going to free up a huge number of people, men and women alike, to pursue jobs that are vacant right now in rural communities.

When you have a job vacant in a rural community, especially when it’s a resource-dependent rural community — such as many are dependent on forestry — then it means there’s impact on being able to do all we can do from the economic standpoint in harvesting resources, the natural resources that are abundant in this province, in a sustainable manner. So you can see how I view the child care initiative as an economic initiative and an initiative that supports rural communities.

Same with housing. We have needs in rural communities that are across the spectrum in housing. The budget addressed those needs. The budget update in the spring also addressed those needs when it came to modular homes for those who are challenged when it comes to finding a safe place to put their bag and their head at night. The modular units were a welcome addition to the communities I represent — Smithers was one of them — when it was the budget update in the fall.

Now, this full budget that was announced last week has two items that are of particular interest to me when it comes to affordability. The rental assistance program, as announced by the Finance Minister, will mean an $800 average increase per year for those needing rental assistance.

[3:00 p.m.]

Even though I said there have been a number of waves of people coming to the constituencies of Stikine and the communities that I represent, because of the housing prices, it’s still a matter of a very difficult rental situation. We can work on the supply side and the demand side. Being able to provide an extra $800 a year, as an average increase for the rental assistance program, will make a difference in rural communities because rent can be tight in those communities as well.

The same with the announcement around the SAFER program, where there’s a $930 average increase for seniors, when it comes to rent. Seniors in rural communities often don’t have a lot of options. For a senior who doesn’t own a home and can’t necessarily enter into a seniors facility, having an extra $930 a year to help towards their rent will mean a safer, cleaner and more secure housing situation.

Those seniors are, really, in rural communities, the lifeblood of the volunteer organizations in many cases, especially when we have those who are employed often being unable to stay for extended periods in the communities in which they live — where they’re in camp for two weeks or three weeks at a time. So the seniors component is a real important part of the social fabric of communities when it comes to the volunteer efforts that really hold small communities together.

I was also pleased to note the announcement around medical services premiums being eliminated within this three-year-cycle budget. Under the previous government, the MSP premiums doubled. It was a regressive tax in that those who made $60,000 and those who made $250,000 were paying the same amount. I don’t think anybody with any common sense would say that’s a good way to have a taxation system. We’ve joined the rest of Canada. No other province in Canada had a medical services premium.

I see it as a benefit to the very small businesses that populate rural communities — those under a $500,000 payroll. In the communities I represent, those are the majority of the businesses.

What this will mean…. Once the MSP premiums are eliminated, it’ll mean, on average, $800 to $900 for individuals and up to $1,800 for families in savings. That’s money in people’s pockets that they didn’t have before and that can go directly back into the retail sector if it’s discretionary income. That can support the small businesses at a retail level in small communities.

Education — another announcement that I think is essential for rural communities. Investment in K-to-12 education is an imperative for the kind of society that we want to create and become in B.C., but it’s also important from an economic point of view in small communities. People do have the ability to choose where they live. Some people do, anyway.

When it comes to education and health, those are major determining factors about: “Okay, I’ve been offered a job in a small town in Stikine. I have a family. What’s the education system like?” When we know, through this budget and the budget update, that there’ll be 3,700 new hires when it comes to teachers, that has an impact on people’s decision-making about where they’ll locate.

As well, $2 billion over this budget cycle invested in education infrastructure. There are many schools in small rural communities that need upgrades, that need replacement. By investing $2 billion, you’re investing in rural communities and in infrastructure that will make rural communities more attractive for people to populate. I think that the diversity of having populations within the rural areas, as well as the urban areas in B.C., is what makes this province great. We’ve got to make sure that continues to happen.

In health, as well, I consider investments in health as an investment in the economy of rural communities. There’s $3.1 billion over this budget cycle, these three years, investing in health infrastructure. I think about Williams Lake, where we’ve committed to $125 million to redevelop the hospital there. I know that the member from that constituency was appreciative of that in one of her columns in the local paper. When I think of that, that’s an investment in rural communities. It’s rural development.

[3:05 p.m.]

As well, in this budget, under that $3.1 billion, there was an investment of $375 million in a new hospital in Terrace — Mills Memorial. I can tell you, that hospital needs that kind of investment. Many people from my constituency end up for further medical assistance in that hospital, and it is a hospital where there are buckets in the hallways, collecting water from the roof.

Again, it’s an investment in the economy in rural communities. I consider that rural development. If you don’t have the fundamentals of the health infrastructure in place, if you don’t have the fundamentals of the education infrastructure in place, then it’s going to be very difficult for rural communities to be all they can be, for people in rural communities to contribute to the economy in the province and for rural communities to remain viable.

Seniors. Once again, I was thrilled to hear and read the announcement of $548 million over three years for seniors care in this budget to hire qualified staff and improve quality of residential senior care.

Having been an opposition MLA for eight years and a government member and cabinet member for about seven months now…. The issues that come through the door in our constituency offices are varied. You could always expect that you’d be hearing about highways. That’s a prime example for people in rural areas where they see their tax dollars being spent, and when they don’t see highways in good condition or being maintained properly, they let you know at the constituency office.

One of the things that I was particularly interested in is the theme of seniors care that has consistently come through our constituency offices. I wasn’t necessarily ready for that as an opposition MLA. It was a real shock to me that so many people had so many concerns about what was going to happen to their aging parents.

Again, we’re talking rural communities here. You don’t necessarily want to see an aging parent in a rural community have their children say: “Okay, we’ll send them 300 or 400 kilometres away to a residential care facility.” That’s not the kind of policy work that we agree with, and that’s why we’re making these changes.

As well, the care that people do receive…. We heard incredible stories about elders and seniors in residential care facilities being restricted about how often they could get a bath. Let’s talk about human dignity here.

I’m so happy that the $548 million is going to improve those kinds of issues and see that the seniors in rural communities, whether they’re First Nations, settlers or newcomers, are actually going to be acknowledged for the work they’ve done throughout their lives, what they’ve contributed to community and what they’ve contributed to the provincial taxation budget and get the kind of care and services they need as they live out their lives in rural communities.

As far as my ministry is concerned…. I could go on and on in the budget, there’s so much good to talk about.

From a First Nations perspective, the $50 million that has been allocated for this coming year when it comes to revitalization of First Nations languages is phenomenal. Before I became an MLA, I worked in community economic development. One of the projects I worked on was creating a language lab for the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en Education Society. It’s integral to culture to have language retained, and we know many of the languages are on the brink in B.C. — many of the First Nations languages.

That infusion of $50 million is going to go such a long way to improving languages and, therefore, improving culture. We know that especially with young First Nations people…. Young First Nations people who have a connection to their culture do better in life. They can become even better at contributing to the communities in which they live.

[3:10 p.m.]

Connecting that, again, from an economic point of view, that $50 million for language, as it improves culture, as it improves young people’s lives and connection to their culture and makes them more ready to be capable and contributing members of their communities, is seen by me as an economic initiative in rural communities as well.

As far as my ministry goes, it’s been a pleasure to head up such an amazing ministry the last seven months. I have to mention, quickly, some of the close staff that we have in the ministerial office — Tim Renneberg, ministerial assistant; Kenn McLaren, ministerial assistant; Tristan Jones, the executive assistant; Lisa Silverio, my administrative coordinator; and Sandra Purdy, administrative assistant.

They’ve been phenomenal as we’ve moved through. We’re a government that wants to get a lot of things done. So there are often times it puts a lot of burden on the shoulders of staff and the public servants as well — through Deputy Minister Tim Sheldan and the 11 assistant deputy ministers in the ministry. That’s right, 11. That shows the wide extent of the ministry. They have been, really, people who I respect for their passion, their knowledge. They’re willing to consider new ideas and put forth solutions. It’s been a very, very interesting experience for the last seven months.

As far as this particular budget and this particular ministry, the Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development budget focuses on forest-dependent communities and on communities in rural areas. That’s the foundation. I know that people understand that if you don’t have healthy populations and viable rural communities, we are never going to achieve all we can achieve in the province of B.C., because they are the foundation of caretaking and a sustainable economy around the natural resource extraction industries.

As I said, a number of the initiatives in the budget, when it came to child care or health or seniors care or education, are all around addressing affordability and services in rural communities and forest-dependent rural communities.

I can’t not mention the wildfire situation that many in the province lived through this past summer. I mean, the impact was tremendous — 1.2 million hectares impacted by forest fires, 65,000 people displaced from their homes. It was the largest fire season on record in B.C.

At first, I thought…. Ten days after a provincial state of emergency was declared because of the forest fire situation, I became the minister, and I toured many parts of the Interior. I didn’t want to get in the way. I knew that when I was touring, they would draw people away from their jobs, but it was also important to get an idea of what was going on, on the ground.

After a while, in visiting some of the emergency centres and the operations centres, I’d be introduced to staff — 35 staff working in an emergency operation centre. They’d introduce themselves and where they work. And 99 percent of them were working for government ministries. Many were working for the ministry that I represent. They were on, maybe, their second 14-day rotation after three days off. So it started to dawn on me that: “Oh, sure. People are fighting fires, but this is something big. This is something unprecedented.” Ten weeks of a provincial state of emergency.

That impact, people being on fires, wasn’t just on the people on the front line. It was on all the people working from all different government ministries. The fact that they were able to do that and still keep work going when they returned or while they were away…. You know, permitting times didn’t drop in other areas of the government.

I just want to say a big thank-you to those people working in the public service for the above-and-beyond effort that they displayed during the fire season and, of course, the front-line B.C. Wildfire Service personnel and contractors. Not one life was lost as a direct result of the forest fire situation. We can be so thankful and grateful for that, especially in the light of what happened in California this fall and early winter.

[3:15 p.m.]

Speaking to that, we did create the Above and Beyond Awards, just to make sure that people knew they were appreciated. We asked British Columbians to nominate anyone they felt should be recognized, including firefighters and first responders, friends and neighbours. We had a total of 1,630 people nominated. Each received a certificate signed by the Premier. It was just a small token of appreciation. So thank you to those who nominated others, and thank you to those who received the awards as well.

As was mentioned in the budget speech, $873 million was spent addressing the fire season this year. That was $648 million in direct costs, direct firefighting costs, and $225 million in emergency response funding through the Canadian Red Cross and emergency management B.C.

It really puts a fine point on what we can do into the future. We have $72 million allotted in this budget for resilience and recovery. We were able to allocate, in the previous budget update, $150 million to the forest carbon initiative fund and have leveraged that to another $140 million from the low carbon economy fund from the federal government. All this will be put towards the reforestation and protection of natural assets, whether it’s in range, forest, water storage, infrastructure or other ways for land-based recovery.

In the budget, there was $16 million for land use planning. This will bring more certainty around investment and more certainty for communities and First Nations about areas surrounding their communities that will be developed. And there’s $14 million into creating an updated, refurbished, renewed wildlife management and habitat conservation model. That’s something that recognizes that the values in the forests are multifaceted. Timber, water, wildlife, to name a few, are values that we manage for in our forests. We want to make sure that one value doesn’t become dominant over another value. Wildlife is very important.

I’ll finish off by highlighting rural development. As well as the other aspects I talked about in health and education, we are reinvesting in rural communities, with $75 million over the next three years under the rural dividend fund. We have begun a rural development strategy that will address the fact that rural unemployment is higher than urban unemployment, that 30,000 jobs have been lost in forestry, mainly in rural areas, and that over 100 mills have shut down. This is a rural development strategy from the bottom up.

Thank you very much. I’m very pleased to speak today to Budget 2018.

M. Morris: I sat here listening to the budget and going through the budget. I find it impressive, actually, that we left this government with a $2.7 billion surplus that evaporated before everybody’s eyes. They, in turn, decided that they were going to increase taxes — many taxes. We’re seeing many, many taxes coming into play, and the rates are going up…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, we’ll hear the member who has the floor.

M. Morris: …and up and up.

Income tax. Here’s an example — $1 billion a year in increases in income tax. Just for the member from Nanaimo, the $2.7 billion surplus that we had, did go to the debt, but we were projecting a $2.7 billion surplus for ’17-18 as well that they have virtually sucked right up into who knows what.

We also see the carbon tax increase. That is no longer revenue-neutral. It’s increasing every year. We see the speculation tax, as they call it. That, to me, is just another sly way of saying: “We’re going to take more money from people’s pockets.”

In the House this last week, I did hear the minister say her goal was to drive house prices down. I would like to hear what her response would be to the men and women and the families who have bought their first house some time over the last two or three years and who have seen a bit of an increase.

[3:20 p.m.]

They have mortgaged themselves to the hilt to try and get a foothold into the housing sector in the Lower Mainland and throughout British Columbia, and now we’re going to see those house prices crash. The president and CEO of the Urban Development Institute said that a housing price drop could trigger a recession. Is this a chance that the minister is willing to take?

Andrey Pavlov specializes in real estate finance at Simon Fraser University. He was part of a group of B.C. economists and business professors who jointly called, in 2016, for a tax targeting speculators. He said last week that the B.C. government has only followed half of the prescription that they recommended. In a media interview, he said that the tax needed to be revenue-neutral and that the revenue that was coming in was supposed to help the locals, reduce taxes for the locals. Without this, it doesn’t improve affordability, at all, for anybody.

The other tax that we see coming on line here is this job-killing health tax to replace the MSP premium and doubling down, no less, on local business. The NDP is growing government, and they have no plans in place to pay for it except from the taxpayers’ pockets.

I’m going to look a little bit on public safety, which is the area that I had responsibility for and, of course, as a critic for that role right now. I’ll quote from the throne speech here. It says: “Government will continue to invest in police officers and specialized units to tackle gang and gun violence. Government has committed to ongoing funding for successful community programs like the Surrey Wrap program, to keep at-risk youth out of gang life.” But in the budget, there was no mention of police or security increases.

I also want to know what happened to the commitment that the Premier announced on September 29, 2017, of an additional $31.3 million to critical enforcement and public safety issues, to dedicated anti-trafficking teams with additional officers and support staff as part of the government’s fentanyl response.

In the fall estimates, the Solicitor General addressed this extra funding by stating that for this year — this fiscal year, ’17-18 — it would actually be $4.08 million that would be spent, and subsequently more than that would be spent in the following budget year. I’m anticipating it to be $10 million for this fiscal year and another $10 million for the following one.

The payroll for provincial policing in British Columbia is approximately $210 million. That equates to approximately $4 million or more in this new health tax that is levied on employers. It pretty much swallows up this $4 million that they were going to spend in ‘17-18, and it’s going to take a big chunk out of the revenue for ’18 and ’19. I don’t see any increases in the policing budgets. The NDP giveth, and they taketh away.

Police do not have the capacity to respond to the fentanyl crisis that we have right now, with extra teams, if they don’t receive any additional funding to do that.

How will this health tax impact municipal policing budgets? The provincial policing budget…. There are about 2,600 or 2,700 provincial policing officers in the province here. On the municipal side, we have 6,000 or 7,000. So 6,000 or 7,000 are receiving some pretty good income. Just going off the top of my head, I would say that this health tax is probably going to have an impact of close to $10 million on municipal policing budgets. Pretty significant. That takes that money out of the operations of a police department and further hinders their ability to respond to calls.

Not only that. How about the carbon tax increases that we see coming down? Police vehicles, police boats, police aircraft — all use fuel. The increased carbon taxes for these police vehicles will impact their budgets to a significant degree.

[3:25 p.m.]

I recall back in 1998, from 1998 till 2001, when the B.C. Liberals were elected into government. As a senior police manager in the province, we had to park police vehicles because we didn’t have gas money. We had to park police airplanes and boats because we didn’t have gas money. The conservation officer service had to park vehicles because they didn’t have money for gas for their operations.

This was during the previous NDP government in 1998 until 2001. I recall that they would give us our budget figures fairly late in the year, and we would start planning our fiscal plan for the upcoming fiscal year. Partway through that fiscal year, probably by May or June, they would take money away from our budgets. And that caused a significant impact on how we would deliver those services.

In examining the budget and the allocations within the budget, the actual budget for policing and security has decreased by $5.6 million for the upcoming fiscal year. It’s gone down $5.6 million, even though the Premier had committed to an extra $31.3 million. Even though this government has said they’re going to put more money into fentanyl issues, which the police have a significant responsibility for. Even though there are 18 pieces of legislation that are going to be impacted by the legalization of cannabis and marijuana in this province. There was no extra money. It decreased.

Again, I feel sorry for the police managers out there trying to figure out how they are going to meet the needs of the public, meet the needs of their investigations, with less money. And it’s not only less money in the budget but less money to use because they’re paying this health tax, they’re paying the carbon tax, and who knows what other taxes might be impacting on the delivery of services for our communities across the province.

Looking at priorities of this government with respect to public safety. I look at provincial detachments like Vanderhoof, which has a criminal caseload of 113 criminal case files per police officer in Vanderhoof. There are other detachments. Takla Landing has over 100 as well, and there are a number of provincial detachments that do have high caseloads like that.

In my experience as a police officer, once a constable or a police officer gets much over 40 or 50 criminal files in addition to his or her workload, it becomes an impossibility to provide proper investigations and proper rigour to those investigations, just because of the nature of criminal investigations in these days.

We have remote communities that are suffering from a higher-than-average incidence of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, alcohol dependence and persons crimes in general, which take a greater amount of effort and resources to investigate. In communities that have seen an exodus of young women escaping to larger communities from the life they had there, with alcohol and the sexual abuse, only to succumb to some more tragic circumstances as they move into an urban environment….

When we look at that and then look at the government’s priority now — the member before me was commenting on it — to invest $50 million to preserve Indigenous languages…. It’s important. In all of the First Nations communities that I’ve lived in, Indigenous languages were important. But here we have people suffering every day from alcohol abuse and domestic violence and sexual abuse, and preserving languages is a higher priority than putting that money into extra policing resources. From a risk management perspective, I think that this really needs to be re-examined.

We add to the mix the elimination of our Greyhound bus routes now, a significant safety measure for people travelling throughout rural British Columbia, northern British Columbia, particularly in the wintertime.

[3:30 p.m.]

We’ve had a lot of snowfall in rural B.C. We’ve had some cold weather. That is a lifeline for a lot of people from our First Nations communities, from our smaller remote communities throughout rural B.C. It’s gone. It’s eliminated. And nothing in the budget speech, nothing to determine this a priority for government to look at.

Speaking about buses, let’s talk about transportation. We hear they are freezing ferry rates, reducing ferry rates, reinstating the rates for seniors. I wonder who’s left to pay the bills at the end of the day. Who’s going to pay the increased carbon tax as a result of the carbon tax increase?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

When I was responding to the budget from the fall of 2017 and looking at the impact that the carbon taxes were having on the ferries, I calculated it out to be approximately $100,000 a day to the entire B.C. ferry fleet by the time the full implementation of the carbon tax is felt. So 100 grand a day. Add that up, day by day, over the course of a year. It’s a lot of money. So when we’re freezing ferry rates and reducing ferry rates, where is that extra money going to come? Where is that extra $100,000 a day going to come from? It’s going to come from the taxpayers. It’s going to come from you and me and anybody else that crosses the ferry and uses the ferry.

Rural British Columbians contribute, on average, 78 percent of B.C.’s total exports. There was a report done by the Northern Development Initiative Trust recently that indicated that. Over the past ten years, this has averaged to equal about $24 billion to $30 billion every year from rural British Columbia. So 78 percent of British Columbians’ exports come from rural British Columbia — up to $30 billion a year that we are contributing to the economy of British Columbia. Pretty significant. As I said before, rural British Columbia is punching well above its weight when it comes to the economic contributions that are made to the province here.

When you look at it — when we look at forestry, mining, oil and gas — all of the resource sector uses diesel fuel, gasoline, natural gas, various fossil fuels in order to generate that $30 billion. With the increased carbon tax, let alone the other taxes that this government has announced, we’re going to see these companies take another hit on their bottom line, a significant hit on their bottom line.

As my colleague from Skeena was saying in a speech at the Natural Resources Forum in January, he wonders whether government believes that the resource sector runs on unicorn spit. I kind of wonder the same thing myself. When you look at the impact that it’s had on the resource sector, are they trying to cripple the resource sector? Are they trying to limit the amount of employment they have out there? Something has to give at the end of the day. Prices go up, and the consumer ends up paying for it.

How about the Pattullo Bridge announcement? I think it was $1.4 billion. It’s a TransLink responsibility that the government has taken on. Is government now wanting to change the legislation that was enacted by the NDP back in 1998 creating TransLink, creating the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act?

I want to read from the Finance Minister of the day, Joy MacPhail, from July 29, 1998. I quote from the reading, during the second reading of that particular bill:

“I just want to address funding briefly. The concept of local control clearly is meaningless unless the new authority is also given control over funding for transit and transportation, including the power to set its own budget and raise its own revenues through existing revenue sources and new funding opportunities. That’s why, in addition to creating the new authority, the GVTA Act also provides new funding arrangements in the greater Vancouver region. These arrangements provide for the division of existing assets and debt, cost-sharing for new assets and ongoing powers for the authority.

[3:35 p.m.]

“They ensure that the GVTA will have sufficient revenues to cover current debt servicing and operating costs and sufficient new powers to fund substantial growth.”

She goes on to say:

“I’ll just highlight some of these. In an unprecedented move, our province has agreed to transfer 4 cents of the existing gas tax to the GVTA, growing to 6 cents by the year 2005.”

I believe that’s close to 20 cents today.

“As well, a forecasted $51 million in property tax revenues which now go to pay a share of hospital-related debt will become a revenue source for the GVTA. The responsibility for hospital debt will be assumed by the province.”

The reason I bring this up is we now have a playing field that’s not really balanced. In addition to the $1.4 billion Pattullo Bridge, we’ve heard that government is looking at building a Surrey light rapid transit system, perhaps another system along Broadway.

I’ll go back to that level playing field here just for a second as well. Every taxpayer outside of the GVRD continued to pay a hospital tax. The rest of British Columbia continues to pay that hospital tax. Every capital project outside of the GVRD, every hospital capital project, has had to contribute up to 40 percent of the capital costs for new hospitals or upgrades.

From 2001 to 2017, there was $4 billion that went into capital hospital projects in the GVRD — four billion bucks. I just heard recently — I think just read somewhere — that a group has taken the Premier to task for promising a new $2.1 billion hospital for Burnaby during the election campaign. That, of course, didn’t show up in any of this. That’s another significant amount of provincial money that has been promised to be spent in the GVRD.

Government has removed tolls on bridges and assumed responsibility for TransLink infrastructure, all in the pursuit of fairness. But fairness for whom? In the pursuit of fairness, is government now planning on reinstating the hospital property tax in the GVRD?

The budget talks about jobs and the economy. The Finance Minister took great delight in speaking to the $26 billion in infrastructure spending over the next three years, saying it will contribute to a strong economy where people are rewarded for hard work with good wages and job security and help businesses create more jobs.

She also stated in her speech that 4,100 full-time jobs were created last month — 4,100 full-time jobs created last month. How many of those jobs are government jobs? How many are new teachers? How many of them are new staff in the Premier’s office thanks to the $2 million increase in his budget for staff? How many of them are government jobs within the ministries, accounting for the 14 percent increase in costs to run those offices?

The economy doesn’t grow because of government jobs. The economy grows because of private sector investment. You don’t attract private sector investment by increasing taxes.

You talked about reducing the small business tax by half a percentage point. You put $1 back in their pocket. But you cut a hole in the bottom of the pocket, so the dollar and whatever other money was in the pocket falls out. You pick it up, calling it a health tax or whatever other tax that you’ve implemented — a carbon tax, a speculation tax.

The increase in taxes, the increase in the carbon taxes and the increase in the health tax, is going to cause small businesses to increase their costs or to lay people off. We’ll see our employment numbers going down. The Economic Forecast Council has already predicted that they’re going to see a decrease in the resource sector, in the contributions that the resource sector makes.

[3:40 p.m.]

That is going to impact the small businesses in the resource sector in rural British Columbia to a significant degree. Added on top of that is this health tax and increases in income tax and increases in the carbon tax. It looks pretty dismal for the folks in British Columbia to make ends meet in order to try and move this economy and this great province of ours forward.

I don’t see much light at the end of the tunnel in this budget. It’s got a significant increase to the services that British Columbia offers everybody, but it does nothing to ensure that we have money coming in, in order to pay the bills at the end of the day. I’m certainly not going to be voting in favour of this. I think it’s a detrimental step for British Columbians, and it’ll be proven out over the next several months.

M. Dean: Today I will start with an acknowledgment of the traditional territories of the Indigenous people within the constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin — Songhees, Esquimalt, Scia’new and Tsawout nations.

I also want to take this opportunity to say thank you to everyone in the community who elected me and to say how proud and committed I am to serving everyone in Esquimalt-Metchosin. We have a beautiful and a diverse constituency, a number of municipalities, neighbourhoods, different school districts, police services and fire departments and a long coastline.

Today, while I talk about serious matters, I am also going to try and smile some more. I have had some feedback from people in the constituency that, clearly, I’m paying so much attention and taking my business here so seriously that I haven’t been able to express, actually, how beautiful and adorable our home is across the constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin. It really is a beautiful community and a beautiful part of the province.

I’d also like to say a special thank-you and mention to my constituency office team, especially Lawrence Herzog, Leslie Mahoney and Andrew Barrett, and appreciation for my staff here in the Legislature, too, particularly Solenn Madevon.

As I’ve heard from so many of my colleagues on both sides of the House, this is an opportunity for me to pay homage to Dave Barrett, such an influence in our province for all British Columbians and leadership in the history of our party. I know Shirley, his widow. She lives in my constituency. She’s adorable and a force of nature. She lives her life with such depth of wisdom and experience, and she has such generosity of sharing her insights and her support.

Thank you, also, to Dave’s sons, Dan and Joe, who have been so supportive and such important team players in my constituency, and to Dave’s grandson, who has such a backbone of strong values and commitment to the province and powerful motivation to pursue the best for all British Columbians.

I remember a time earlier on this year when we were door-knocking together in our community. We visited this house. It was early evening, and there were a couple of guys in the backyard having a beer. So we got chatting to them, and they started to tell us — reminiscing stories themselves — of when Dave Barrett was out door-knocking. This was obviously the story they loved to tell and dine out on in the community. Dave came and knocked on the door. They were sorting out their wood in the backyard, and he just mucked in. He opened a can of beer and joined them, and he helped them with stacking wood as well.

We all smiled and thought what a fantastic old story they had that they’d been sharing with the community. Of course, then my door-knocking partner turned around and said: “Oh, yeah. That’s my granddad.” So now they’re dining out on that story.

I’m also indebted to the legacies of other elected representatives who have blazed trails and set high standards of service in our community — Frank Mitchell; Moe Sihota; Maurine Karagianis; also Ray Rice, the previous Esquimalt mayor; and our MP, Randall Garrison. Special thanks, as well, to our Finance Minister, who has been just such an awesome mentor to me in my journey here.

That brings me to the budget. I am so proud to stand and talk in support of Budget 2018 and explain how it’s going to benefit our province and everyone in Esquimalt-Metchosin.

[3:45 p.m.]

This budget is a reflection of our commitments, our values. It can truly be described as a people’s budget, making life better, increasing opportunity and promoting success for all. It was clear when we were sworn in as a new government that British Columbians wanted and needed a better B.C. Families have been working harder than ever and are unable to get ahead. Young people starting out can’t find affordable housing, and seniors can’t get the services they need and rely on.

It’s time for a different approach, one that puts people at the heart of our work. It’s time everyone in our province is part of our prosperity. This budget clearly illustrates this core goal. We’re implementing bold and historic initiatives, especially with investing in child care, housing and services.

People are at the heart of every choice we have made in this budget, because your government should be working each and every day to make life more affordable, improve the services you count on and build a strong, sustainable economy that supports jobs in every corner of the province.

To start, I want to highlight and emphasize that all of our work in government is framed by our work with Indigenous people. Addressing reconciliation is a shared responsibility and is taken seriously across our government. Our commitment to adopting and implementing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is evident in our plans, our approach and in this budget.

For example, and as a start, Budget 2018 invests $200 million in Aboriginal housing, child care, skills training and Aboriginal friendship centres. Critically, we are also investing $50 million this fiscal year to support the preservation and revitalization of Indigenous languages in B.C. Of the 34 First Nations languages in our province, eight are severely endangered and 22 are nearly extinct. This funding will flow immediately, because there is no time to lose.

Another urgent matter we’re taking bold steps to address is the child care crisis. For too many parents, child care is nearly as expensive as housing and even harder to find. It is not an exaggeration to say that there is a child care crisis in B.C. For years the situation just got worse and worse, instead of better.

In Budget 2018, our first full budget as government, I’m proud to say we’re taking action to end that crisis and bring affordable, accessible child care to all British Columbian families who want and need it. The old government neglected child care for years, choosing to give tax breaks to their rich friends instead of helping families. As a result, families have been struggling.

For those who have been fortunate to find child care, the cost is prohibitive — in some parts of the province, as much as a mortgage payment. For others, trying to find a space has been a constant worry. We’ve heard from so many young families who put their names on wait-lists for child care spots that never came, who’ve had to delay their return to work because of the lack of available spaces or who end up cobbling together part-time solutions and makeshift arrangements.

Some never find the peace of mind that their child is even in a safe place. Most tragically, we can think of the case of Baby Mac, who died on his second day at an unlicensed child care that was being operated illegally.

Now, there is a misunderstanding that anyone looking after children who is not licensed is illegal. That is not the case now, nor will it be going forward. There are, of course, many wonderful people looking after children for whom a licence is not required as they look after only two children in addition to their own, whether it’s their child’s friends, their neighbour’s kids or so on. That is the situation now, and contrary to some misinformation provided in this House last week, this will not change under our new child care plan.

Nor do all parents want or need child care. Those families will continue to have access to early learning programs provided by government, such as StrongStart.

What is clear is that there are currently thousands of parents across the province who are very anxious about child care. As a result of the previous government’s neglect of this issue, there is a drastic shortage of licensed spaces and an affordability crisis.

Families across the province are struggling to find affordable child care — in particular, infant and toddler care. As any parent knows, if you’re worried about finding child care, worried about the well-being of your child, worried about the high cost and whether it’s even affordable to go back to work, it’s going to be hard to be your best at work.

[3:50 p.m.]

If you can’t get child care, you might just not go back to work, and you certainly won’t move to take a job in a city where child care is notoriously unavailable and unaffordable, even if you’re able to find it. Employers get this. Municipal leaders get this. Boards of trade and chambers of commerce get this. For some reason, the official opposition critics for MCFD and for Child Care do not seem to.

For example, the member for Chilliwack-Kent said in the House last week: “The government wants to pull those providers into the public sphere, so it will have to get unlicensed providers — that is, people who are caring for one or two children now, usually in their own home — into the public system. It wants them to get licensed. This is how the government will do it. I think it’s a very ingenious plan. It is also quite coercive, in my view.”

Our comprehensive child care plan has been built based on the input of families across the province. No parent should ever feel pressured, because of either a lack of available spaces or information, to forgo licensed care when that is their preferred option. We’ve heard loud and clear through talking with parents across the province that they want better access to licensed early care and learning. Parents want quality care that is safe and gives them peace of mind when they’re at work.

Will many families wish to keep arrangements they already have with their license-not-required caregivers and babysitters? Yes. We fully expect they will, and that is anticipated by the plan. But is the member for Chilliwack-Kent really suggesting parents shouldn’t be given the option of licensed care? We disagree, and we are proud to be working towards a universal child care system.

The importance of quality early learning is made very clear by a recent Conference Board of Canada report that shows there’s close to $6 in economic benefits for every $1 spent on expanding early childhood education enrolment of children under five years of age.

For those caregivers who are currently looking after only two children other than their own, as license-not-required providers, and who wish to become licensed to care for more children, our plan will also support them in this process.

The focus of our new investments is to reduce the cost of licensed care, so that we can meet our commitment for quality care and work to replace the current fragmented system. However, parents who currently get subsidy and whose children are in unlicensed care will continue to receive support under the new, affordable child care benefit each month.

The amount of benefit that a parent receives depends on their income and type of care their child is in. If your child care provider opts to get licensed, parents may also be eligible for a monthly cost savings via the province’s new child care fee reduction initiative starting in April 2018 — as long as your provider chooses to opt in to the new initiative.

We’re also working hard to build more licensed child care spaces faster, so parents have more options available for their children no matter where they live in B.C. And we are making the largest investment government has ever made to reduce child care fees in British Columbia.

Now, the issue of homelessness in my community is a hidden yet pervasive issue. Many families and vulnerable people are living in situations of risk — unstable and overcrowded situations. Esquimalt-Metchosin communities are full of individuals, families, students and seniors who have been struggling for years to find homes. The biggest issue in our community is the lack of secure, stable and healthy housing.

Even if people find homes, they’re unhealthy, at risk of eviction or unfair rent increases and cause the most stress to members of our community. Families are working as hard as they can, and they can’t get ahead because of the burden of such high costs of housing. My community needs not just the basics of shelter. They need safe and secure shelter that protects them and their families and supports them in participating in their family life, business activities and other economic activities.

Across my community, renters have seen vacancy rates drop while prices rise dramatically. Young adults attending school haven’t had access to student housing. Young professionals have been faced with moving out of their communities or the province.

[3:55 p.m.]

Seniors who have struggled to meet rising housing costs on fixed incomes are at risk of homelessness.

I hear from local businesses, chiefs of police and fire departments that they are struggling to attract, hire and retain workers and professionals because of the lack of affordability of housing in our community.

People want government to take action. That’s why we’re setting out a 30-point 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 people need. It starts with taking action to stabilize the market and curb demand.

We will introduce a new annual speculation tax, starting in B.C.’s urban areas. It will tax foreign and domestic speculators, and this tax will apply to property owners who don’t pay income tax here, people who leave units vacant and satellite families — those households with high worldwide income that pay little income tax in B.C. Primary residences and long-term rentals will generally be exempt, and their owners will be able to claim an upfront exemption. It will penalize people parking their capital in our housing market simply to speculate, driving up prices and removing rental stock.

To curb demand, we’re also increasing the additional property transfer tax rate, known as the foreign buyer tax, to 20 percent. We think that foreign buyers should contribute to the high quality of life they enjoy when they move to our province. Currently this tax only applies in Metro Vancouver. We’re extending it to include other urban areas, including the capital regional district, which, of course, includes the Esquimalt-Metchosin constituency.

Of course, the other dimension of tackling the challenge of affordable housing is the supply of housing for people who need it. We need a mix of housing stock. Across my community, we need housing for families, people with disabilities, youth and seniors. The housing that will be provided will range from social housing to market rentals for people with moderate incomes. Importantly, especially for our community, is the investment that we have committed to preserving and protecting our existing social housing for everyone who already lives in them.

A significant area that is brought to my attention is the need for students to have student housing. This will liberate other units and increase the rental stock, as well as provide more appropriate and affordable homes for students. Our government is finally allowing colleges and universities to borrow to build much-needed student housing. Together, we will help finance 5,000 new student housing beds. The level of investment required is historic. We will invest more than $7 billion over the next ten years. Our investment will support almost 34,000 units of affordable rental, supportive and student housing.

Now, we know that we need to work in partnerships to be able to deliver on this ambitious plan and address the housing shortage. There are opportunities across the province that could offer solutions yet aren’t being developed — for example, entities that own land and are not equipped to know how to partner with the province and other stakeholders to develop it for housing needs. This might include religious bodies, non-profits and others that own land that could be developed and deliver housing to meet needs in that community.

That’s why we’re creating a new housing hub office at B.C. Housing, to bring everyone together to facilitate the building of affordable homes. It will develop partnerships to find, use or redevelop available land in communities hardest hit by the housing crisis. I know from my own experience that it would have been of great benefit to my community if this resource had been available a few years ago.

When I was running a non-profit organization — it wasn’t a housing operator; it was a social service organization — we strategically invested in a piece of land to build a new centre for well-being. The piece of land available had some surplus to our needs, and in the interest of the community, we built a partnership with a housing association to bring affordable housing to the community.

Now, if the housing hub had been operational at that time, we would have had the benefit of their expertise and their help to build and deliver the vision and create the project in the community at best value and on a completely sustainable model. The government’s new housing hub underlines the importance of partnerships and the coordinated effort it will take to address housing affordability.

[4:00 p.m.]

A critical aspect of the housing crisis is the lack of security for those who are in housing. Families and individuals are at risk of losing their homes through increases in rent, evictions, renovictions, demovictions and, in particular in my community, evictions from manufactured homes.

I’m very proud that some of the 30 points in this comprehensive plan address these issues, too, and our support for renters is strengthened. We’re going to make improvements to our two rental support programs: our rental assistance program, known as RAP, and Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, known as SAFER. We’re going to increase the benefits of the RAP so that low-income families will see their average payment increase by approximately $800 a year. Seniors who receive SAFER will see their average payment increase by more than $930 a year. These important program changes will help more than 35,000 households.

In September 2017, we also increased funding to the residential tenancy branch. We’ll be taking next steps to strengthen protection for renters and manufactured home owners who are at risk of losing their home. These measures will help so many people in need in my community. This strategy will help families find homes that are suitable for their families — healthy, secure and affordable. This will help seniors stay in their homes in our community and will continue to support local families. This strategy will help youth in my community who are couch-surfing and putting themselves at risk of exploitation in vulnerable situations where they are just seeking basic shelter.

Another major concern I often hear about in my community is the lack of GPs. The West Shore, in particular, has lost an actual number of GPs, even while it has been the fastest-growing community in the province. Of course, its ratio of GPs to the population has been really significantly declining.

It’s not unusual for me to hear of a person going to a walk-in clinic as soon as they open, only to be told that it’s already filled up. They go to another clinic, and that one is closed. Finally, they get to a third one and find that they’ve spent over four hours seeking medical help or sometimes just trying to get a simple refill of their prescription. My community is not unique in that way. Far too many British Columbians do not have a family doctor. In Budget 2018, we are investing $150 million to assist those people without a family doctor to access team-based care.

Another area that has been underfunded in Esquimalt-Metchosin and across the province is support for women surviving domestic violence. Anyone who knows me knows that I’ve been concerned passionately about sexual and domestic violence for decades. Every death of a woman in a situation of domestic violence is a preventable tragedy. We have had so many reports and investigations into this issue to know that we need to collaborate and that we need to support the sector, to protect vulnerable women and everyone affected by family violence, especially more vulnerable groups such as transgender and Indigenous women.

I used to be responsible for a program providing Stopping the Violence counselling for women experiencing domestic violence. We had only one FTE. I used to say that basically, the funds I received from the ministry would pretty much just cover wages but nothing else. She’d have no office, no team support, no admin, no phone. She’d be working out of her car. Well, over the years, the funds had to get stretched so much further that even using that analogy, by the end of my time running the program, the funds wouldn’t even cover gas in the car or tires to put it on the road.

In the fall of 2017, we invested $5 million to help deal with the impact of the lack of services for so long. In Budget 2018, we are again standing with survivors of violence with a commitment to ongoing funding of $18 million over three years to increase supports. Part of our comprehensive housing plan includes $141 million to support 1,500 new units for women and children leaving domestic violence.

Now, there are many groups in the population whose needs have been dismissed or ignored for far too long. For people with disabilities, we’re investing $214 million over three years for free travel. For youth aging out of foster care, we’ve invested $30 million to enhance the agreements with young adults program.

[4:05 p.m.]

For seniors, we’re investing $548 million over three years to improve supports for seniors, which will add more specialized primary care, help them stay in their homes longer and improve the quality of care in residential care homes.

For our children in the education system, we are investing $2 billion, over the fiscal plan, to maintain, replace, renovate or expand schools across B.C. We’re hiring more teachers, bringing our total to 3,700 new hires, and providing additional funding to address enrolment growth — something we all see and experience in our community every day.

Of course, the growth in our community also creates challenges such as congestion on our roads. Over 2018-19, we’ll see work completing on the McKenzie interchange, as well as bus lanes constructed. There will also be improvements on Highway 14 that will benefit residents in the west of our constituency. This budget invests in local communities, as well as the whole province.

Despite the challenges faced by our new government — the poor choices and neglect at ICBC, unprecedented wildfire costs — we have built a balanced budget with a projected, slim surplus of $219 million in 2018-19. Nevertheless, we are making life more affordable. We are eliminating MSP to make our tax system more fair and progressive. We are making the largest investment in infrastructure in B.C. history and supporting tens of thousands of new jobs. We are making life more affordable, enhancing services and building a strong, sustainable economy.

We are doing this in the context of planning for the future. We are also protecting our environment. We are committed to a greener and cleaner future by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, supporting B.C.’s transition to a low-carbon economy and growing our economy by investing in green initiatives.

In closing, I want to again thank the people of Esquimalt-Metchosin for electing me to this position so that I have the honour of speaking to this provincial budget and to how it affects our community. I’m very proud to be a member of this team and of the government, so that we can build a better B.C.

A. Olsen: I think that this is a pretty good budget. Frankly, it’s a great start on some of the key issues facing British Columbians. I’m going to try to strike a balance between the two polarized sides of this House in my response to Budget 2018.

This budget takes some substantive strides forward on the pressing issues of affordability in our province, particularly on tackling our out-of-control housing market and on providing affordable child care for young families. I welcome these measures, and I’ll speak to them in greater detail.

However, on housing, in particular, I don’t think that this government went as far as they needed to go, as far as the crisis demands we go, if we are serious about restoring affordability and protecting the ability of young British Columbians to live in our cities. This government is not yet embracing the full mantle of responsibility that we have as legislators to ensure that the next generation can prosper as our world changes rapidly around us. More than ever, what we need is for government to champion a vision for seizing the opportunities and addressing the challenges of our time.

Our goal shouldn’t be just to simply fix the shortcomings of the last 16 years. As leaders, we need to champion a clear plan for British Columbia. We need a strong economic vision that includes the manufacturing sector — in my riding, for example — high-tech, renewable, sustainable jobs to ensure that our economy continues to thrive. We need strong climate action and better environmental protections.

Underlying every decision we make, we must ensure that we do not leave future generations worse off than we are. This is the fundamental principle of intergenerational equity that motivates me and my colleagues as we do our work in this place.

While it is refreshing to have a provincial budget that does more to put people at the centre — and I’ll be voting in support of it — I believe much more needs to be done on building a long-term vision for British Columbia.

[4:10 p.m.]

We are in a time of change, both economic and environmental, which presents exciting opportunities but also huge challenges. As we navigate this time of change and make decisions that impact British Columbians now and in the future, we must, at all times, be thinking: “Who are we, what do we value, and where do we want to be going?” We must be clear on these questions if we are to build a province where British Columbians enjoy a high quality of life for generations to come.

This government has taken much more substantive steps than the last government was ever willing to take on housing affordability, and they should be recognized for this. Homes are at the centre of safe, healthy, productive people and society. It is irresponsible to balance budgets on real estate transactions. It is incenting the wrong behaviour. Sorting out this mess is not going to be easy, but it is necessary.

For months, our caucus has been calling on government to take strong demand-side measures, including cracking down on speculation and reducing the impact of offshore capital to restore affordability to our cities. This budget takes some steps in the right direction. I welcome, for example, the speculator’s tax, which targets people who own empty homes in B.C. and do not pay income taxes here, and the extension of the foreign buyer tax to the CRD and other areas.

I also welcome the large investments this government is making in new supply, recognizing that the market alone cannot supply affordable homes that so many families need. As a former councillor, I do believe local government should be given more power to deal with a crisis that occurs in their own communities. It is rare that a one-size-fits-all solution will work.

We pushed government to target assistance to those most struggling with rising rents, like low-income seniors and families, instead of a much smaller universal grant to even those who didn’t need it. I’m glad they delivered on this by expanding supports for low-income seniors and families who rent.

Most importantly, what I’m still seeking from this government is clarity on whether it is merely trying to slow the rate of price escalation or if it’s actually trying to bring housing prices down. We’ve been clear. What is desperately needed is to responsibly deflate this housing bubble and to bring down house prices. The last thing we need is a crash in the housing market.

While flattening the rising costs is one step, house prices in the Lower Mainland and elsewhere in British Columbia are already out of reach. It’s hollowing out our communities. This is essential if we’re going to make our cities livable and affordable for young people and families and if there are going to be places where businesses can thrive and neighbourhoods are vibrant, welcoming and full of life. These are the types of communities we should be building.

I’ve heard from so many young families in my riding about the problems they face finding affordable, quality child care for their kids. The costs of child care weigh on the minds of so many and add to the stress of all the other factors increasing the cost of living. In this budget, we see strong progress towards a universal child care system through new funding of over $1 billion over the next three years. I believe that this funding will make a tangible difference for young families, taking the first steps towards quality, universal child care.

The specifics on what families can expect include a new affordable child care benefit with expanded eligibility and higher benefit rates than the existing subsidy. This benefit will be phased in over three years, with families being able to apply on line this summer and money rolling out in September.

Government is also reducing fees for children under six through a child care fee reduction program — by $350 for infants and toddlers and $100 a month for three- to five-year-olds. Taken together, the affordable child care benefit and the child care fee reduction program will benefit families across the economic spectrum.

The building of a child care and early childhood education system presents us with an opportunity to provide future British Columbians with the best possible conditions for success and set British Columbians on a path towards achieving far greater equality. Moving forward on this exciting child care plan, I believe that we should also keep in mind parents who want the flexibility of raising their own children.

[4:15 p.m.]

For the past ten years, I’ve been a work-from-home father. Emily and I decided that we were going to raise our children, so we have largely been a one-income family for that time. As a stay-at-home dad, I believe in the importance of enabling children to connect with both their parents. I welcome the recent musings of the Prime Minister’s “use it, or lose it” benefit for the second parent. In designing this child care program, we need to keep the quality of life for children, their needs and their potential at the forefront in our minds.

When my grandparents were forced from their homes as young children and into residential schools, one of the primary goals of that school was to strip them of their language. They were punished for speaking their language, to the point that they felt shame when they uttered the words that had been used to describe this land, the language of their S¸ELELW̱ÁÁN. Banning Indigenous languages was a critical part of the strategy of past governments. According to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it was an essential feature in advancing cultural genocide.

My grandparents never completely forgot their language. My grandfather, Ernie Olsen, and a handful of others from Saanich worked closely with the University of Victoria to preserve our language, SENĆOŦEN. Like many Indigenous languages in British Columbia, SENĆOŦEN was nearly extinct.

It is in the honour of my grandparents that I stand in this House and acknowledge the transformative commitments across government to improve Indigenous relations. Indeed, we are at a critical moment in time. This government is advancing this transformation in this budget. This budget makes a historic $50 million investment that supports Indigenous communities to revitalize connections to our Indigenous languages. This is truly a historic commitment. It honours the work of my grandparents to remember what was not beaten from them.

I can’t imagine Telquilam and Panachwould have imagined their children and nieces and nephews reversing the course as they have. Now their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are speaking the words of their S¸ELELW̱ÁÁN, the words they painstakingly preserved for them. As they fought the demons of their past — the abuse, the degradation, the humiliation — they left our children a precious gift, the gift of the beautiful world view locked in linguistic limbo for more than a generation.

ȽÁU, WELṈEW̱ is “a place of refuge.” This is the name of the sacred mountain of the WSÁNEĆ people, and it was given to our school on West Saanich Road. The mountain is the place where we tied our canoes in the great flood.

The school is home to one of the most successful Indigenous language revitalization programs in our province. ȽÁU, WELṈEW̱ is once again a place of refuge for all our children, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike. It is the passion of my blonde-haired, blue-eyed little girl, who had the benefit of a preschool SENĆOŦEN immersion program and is soon to take it up again in grade one; her equally blonde brother at Brentwood Elementary; and their cousin at Bayside Middle School. Our language is reborn.

It is with this in mind that I raise my hands to this government. As you will note, I believe the restoration of Indigenous language is the most substantial step we take so far in our journey of reconciliation. That is not to cast shade on the $200 million investment in other much-needed programs and services.

This budget brings some good news on transportation. I welcome the province’s commitment in this budget to supporting the Metro Mayors Council ten-year vision on transportation.

This budget also has some good news for our region. It includes an increase of a 2-cents-per-litre tax on gas and diesel in the CRD. This increase will provide $7 million of much-needed funding for the Victoria Regional Transit Commission and its share of funding for the Victoria regional transit system.

Certainly, not everyone will agree with the fuel tax increase. But I believe it is an appropriate and necessary change to better provide funding for transit. We desperately need improved transportation options on the Saanich Peninsula and right across the CRD.

[4:20 p.m.]

In this budget, government also promised to freeze ferry fares on three major routes, including Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen, in my riding, to reduce fares on all non-major routes by 15 percent — this, I’m sure, will be welcome news to the residents of the five southern Gulf Island communities that I proudly represent — and to reinstate the seniors 100 percent discount on passenger fares between Monday and Thursday.

The government says that our ferries are part of our highway system. I absolutely agree with them. And I agree with the Minister of Finance that Gulf Islanders are unfairly carrying more of the cost of their highways than others in B.C. do.

That is why we have advocated for bringing B.C. Ferries back into government and why I’m disappointed that the government’s ongoing review of B.C. Ferries does not consider this option. Ferries are not just highways. They also should be marine buses, with more focus on moving foot passengers as well. Coordinated with B.C. Transit, they provide a natural extension for our regional transportation network.

The 2011 transit future plan, following extensive consultation, highlighted the need for bus rapid transit from the West Shore, UVic and downtown connecting the Saanich Peninsula at Uptown. Workers, employers, mayors and councillors have all recognized transportation as one of the highest priorities. Let’s take the steps to better connect Swartz Bay, the Victoria Airport and two critical manufacturing centres with the rest of the region.

In Saanich North and the Islands throughout January, I and my team focused on health care. I’m excited that the government has made an investment in team-based primary care, adding $150 million over three years to expand the coverage of primary care providers and the provision of team-based care. Too many people in my riding do not have access to a family doctor. Finding a way to provide multiple service providers, each of whom the current system remunerates through a myriad of ways, to co-exist and work together as teams is welcome news in this budget.

In Saanich North and the Islands, we already have team-based care on Galiano, Pender and Mayne islands. A non-profit clinic has been operating for the past 18 months on the Saanich Peninsula, and a similar society is just getting going on Saltspring Island. They are ready to help government implement their commitment to changing the delivery of primary care in our province.

We need to address burnout. Not only are costs increasing, but so is demand. People are leaving the workforce and not being replaced, adding stress on those who remain. I must honour the stories I’ve heard over so many cups of coffee.

Mental health service providers need more support across my riding. The challenges are across all demographics, and the situation is acute. Harm reduction capacity is needed on Saltspring, and we had the unfortunate situation of a youth mental health clinic closing its doors in Sidney, so I’m happy to see the investment in mental health services in this budget.

Finally, there was a glaring absence in this budget speech about wellness and prevention. I think we spend more than a pound on disease and illness and much less than an ounce on prevention and keeping people well. I would like to see, in future budgets, a much stronger focus on wellness and prevention. This budget puts $1.5 billion more into operations. We can continue to provide an unlimited supply of cash, or we can start to address the growing demand through preventative programs.

There is no question that my riding is a choice place to retire to. As a result, the serious issues affecting seniors are pronounced in Saanich North and the Islands. On the flip side, my riding has boundless intellectual capacity. As the MLA, I’m advised to do a better job creating opportunities to connect with the wisdom in my riding, but the government could do well to find ways retired folks can contribute to governance as well.

We have a long way to go to ensure that our seniors are adequately cared for and supported, whether they choose to live at home or they’re in residential care. The most recent report from the seniors advocate says that only 15 percent of care facilities meet guidelines for adequate staffing. I welcome the investments that this budget makes in seniors care, with nearly $550 million over three years to improve services for seniors across the continuum, including investments in primary care, home and community care, residential care and assisted living. The investments in the SAFER program will increase rental support for seniors by more than $900 a year. These investments are an excellent start.

[4:25 p.m.]

I also believe we should start thinking more holistically as we consider how government can best support the health and happiness of seniors. We must do more as a community and as elected leaders to tackle social isolation and depression, which are all too common among seniors. This will require us to think in new, innovative ways about how we support seniors and how we better integrate their services into the communities that they live in.

Education is always a top priority for me. I have two children in primary school. The public education system is important for me and my friends right now, but it extends past those with kids in the system. It’s a matter of ensuring we have a resilient society.

While British Columbia has one of the best education systems in the world, we can also see how the changes in our economy force us to approach education in new ways. People entering the workforce can expect many different careers in their lifetime. Moving successfully between jobs will be determined by each person’s ability to adapt and learn new skills. The priority is to nurture the children’s natural curiosity into a love of learning that stays with them for the rest of their lives.

While this budget provides the basic new investments required by the courts, this government hasn’t yet prioritized education to the level that we’d like to see. While the $2 billion being invested in replacing and renovating schools will help update our education infrastructure, it does not put enough money where it matters most — investing in teachers and new supports for lifelong learning. When I visited Stelly’s Secondary School last fall, the students were clear to me that their learning materials were out of date. It might be fun to try and find your parent’s name in the textbook, but it’s simply not good enough.

Finally, it’s time to create a venue for youth to inform our government. In every school visit I have made, I’ve heard incredible ideas and insights. We sell our youth short. There is an advocacy group for parents, for teachers and support staff. There is no advocacy group for students.

This void provides space for these other groups to speak on behalf of students, of our youth. That’s not appropriate. I’ve introduced an incredible young man from my riding to this government. He has a vision for creating that student voice. I hope we accept the offer. As we are seeing in the United States right now, youth are powerful, and we would do well to recognize that and provide them a platform to be part of our government, our governance and our decision-making.

As a young man entering politics, I was asked to make a choice. “Are you for business?” people asked. “Are you for social justice? Are you an environmentalist?” We can no longer think or act that way. We have the capacity to take all these considerations into our decisions.

Balance in British Columbia has been strictly about budgets, to the point that the new Leader of the Official Opposition admits that they lost their way when they were in government and that there were billions of dollars hoarded at the end of the last year.

This behaviour destroys confidence in government. Add to that the constant “taxes are bad” mantra being pumped into the public for more than a decade, and there is a lot of work to do to repair the relationship between government and the people.

I remember on my very first municipal campaign, one of my first experiences on the hustings, a gentleman came to the door, and we had a nice chat. He said to me: “You know, I don’t mind paying taxes. What I do mind is a government that wastes my money. If you’re going to take it from me, then I expect you to spend it wisely, on programs and services that benefit me and my neighbours.” That’s not the only time that I’ve heard that message.

Despite the neo-liberal rhetoric, people don’t mind paying taxes as long as we are spending them responsibly on useful programs and services. The low- or no-tax message is usually followed by: “Only you know how to spend your money best.” In other words: “Don’t trust us. Don’t trust government.” Well what kind of message is that?

The irony, of course, is that if government has no role, then what are we doing here? And to think: some have been happily cashing the paycheque, gladly standing with their hand out accepting the benefits of this job while actively undermining it.

[4:30 p.m.]

I challenge those who demean and diminish the role of government to step aside, to stop collecting the paycheque and, well, turn down the pension. At the same time, reject the health care, child care, education, transit. Indeed, do not use the roads and highways. When you’re a senior in need of the support of your community, go it alone. When your children and grandchildren fall on hard times, tell them: “Too bad, so sad.” Also, don’t turn on your tap or flush your toilet. And turn off your lights.

We need more than just balanced budgets. We need balance in our society. We need to balance the social, environmental and fiscal reality of our province. This is not about choosing to do one or the other. This is about creating the capacity to consider it all at once. That is balance.

Oh yes, we may have balanced the budgets, but whose backs have been carrying the burden? Not the people in this place. We’re well looked after. We’re called “ma’am” and “sir.” We walk on red carpets, and people go out of their way to provide us fine cheeses and chocolate-covered almonds.

The narrow balanced-budget rhetoric has come at a cost, a cost to society and a cost to our environment. There are clearly programs and services that government can deliver to all British Columbians better than we can do ourselves, programs and services that lift us all up.

I look forward to future budgets being more balanced on the triple bottom line. I look forward to a balanced fiscal, social and environmental policy, one that balances both the interests of people and the interests of businesses who hire those people.

There should not be an environment party, a social party and an economic party in our province. If that’s the case, we need to move rapidly away from that and towards more balance, more subdued pendulum swings, not because we’re ignoring everything that’s not spoken by our political base but because we are considering it.

We need a government that is agile. We need more than responsive. We need a predictive, forward-thinking government that is planning not just for today and the next four years but has its eye on the next four generations. Balance is understanding the financial implications on business, on people and on the environment and accounting for it, planning for it and preparing British Columbians so that we not just survive but thrive.

We have a responsibility to spend people’s money wisely on programs and services that help them to get ahead, that decrease stress and increase productivity. We must not let billions of little dust bunnies collect in the back of the closet.

As my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head has repeated in this place for more than four years, British Columbia has a competitive advantage. I want to hear about that. We need to be laying out how British Columbia is not just going to compete but how we’re going to lead the world. What is our vision for the future? Who are we? What are we? How are we going to harness the advantages that we have? This is what is missing from this budget. This is where future budgets can be stronger.

It is with this that I take my place. I will note the complexity of the provincial budget, acknowledge that there are strengths and weaknesses in every budget, things that I can agree with and things that trouble me. Overall, I’m happy with the direction of this budget. In fact, in some cases, I’m elated with the direction of this budget. So I will be happily supporting it. HÍSWḴE SIÁM.

N. Simons: It’s my honour and pleasure to rise and speak to the budget, the first time I’ve been able to speak to a budget that I wholeheartedly support, and that’s after 12 years of sitting in opposition. I kind of know how they feel over there. They’re a bit cranky, because it’s hard to find things to criticize.

Usually, I like to follow a LiberalS because it fires me up a little bit. But following the member for Saanich North and the Islands…. We agree, mostly, on a lot of the issues. It’s good to have differences, and it’s good to talk about those differences and respectfully suggest other options for future budgets.

[4:35 p.m.]

For this particular budget, I have to say, I was feeling really good sitting in my chair listening to the Minister of Finance deliver what I think is what British Columbians have been hoping for, for a long time, wishing many of the promises or the budget measures could have been implemented earlier. But the previous government had a singular focus, and that singular focus did not include trying to make life more affordable for people in this province. So we saw 16 years of a particular perspective that did not put people at the centre of the agenda.

I’m just really very pleased to be able to stand here and talk about the budget that we’ll support, obviously — and proudly support because of the measures and the steps that have been taken to improve the lives of British Columbians, the people and the environment of the province.

I should start, maybe, by acknowledging that I have great support from my constituency assistants. Back in the riding in Powell River, Maggie Hathaway. In Davis Bay, close to Sechelt, I have Michelle Morton, who is replacing Kim Tournat, who is getting better every day. I’m just really grateful for their service to the province and especially their help to me.

I’m very pleased to be able to enumerate the number of budget items that have a specific positive impact on the people that I serve. Obviously, to start with, the Sunshine Coast, as people know, is the only riding in the province that is entirely ferry-reliant. You can’t get to anywhere on the Sunshine Coast unless you’ve got really good hiking boots, a lot of food and a map that I’ve never seen.

You get to the Sunshine Coast by taking the ferry. You take a ferry from Comox to Powell River. Or you can take a ferry from Horseshoe Bay to Langdale, which is just outside Gibsons. Then my riding is split in the middle. There’s a ferry that goes across Jervis Inlet, from Earl’s Cove to Saltery Bay, or the other way around, if that’s the way you’re going. And of course, Texada Island, just off the coast of Powell River — the North Island Princess has been serving that route, I think, for something like 54 years. She’s a reliable boat when the tug isn’t there to help her out.

The reduction in ferry fares is something that we promised during the election campaign. A reduction of 15 percent on the smaller routes — on the non-major routes, as they’re defined — is going to have a significant impact on our community. Obviously, the rates have gone up faster and higher than we have ever seen before, under the previous government’s rule. That has had a significant impact on my communities.

There have been protests. There have been petitions. There have been letter-writing campaigns. There have been MLA meetings with the various Ministers of Transportation over that time.

We even got a boo-hoo from one minister when we spoke of the plight of Sunshine Coast residents seeing their fares go up. But even when we didn’t get a boo-hoo, we got silence. We got service reductions. At a certain point, people on the Sunshine Coast were saying: “It’s almost as if they’re targeting us.” Four ferries on the Sunshine Coast all saw increases — up to 110 percent on the Texada route. So a 15 percent fare reduction is a move that is warmly welcomed by residents of the Sunshine Coast.

I know that, for many of my colleagues, the ferry they take is the one from Vancouver over to Victoria here. That’s a major route. Those fares aren’t going to go up. They’re frozen at the rates they are now.

Seniors in my riding are able to ride the ferries for free again on Mondays to Thursdays. That’s the seniors discount. It’s a bit of a recognition of the economic reality of people on the Sunshine Coast — that the disposable incomes are not what they were. I think that restoring the discount to seniors is an important move that speaks to our recognition of the burden of that cost.

[4:40 p.m.]

I’m really pleased, altogether, about the announcements with respect to ferries. The member previously spoke about the fact that we’re undergoing a ferry review, of the structure, that isn’t including bringing it back under government. I’m sure there are reasons why the terms of reference were set that way. I think what it signals to the people of the province is that we are taking their concerns seriously. We’re not dismissing them out of hand. We’re going to look at them, we’re going to contemplate our options, and we’ll come up with the best possible solution for the people of the province.

I think this budget is a signal that the government of British Columbia is listening to the people of British Columbia. That’s where we get our encouragement. That’s where we get our suggestions. That’s where we are able, from their perspective, to formulate good public policy. The ferry fare reductions and the ferry freeze and the restoration of the seniors discount are three very welcome initiatives. I thank the people of the Sunshine Coast for their involvement in ensuring that government heard them. It’s a reflection of their concerns.

An investment in seniors care, I think, is one that is, again, warmly welcomed by the Sunshine Coast residents, and not just the Sunshine Coast residents — people across the province. It’s essential that we listen to the independent voices, besides listening to the seniors — the voice of Isobel Mackenzie, the seniors advocate, who reviewed the state of care in our province and found it was somewhat lacking. In our long-term care residences, only some, 15 percent, were achieving the standards necessary, the standards that the province set.

Well, the investment that this government has decided to make is going to go a long way to addressing that problem. We’re going to try and make sure that our policies encourage the ability of families to care for seniors, that we promote home care. From my experience, seniors would like, as much as possible, to stay in their own homes. We’re going to try and make that possible, wherever possible. But when the time comes, when a senior needs to move into a facility where their care needs will be met, we want to make sure that it’s a place of comfort and a place of dignity.

I think that our emphasis on supporting seniors reflects our values. We recognize the contributions that people have made to this province, and we care for seniors as they age.

Another specific element of this budget that I think the Sunshine Coast is going to benefit from is the investment in legal aid. You know, our democracy functions because of the principles of fairness and a voice that is…. Nobody’s voice is irrelevant. In our justice system, whether it’s in the criminal justice system or in the family courts, we need to make sure that people that go there are represented properly. We need to make sure that the people who support those in society that can’t afford lawyers have access to justice. Access to justice is a fundamental principle of our system. We’ve seen real neglect over the last 16 years.

I’m going to save everyone on the other side from having to hear the chorus. The verses are going to change as I go through my budget speech, but the chorus is always going to be the same. It’s going to have something to do with 16 years of neglect, a lack of concern for regular people in this province. I won’t repeat it every time. I’m just giving you the chorus right now. You can join in later when you do your budget responses. But for now, I’m going to just let you know that when we neglect our education system….

[4:45 p.m.]

We’ve spent a lot of time in court fighting for proper funding for education. This budget reflects the victory that the people in this province had, the victory that they’ve achieved by electing a government that actually cares to invest in the public education system.

We’re investing enough to support the 3,700 more teachers. What does that mean? That means a lot. Even if we don’t have kids in the school system, we all know people who do have children in the school system. We know that another fundamental part of our society is access to education, not just access to education but access to good education. We have a good school system in the province, but for 16 years, should I say, there’s been no effort to keep up with the times and ensure that it remains a properly funded system.

Now, one other issue. Powell River has received some funding to help address the opioid crisis. Powell River has been affected by the opioid crisis in a very significant way. As part of Vancouver Coastal Health, it has the second-highest number of overdose deaths per capita. Because of that, I’m pleased that our government recognizes the importance of investing in response teams, in response to the people in our community that are struggling with addictions. That’s an important investment.

We all hope that this opioid crisis recedes faster than…. It’s already a crisis that has lasted too long. It’s one that we’re beginning to take new measures to address. That’s not to say that the previous government wasn’t aware of it, but I think, finding solutions in our communities is one of the angles that our government has chosen to take. The funding of programs in communities, specific to those communities, I think is fundamentally important.

I’ve mentioned four aspects of this budget already, and I haven’t mentioned the key — I would say the masthead — of this particular budget, which is the investment in child care. It’s been referred to as the largest investment in new social programming in British Columbia in a very long time. It is the first step towards achieving universal child care in history.

When I was a director of a health and social service program, I saw the importance of providing enough space for child care to allow those who wanted to use it to access it. It’s a fundamentally important social program that assists people from all walks of life. Whether it’s allowing parents to enter the workforce or providing support for families in any possible way, the child care program that we’ve put forward in Budget 2018 is significant.

I haven’t heard the other side, the Liberals. The previous government, the opposition now, doesn’t seem to find fault with that, which I’m glad about. I’m not sure how they’re going to justify voting against this budget; I predict they will. No, no, I know. I’m not much on betting, but I have a feeling that they are going to vote against this budget. They’ll find reasons. Even if there are one or two things that they don’t like, that’s enough.

Interjection.

N. Simons: Yeah, no tax break for millionaires.

Uh-oh, I’m being prompted. That’s not a good thing; that’s a dangerous thing. I do believe that they’re possibly regretting their anticipated vote. There’s so much good in this budget that they’re going to have trouble justifying a vote against it.

Now I heard…. I would like to just mention one more thing about the highlight, to me, in this budget. I think it’s important to mention the investment in Indigenous languages. I know my friend from Saanich North and the Islands has mentioned this already.

[4:50 p.m.]

I’d like to quote an elder who I worked with a few years ago when I worked with the Sechelt Nation — Theresa Jeffries, a very respected woman with great insight into community, well-loved. I remember her taking me aside once in one of my offices. I just remember her looking me in the eye and saying: “Just remember: language, language, language.”

I remember talking to my own party about the importance of language, First Nations language, and I met with a receptive audience, being on this side of the House. And I was just so pleased to see this investment.

Language is far more than just a method of communication. Some people say it’s the foundation of a culture. Some people say it’s the glue for a culture. It’s all of those things, but it’s also something that is of the communities that speak the language. It is their own. It reflects them. The language reflects their people, their history. And to know that confidence and pride in culture is essential to all communities. Pride in culture and strength of culture have so many long ripple effects throughout the community, and beyond the community, even.

This investment not just reflects our understanding of that unique requirement to support language, but it also, I think, signals a change that we understand the importance of language.

I grew up in a province where language was often at the forefront of debate. I’ve thought about it quite a bit. Not more or less than anyone else, but I thought about it as a child growing up. There were fights over how big your sign could be if it was in English and how big it could be if it was in French, and how the English had to be below the French and this and that. Hearing that, growing up in Quebec, I think, gave me an understanding of the centrality of language to culture.

There are many aspects of culture. There’s art, and there are all sorts of aspects of culture, but language, the importance of language, even if someone isn’t fluent-speaking….

I used to go to the nation hall, where I worked. I passed the elders boardroom, and I’d look in at the elders boardroom, and there’d be a round table of all the elders speaking in their language. I remember Dr. Ron Beaumont from UBC recording the language, writing down the language, writing a dictionary.

You can find the dictionary of the Sechelt language in the parliamentary library here. I proudly presented it to the library with the then Chief, Garry Feschuk, who was one of my mentors. You may not know that, but his leadership and strength of leadership have been most appreciated by me.

Warren Paul, the new Chief of the Sechelt Nation, also understands the importance of culture and of language. I’m just really pleased that I can look at the communities that I represent here in the provincial Legislature and say we’re doing some things a little bit differently. We’re not making any effort to make up for everything because that’s impossible. But we’re making steps towards reconciliation — understanding and listening and having a dialogue. I think that’s the central importance of this aspect of the budget.

So, really, I appreciate the effort that has gone into deciding how government revenue, whether through taxation or resources, how that’s spent in order to improve all of our circumstances here in the province.

[4:55 p.m.]

I barely mentioned child care, but child care is a huge part of this budget, as is addressing the issue around housing affordability. We made a number of moves here to make life more affordable. It’s interesting. I’m talking about these major tenets of our budget, and I still miss others that are major. It’s a far-reaching budget. It’s highly worthy of support, even from those who don’t see everything in it that they like.

Getting rid of the MSP premium…. I’m almost sure that the previous government, in their last budget, wanted to do that. There were a lot of things that they wanted to do. That conversion on the road to Damascus was aspirational. Maybe they were aspirational in February, but they’re real now. Because of that, I’m very, very pleased.

There were smaller-ticket items, besides our housing affordability and child care plan — PharmaCare, for example. The Minister of Health knows more about this than I do, but I will say that when you can make drugs more affordable for lower-income families, that means they don’t have to make those difficult decisions about whether to fill a prescription or not.

Having worked in the social service sector for a long time, I do recognize that people make decisions that are one or the other of two important things in their lives. It’s not a good situation for British Columbian families to be in when they have to make those kinds of decisions.

We’re taking a step towards making life a bit easier for those people. I think that’s our job as government. This is our job. This is what we should be doing. This is what the previous government should have been doing too. We didn’t see a lot of efforts to address affordability issues in previous governments, I’ll tell you that much.

We’ve restored the disability bus pass. We did that already. We also put up the rates. This wasn’t in this particular budget, but we’ve raised the rates for people living on disability. I know we have a ways to go before it’s an amount that can provide the dignity that we all expect, but it’s a start, and it’s an important start. I think it’s a lot, after you consider the previous government’s lack of action on that front. I’m pleased to be part of a government that takes that seriously.

Family doctors. That’s another issue. In my community, it’s not as critical as in other communities. I shouldn’t say that; I’ll get in trouble for saying that. But in parts of my community, it’s difficult to find a doctor. I’m sure the Minister of Health knows exactly the number of people who don’t have a family doctor.

Interjection.

N. Simons: I’m not sure what the member across the way…. Thank you for the pause here.

Interjections.

N. Simons: I’ll read right from the budget here so as to put all of those arguments to bed: “Too many British Columbians do not have a regular family doctor.” To remedy this situation, we’re adding $150 million over three years. This will allow progress to be made in expanding the coverage of primary health providers and the provision of team-based care to more of those currently not being well served. Team-based care involves LPNs, doctors as well, nurses and other health care professionals to sort of coordinate their approaches and provide the necessary health care that people need, if they don’t have a family doctor. It’s important that we invest in that area as well.

Eliminating the MSP premiums — significant, significant savings for most families in the province. I think the opposition side finds issue with the fact that we’re getting rid of a regressive tax and replacing it with a much more fair tax. They found something to hook onto and find a slogan for, and they’re going to try and denigrate it. It’s a great move, in my view.

[5:00 p.m.]

For the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, their criticism was that perhaps the threshold of $500,000 should have been $1 million. They’re not saying it’s not a good idea. I have not heard them say it’s a bad idea. They have an issue with the threshold.

If you have a payroll up to $500,000, you’re exempt. Between $500,000 and $1.5 million, you pay a smaller rate. Over $1.5 million payroll, you pay the full amount. That’s going to go a long way to ensure that people in the province, everyone in the province, can have access to medical services.

I think, too, that the arguments the opposition makes against that health tax…. It’s much more fair. I think that the criticisms are unfair, but predictable. I wasn’t surprised. Also, they talk about businesses suffering. It’s people who make up these businesses. It’s people who have families. It’s people who have relatives and cousins and schoolmates and teammates, and they’re going to benefit.

When the tide raises all boats, we’re all better off. We’re all better off in this circumstance, because you’re not going to be forcing people who are earning $40,000 a year to pay the same as someone making $4 million a year. In my view, that’s fair. I’m not sure how the previous government was planning to pay for it, but I think we’ve found a very, very good way of ensuring that we cover the necessary costs of our health care system, one that we value in this province.

Mental health and addictions. The Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions — well, we established that already. It was an important step. It’s just one step towards really addressing our issues in this province around mental health and addictions. I think our investment in that area will serve people in this province very well.

I notice that the green light’s on, but I feel like I’ve only been speaking for about 4½ minutes. Well, I’m going to have to wrap this up.

Interjection.

N. Simons: Yeah. Thank you very much for those offers of more time.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I would just like to conclude by saying that I’m really proud of this budget. I’m really happy that it’s addressing most of the issues that have been raised over the last 16 years, the 12 years that I’ve been in opposition. It’s good to finally find some of the ideas that have been generated by the public and filtered through our system on the pages of this budget. It will benefit our province greatly. With that, I look forward to further speakers.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Kelowna–Lake Country. [Applause.]

N. Letnick: I receive applause from the government benches before I even start. That’s unusual.

Interjection.

N. Letnick: And the opposition as well.

First, I’d like to thank the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast for giving his speech even though he’s not feeling 100 percent, as he said during his speech. Hopefully, he gets better soon. I wish him all the best.

Interjections.

N. Letnick: Yes, he’s a trooper.

This is probably the No. 9, No. 10 budget — part budget, full budget — that I’ve had the privilege of standing up and commenting on, on behalf of the citizens of the Central Okanagan and particularly those of Kelowna–Lake Country.

I always like to talk about a budget, in particular, from a local’s perspective. Today I’ll be talking not only about its potential to impact the people in my local riding. Also provincially, I’ll be discussing a few things. Then I will end with some comments that I’ve received so far from the public regarding some aspects of the budget that they weren’t very impressed with.

[5:05 p.m.]

First of all, on the local scene, we’ve had many budgets over many years that have invested millions of dollars, billions of dollars, throughout the province. Of course, a lot of that money has come to the Central Okanagan because it is one of the fastest-growing parts of our province and has great needs, as many parts of the province do. Things like the completion of Highway 97, six-laning and improvement of intersections have come from previous budgets.

Completion of John Hindle Drive is continuing under this budget and was paid for, for the most part, under previous budgets. Money to invest in UBC Okanagan — millions of dollars to see UBC plant its seed in the Okanagan over ten years ago and grow to the wonderful tree that it’s grown to today. That continues in this budget.

We’ve also seen a nurse-in-practice program started in the last budget. It was for six nurses in practice in the Central Okanagan area. That’s increased to eight, with, hopefully, more funds to go to the nurse-in-practice program. It’s an excellent program to help those people in our ridings that are unattached to become attached by providing doctors’ offices with a nurse who’s paid for through tax dollars to help them achieve higher attachment rates in the area.

We also will see, I hope, according to what I have seen in the budget, more funds to help continue with our advancement in multi-interdisciplinary health teams. In particular, the residents of Lake Country are looking for one. I’ve discussed this with the Minister of Health before, and of course, we’ll be continuing to advocate for that and working with him to see that come to fruition as soon as possible.

With the extra money going to health care, and it’s considerable given that it’s around 43 percent of our provincial budget, we’d also like to see attention paid to the wait-lists for medically necessary services like hips, knees and other services that we offer. I will work with the minister to see that those services are not only continued in my area but across the province.

We’ve seen, in previous budgets, funds to invest in our school system, in particular the new school up in Mission. Now this budget continues to see investments in school district 23 with the new Lake Country middle school, which was approved by the previous government and now continued by the current government. I’d like to congratulate the government for continuing with that particular item — and work, of course, to see a replacement of Rutland Middle School and start work on new schools in the Glenmore area.

Public transit is very important throughout the province and also very important in the Central Okanagan. This budget will provide more funds for public transit, as all budgets have in the past. It’s good to see that we’ll continue to see that investment.

We’ve also seen a major increase in the number of child care spaces over the past eight years that I’ve been in office. This budget continues that trend to see more child care spaces, and of course, I’ll be supportive of that.

In the area that I live, transportation is a big issue, as it is in many parts of the province. One of the big issues that we need to deal with now is the Highway 97 and Beaver Lake Road intersection. It is one of the top priorities of my constituents. This budget, hopefully, has room to look at that issue as well.

One thing I didn’t see in the budget specifically — so in estimates, I will be asking the minister about it — is the continued defence against invasive mussels. Zebra and quagga mussels have the ability of hurting our infrastructure and clogging our pipes and our drainage ditches, amongst all kinds of other areas in the province, hurting tourism and causing a very high cost to our municipal governments and publicly funded infrastructure, like B.C. Hydro and others. So we need to continue the momentum that we created in our previous budgets, thanks to the members on this side of the House, and see that more resources are used to defend against invasive mussels.

The last piece is something that I will talk about, which is more funds for the Agricultural Land Commission, agricultural land reserve and agriculture in general. Being a Minister of Agriculture for four years, I obviously have a soft spot for ag.

[5:10 p.m.]

I’m happy to see the budget including a $7 million increase, $5 million of which was committed under the previous government, our government. So that was good. But I also see another $2 million being allocated to the Minister of Agriculture. During estimates, I’m sure our critic from Delta South will be asking where that $2 million is slated for.

In the province as a whole, I also see, in Budget 2018, more than $1 billion over three years for child care spaces for families. That will be well received, I’m sure, in the province, and I’ll be working with the minister to see that my riding gets its fair share of those additional child care spaces.

We’ve also heard about the extra funding for health care, in particular the PharmaCare program, which will be increasing access for families that qualify and providing 100 percent coverage to very low-income families. That is a welcome addition to our provincial health care program.

On the supply side. For housing, we see partnerships with post-secondary institutions that will deliver up to 5,000 new student housing spaces. Of course, allowing post-secondary institutions to borrow money to build student housing is something that I think will benefit students around the province. Being in the Central Okanagan, we have a wonderful college, Okanagan College, and also the UBC Okanagan campus, which I’m sure will benefit from this change in government policy.

We also see a new housing hub agency which will partner with the non-profit sector to help deliver new units. We see $5 million committed over three years to help fund needs assessments for local governments on housing; new tools to be explored in municipalities, including allowing rental zoning; working with mayors to increase density around transit stations and other areas; and increases to programs that, of course, we’ve supported very consistently over the years — the rental assistance program and the SAFER program, Shelter Aid For Elderly Residents.

I do find some positive things in the budget. However, like any budget, as every member has mentioned, there are always good things and things that don’t meet the challenge for individual members. I think in this particular budget, the pendulum has actually swung too far.

The NDP’s first budget calls for an 11 percent increase in personal income tax revenue in the next year. That’s equivalent to about $1,000 per family — a 20 percent increase over a three-year plan, with the total taxation revenue increasing by just under 25 percent. I think I costed it at 24.8 percent.

Now, if you look at the Campbell government when it came into power — I wasn’t part of that government — in 2001, one of the first things the Campbell government did was reduce taxes by 25 percent. So it’s interesting that in the first budget by this NDP-Green coalition government, they are increasing taxes by the same amount that our government had reduced taxes by in 2001.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence. I think it’s actually predetermined. The same old tax-and-spend NDP is back with the help, of course, of the Green Party to keep them in power. They’ve increased taxes by approximately $8 billion. So all those good things I talked about…. They found the money tree, apparently, and the money tree is taxpayers, which is unfortunate because that will have a disincentive for people to invest money right here in British Columbia which will create jobs and which will sustain these social programs that we all want over the long term.

There is a $5.5 billion increase in operating in this budget alone, and a 15 percent increase in capital debt alone, $6.6 billion, to $50.3 billion in debt, placing our GDP ratio on a clear trajectory to attract the attention of bond-rating agencies. A lower bond rating means more interest payments to our borrowers to pay for the debt that we’ve incurred in our capital.

Government spending is growing at twice the rate of government revenue, and the fiscal plan is wholly dependent upon a growing economy which is already slowing down. It’s gone from 3.4 percent in 2017, when we were in government, to a forecast of 2.3 percent in 2018.

[5:15 p.m.]

I believe that under the weight of this anti-business, anti–economic growth, anti–private sector jobs, left-leaning, Green-NDP coalition government with many potential shocks on the horizon, we’re probably going to see an even lower forecast. Those shocks include NAFTA; interest rate hikes; the softwood lumber trade war; a trade war that, hopefully, we’ve avoided with Alberta now; wage inflation; and slowing economies of our trading nations.

The government has set aside $3.5 billion in unallocated contingency funds and a forecast allowance for three years, plus a further $2.6 billion in the second and third years, for what will probably be used to reward the NDP public sector union backers, for almost all public sector labour contracts are expiring March 31, 2019.

Following through on our promise to eliminate MSP premiums, they are replacing MSP with a new $2.6 billion in business payroll taxes — just under 2 percent of total payroll. That’s on top of the previously announced minimum wage increase going to $15 an hour; an increase in the general corporate tax rate of 9.1 percent; a 14 percent increase in the personal income tax rate of most skilled professionals; an increase of 16 percent on the carbon tax, which is no longer revenue-neutral. A lot of commitments in the budget. Some of them I approve, but we see how they’re paying for it — major increases in taxes.

Grant Stevens, director of human resources from KF Aerospace, the largest private sector employer in my riding, sent me a letter that says:

“As a major employer, we are very disappointed with the decision to implement a 1.95 percent payroll tax. The tax announced today” — and that was a few days ago — “will cost KF Aerospace over $1 million per year, starting in 2019. That money has to come from somewhere, which means we are forced to look at increasing our rates or cutting costs.

“We compete for work internationally, so raising our rates is not a realistic option. Aviation is highly competitive. The fact is most other jurisdictions do not charge a tax to hire employees, and staffing costs are the single largest component of our business. We already have to invest to train and develop our staff due to gaps in funding. We employ over 750 employees in British Columbia, with the average wage of $65,000 a year.

“We are looking to grow our business, and taxation is one of the factors we take into account when determining where to invest. The government should be looking to incent investment in B.C., not drive it away with additional costs.”

He then sent me another note after looking even more closely at the government’s plan: “Norm, one more really important note. I hadn’t realized that the MSP doesn’t end until 2020, but the payroll tax starts in 2019. So as a good employer who pays his payroll taxes and pays employees’ family MSP, I get double-gouged in 2019. Frankly, that’s an unbelievable double-tax grab.” That’s the end of his statement.

I also understand that Kelowna Flightcraft, or KF Aerospace, as they’re called now, employs hundreds of people in Ontario. Ontario, when it moved away from MSP, put the tax onto its income tax — did not send it directly to businesses. That makes the Ontario plant now more competitive, if you look at it on a case-by-case basis, than our Kelowna plant. I hope that doesn’t mean that they’ll now create jobs in Ontario instead of creating jobs right here in British Columbia.

Val Litwin, CEO of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, said that the impacts of this budget are real, and he thinks that it will stifle growth and investment in key sectors. “This new burden, shifted entirely onto the shoulders of business owners, flies in the face of an innovative economy — a phrase that featured prominently in every minister’s mandate letter in July but very little in today’s speech.”

Iain Black, president of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, said: “A $500,000 payroll can be a ten-to-12 person company. ‘Small business’ is defined as 50 employees or less.” This will hurt small businesses that don’t pay MSP as a benefit already. “This is a net new cost to them.”

In a released statement, Mr. Black said: “In introducing a payroll tax to offset lost MSP premium revenues, this budget delivers another meaningful blow to small-to-medium employers, especially in the service and technology sectors.”

Interjection.

[5:20 p.m.]

N. Letnick: Thank you for the criticism on the opposite side of the bench.

On housing, the $400 renter rebate is missing in action. The math on the 114,000 new affordable housing units just doesn’t add up. With $1.6 billion over three years for 34,000 units, that equals $47,000 a unit.

Even Vaughn Palmer can’t reconcile the numbers. He says: “The budget committed $6.2 billion over ten years to add 33,700 housing units. But that leaves them well short of their election platform promise of 114,000 units. Supposedly, the remaining 80,000 units will be delivered by non-profits, the private sector and other groups, hopefully not at the same $184,000 per-unit cost in provincial contributions.”

Home construction is a key job creator in the Central Okanagan, as it is in many parts of British Columbia. The combined impact of increasing the foreign buyer tax to 20 percent, the new 2 percent speculation tax, higher school taxes and the property transfer tax increase from 3 percent to 5 percent on certain homes will certainly negatively impact housing construction and a major job creator in British Columbia and in my riding. The budget even projects a 27 percent drop in housing starts this year.

If you want to know what the impact is, the latest numbers I found were in 2016. There were 41,843 new housing starts. This is key to economic growth in our province.

This is supplied by the Canadian Home Builders Association: 94,555 on-site and off-site jobs in new home construction, $5.5 billion in wages and $14.1 billion in investment value, the largest single wealth-builder for most families. These new tax measures will put all of that into jeopardy.

Cameron Muir of the B.C. Real Estate Association said that the measure is better described as a vacant home tax, and he warned there would be unintended consequences if it captures owners of recreational property. For example, “under the plan, a $600,000 condo in Kelowna or West Kelowna owned by someone from outside B.C. could face an annual $12,000 bill.” That’s $1,000 a month.

Obviously, this won’t happen, sending Canadians wishing to buy the retirement property in the Okanagan over to other cities that aren’t covered — for example, Peachland, Lake Country, Vernon, Penticton, maybe even Whistler.

It would appear that the attack on homeowners isn’t over with the government’s housing plan, suggesting landlords will soon need to help displaced tenants due to renovations or demolitions, help them to find new homes or help them with their moving costs. Now there’s talk about reviewing the homeowner’s grant, potentially raising property taxes for most homeowners by several hundred dollars per year, transferring their grant to renters.

“We fail to see how slapping an additional tax on Albertans or other Canadians that own property in this province is somehow going to make housing more affordable for young families and those living on the streets.”

Now, these are comments made by the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, Tom Dyas, who is president.

“That uncertainty around the proposed tax comes as a result of the fact that legislation for the new tax is not yet finalized. That uncertainty is detrimental to creating an environment that encourages investment and economic growth.”

He goes on to say:

“We also have yet to see a solid business case that the foreign buyer tax or the proposed speculators’ tax will actually achieve the outcomes the province is hoping for, which they state is creating more affordable housing in the Central Okanagan.

“As we have seen over the past year in dealing with federal tax policy changes, any consideration of a new tax must be well thought out and effectively communicated to those it will affect. In this case, we have not had the communication, nor have we received any explanation from the province.

“We call on the B.C. Finance Minister to immediately explain the government’s rationale behind implementing a tax on only some communities in B.C. and not others.

“We are hearing significant concern and outrage being expressed from those in the housing construction sector throughout the Okanagan and the Kootenays, two regions of the province that, interestingly enough, have strong economic ties to” other parts of the country, in particular “Alberta.”

[5:25 p.m.]

Laura Kane, in an article she wrote in the Daily Courier: “A foreign buyers tax will do little to cool the British Columbia housing markets where it’s been expanded,” she says some groups say. She says that the Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board is quoted.

“‘I don’t know anybody who is thinking that we need this tax.’”

This is Tanis Read, president of the Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board.

“‘I’m very troubled by the lack of consultation.’ Foreign transactions made up 1.8 percent of purchases in the Central Okanagan, 1.4 percent in the Fraser Valley, 4.3 percent in the Victoria area and 4.4 percent in the Nanaimo area….

“Read said prices in the Okanagan have steadily risen due to population growth and declining inventory, not foreign buyers.”

She goes on to say that the tax might have a “modest” impact, but she’s concerned about the ripple effects.

“She has European clients who are planning to move to the Okanagan, and the tax has reduced their budget to $600,000 from $800,000.

“‘That puts pressure on lower-priced homes,’ she said. ‘There are so many unintended consequences, and if they had actually consulted with industry as a trusted partner instead of as an adversary, then we would have come to more concrete solutions.’”

I received a letter from Curtis Darmohray. I apologize if I mispronounced your name, Curtis. Curtis said:

“Since last week, my phone and email have been flooded with calls from Alberta clients who are feeling like they need to sell and vacate the B.C. market.

“If this comes to fruition, it will undoubtedly result in significant drops in our local real estate market without alleviating our housing shortage, as these aren’t the types of homes that first-time homeowners are looking to buy, much less afford — even if there’s a 35 percent price drop.”

Another letter I received says:

“Hello. I live in Calgary, and I’ve recently purchased a lot in Kelowna. We plan to build a vacation home, where we eventually plan to retire. I am from B.C., and it was a place I wanted to come back to at some point. But because of the speculation tax that you are bringing in, building this house will now require me to pay an additional $24,000 a year to operate, which makes no financial sense at all.

“This is clearly a cash grab on the part of the NDP government. I wanted to let you know that as a result of your reckless decision to tax and tax some more, I will be putting the lot up for sale and will no longer be building a home in Kelowna.

“I will instead invest my money in another market. Because of this tax, there will be tradespeople in Kelowna and surrounding areas who will not get my business. There will be restaurants and stores that I do not bring my business to. There will be no property taxes that I pay.

“So as the market in Kelowna starts to tank, as Albertans take their money elsewhere, I want you to know that this will be all your doing.”

Hopefully he knows I’m not in the government anymore.

“In addition, as you clearly don’t want Alberta money, I will also be cancelling my vacation this summer to Kelowna at one of the resorts. I will not vacation in B.C. again.

“I may just be one person, but I suspect many Albertans will decide that putting their money in B.C. is no longer a good financial decision. You have turned me into one of those Albertans that will avoid B.C. products altogether in the future.”

I wish he was alone in his comments, but there are letters, a stack of them, that are starting to come in to all the MLAs that have been impacted. A stack.

This is a letter from Peter Lacey:

“Mr. Letnick.

“My wife and I built a home in South Bay Landing in 2006. After it was complete, our tax assessment was just under $2 million. But after the crash in B.C. real estate in 2008, the tax assessment has never reached the same level, so to tax me as a speculator is grossly unfair.

“We visit our property there nine to ten times a year and support the local community. I am on the strata board, and we’ve felt as much of the community as we do in Red Deer, Alberta.

“I believe the present government has not thought this through sufficiently, as communities like Kelowna are going to be hard hit for many years. I am not willing to pay an additional $36,000 a year to live 70 to 80 days in Kelowna and will probably be putting my home up for sale if there aren’t significant changes made to this ill-thought-out tax policy.

“Downtown Kelowna and Lower Mission have 17 to 20 percent of the properties that are going to be negatively impacted.

“What is hurtful is that this is a retroactive tax. If the government is determined to reduce speculation and impose the tax on properties being sold post budget date, at least owners would have the opportunity, in making a decision, to buy a property with the knowledge of the tax they would have to pay. This would let the market absorb the changes in a reasonable and gradual basis.

[5:30 p.m.]

“I know you oppose this poorly thought-out tax, and I’m happy to provide you this letter of support for this opposition.”

Another letter, from Susan French:

“We would like to strongly protest the recent speculation tax, which will kill many middle-income earners’ dreams. We have worked hard and earned everything we own. Proud of what we have achieved, we dreamed of years playing with the kids on the lake and eventually retiring to a warmer climate, which would be a fun place for future grandchildren to visit.

“So we put our retirement fund to a vacation property that would turn into a retirement home. This tax will kill that dream for our family. We are not wealthy enough to pay quadruple taxes. If forced to sell, it would now probably be at a huge loss, hitting our ability to retire.

“We are being punished for working hard, saving, investing in Canada and our family. It sure doesn’t feel fair. Even if you don’t care about families like ours, the tax fails to address the issue of vacation homes. The majority of vacation property owners around us are from Vancouver. They won’t be hit by this. Why should residents of B.C. be the only ones allowed to have a vacation home?

“You have also targeted some areas but not others. Again I question how this is fair and will actually work. People can simply buy elsewhere, like Peachland or Kalamalka, driving up prices there.

“We urge you to stop this ill-conceived and prejudiced tax.”

Dean Smith wrote, on February 23:

“I’m writing to request your help in urging the B.C. government to reconsider the proposed speculation tax on out-of-province Canadians owning homes in B.C. My wife and I purchased our first vacation home in Kelowna in 2004, long before the current concerns about unbridled foreign investment and money laundering starting to drive up the cost of housing in the Lower Mainland.

“I grew up in Kelowna, did part of my university education in Victoria and later worked in Victoria for several years. Later, my career path took me out of province, and I’ve been in Calgary for the last 16 years. Because of my vacation home purchase, my family and friends have enjoyed many wonderful summer vacations and ski holidays in the Okanagan.

“We are now working part-time and have been enjoying spending more time throughout the year in our Kelowna home. We eventually plan to retire to our home in Kelowna for a major portion of the year.”

The letter goes on.

I have other letters here, but I see I’ve reached the end of my time, unfortunately. I just want to say that there are more letters coming, I understand, from other MLAs and from my office — that continue to come in.

I’m sure, over the next few weeks, as more and more people realize the impact that this Green-NDP budget has had on them, on their personal net worth, on their ability to come and invest in our Central Okanagan and other places around the province, killing jobs, killing investment and not being able to actually accomplish all the great things that the budget wants to accomplish because the economic growth around the province will start to stagnate due to this anti-job budget….

I will not be supporting the budget because I think it’s not in the best interest of the B.C. taxpayers, and I don’t think it’s in the best interest of British Columbians in Kelowna–Lake Country.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Nanaimo.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I’m delighted to see you in the chair because I recognize your face. Having listened to the last speaker, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, I thought, for a moment, that I was transported to the Legislative Assembly in the province of Alberta.

I heard letter after letter of protestation from the constituents of Alberta MLAs complaining about British Columbia policy. I thought this must be the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. This must be a member of the government of Alberta whose great concern is so wonderfully emphasized by reading letter after letter after letter from Albertans.

That’s a wonderful thing, but I suggest, with great respect to the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, that if he’s that interested, he should perhaps resign his seat, move to the province of Alberta and legitimately represent all of the people he’s been speaking for, for the last half-hour. That would be of far more benefit, I’m sure, on this particular debate.

[5:35 p.m.]

This isn’t the first time I’ve heard a budget speech, and it isn’t the first time I’ve listened to budget debate. I just have to say…. No disrespect to the members of the opposition as they are now, no disrespect, but if they had expressed as much concern as they do, or pretend to do, now for ordinary British Columbians, then I’d still be over there on the opposition side criticizing their budget speech instead of the reverse.

Interjections.

L. Krog: Oh, now we’re going to quibble over the seat numbers. I know it is galling for that member that actually 58 percent of British Columbians voted for alternatives other than the B.C. Liberals. I know that is galling, and I understand that completely. But the member has to be sympathetic to the possibility that after 16 years of them running the show, perhaps British Columbians were anxious for a change.

What did they get? They got the change they wanted. They got a cooperative Legislature, where people of differing parties can agree on policy that is good public policy that will help the province, that will benefit British Columbians, with great respect, not the good people of Alberta, who are our fellow Canadians. I have enormous respect for them, but for a party that has championed, throughout its history, the concept of self-interest…. “We’ve got to let business do what it needs to do. We’ve got to let people accumulate as much money as they possibly can and not tax them and not regulate them and not make them participate in society.”

For a party that has stood for self-interest for so long and so hard, I just find it astonishing that when the people of British Columbia, through this government, express some self-interest in the people of this province, on behalf of the people of this province, that opposition finds that concept upsetting.

I am delighted to speak in favour of a budget that speaks to the needs of British Columbians, for a change, that speaks to the needs of the majority of British Columbians. Now I know that member over there was part of a party that delightfully traipsed into Calgary, led by the former Christy Clark, scooped up the oil money, came back to British Columbia and tried to buy B.C. votes. I get that. I know, now, that that avenue has been cut off.

It must be incredibly upsetting that you can’t wander down the streets of Calgary with buckets in each hand, loading it up, coming back to British Columbia to fight the horrible socialists who might actually support — I don’t know — something as dreadful, as dramatic, as soul-destroying as decent child care.

I get that. I know it must be upsetting, but I would like to see some positivity from this side. I’d like to see some glory in the change that’s being brought about. Instead, all I hear is the nattering nabobs of negativism, as Spiro Agnew would’ve said, going on and on about how dreadful things are and how the world’s going to collapse. The economy is going to disappear. There’ll never be another house built in British Columbia. They’ll retreat back over the border, selling their lovely Lake Country houses and retreat — I don’t know — to their mansions in Calgary.

My heart bleeds for those people. But I’ve got to tell you, my heart bleeds more for those British Columbians who for 16 long years never saw their views represented in this place. I’m speaking about the people on social assistance, the vulnerable, the children who went to school and didn’t have the assistance they needed. The children in care who when they turned 19 were tossed out on the street without supports. The people who in this society, in a decent society, should’ve been receiving assistance and weren’t getting it.

If those members over there had thought more about those people, then, as I said, I’d still be back over there and they’d be over here. But that’s not the way it happened. We had a democratic election. The next election, as a result of this government’s legislation, is going to be even better because the power of big money is out of B.C. politics. The power of big money, the buckets of cash from Calgary, are not going to determine policy in British Columbia.

If those members over there want to continue to defend Albertans instead of British Columbians, I say, you’ve chosen your sides, and I want the people of B.C. to know: which side you are on? Are you on the side of British Columbians or on the side of Albertans?

Do you want to defend the vulnerable in British Columbia, or do you want to defend the oil millionaires and their vacation homes in Kelowna–Lake Country? Is that who you want to represent? Because if that’s who you want to represent, then just say so, and stop reading all these silly letters from the people of Alberta.

[5:40 p.m.]

Let’s talk about the good stuff in this budget. Let’s talk about the measures around taxation on homes. Let’s talk about the fact that there are more people in the streets of my community today than there were last year. You know why?

Interjections.

L. Krog: No. The member is going to suggest it’s because we’re the government.

No, it’s because of the housing crisis in this province. The horrible accommodation that they formerly were able to occupy isn’t available anymore because somebody a little further up the social strata is now taking over that accommodation.

It’s why this government, in response, has chosen to put appropriate taxation on foreign buyers. It’s why this government has chosen to put money into public housing to ensure that British Columbians can sleep in a safe, secure environment at night. That’s what this opposition opposes: the concept that people should live in safe, secure housing.

So $6 billion over ten years. When the Liberals were spending money in capital investment, that was good news. But when the B.C. NDP, supported by the B.C. Greens, commit to $6 billion to house British Columbians, that’s bad news. Now, I’m not suggesting for a moment that they believe in double standards. Oh, heaven’s no. I wouldn’t suggest that. But let me just say, I find it passing strange that they’re opposed to capital investment. I find it passing strange.

I suppose if it was a break for the oil and gas industry that never came to fruition…. Remember all the promises? What was it? Was it $100 billion?

Interjections.

L. Krog: Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, can they tell me? I think it was $100 billion, the prosperity fund. Everything was going to be rosy.

Again, I come back to the point. For 16 years, they made choices. They made choices to emphasize getting to and maintaining a balanced budget, which at its basics is good public policy. It’s good public policy.

But if, along the way, you’re allowing the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and you’re not delivering the social services that British Columbians deserve and expect — and that decent citizens in a decent caring society expect of a modern democracy — then the result is: they’re over there, and we’re over here. And that’s exactly the way it should be.

What successful, modern, liberal democracy in the world doesn’t have a decent child care program? In the 21st century, when the vast majority of people of any gender are in the workforce trying to support themselves and their family, this government rolled up its surpluses, let the rich get their tax breaks, lowered the corporate tax rates, made their rich friends happy and paid off their Calgary oil millionaire friends with government policy that didn’t benefit British Columbians.

Here we are today, and we have started down the path to delivering universal, accessible, affordable child care that parents in this province can trust.

I know, and I understand…. I’m sympathetic. I know it’s hard for the opposition to be critical. Because the truth is, if they’re really talking to their constituents, instead of reading their mail from Alberta all the time….

If they actually went out onto the streets and talked to their own people — probably even some of their own supporters and voters, maybe even Liberal Party members — they would understand that this budget…. I speak with some experience. I’ve lived under NDP governments and Social Credit governments and Liberal governments. They would understand that on the streets of British Columbia, in the small towns and in the big cities, this budget has actually been really well received.

People get a sense….

Interjections.

L. Krog: I know it’s hard for the members to listen. This is the point. If they listened as much as they talked, they’d be better off. You know, two ears, one mouth. Use them in that proportion. Mark Twain.

[5:45 p.m.]

I suggest they listen for a moment. If they listened to what people on the streets were saying, they’d understand that most people see in this budget things that benefit them, that actually impact on their lives and make their life a little bit better.

Maybe it’s child care. Maybe it’s people getting PharmaCare. Maybe it’s the 19-year-old who was facing a life on the streets that they don’t have to face anymore because there’s going to be a government there that provides assistance for them once they’re tossed out of the social services net. Maybe it’s people who see that they don’t have to pay MSP premiums anymore.

Maybe if they listen to those people, they would understand and appreciate why this budget has been so well received, why even the business community hasn’t lit its hair on fire the way the opposition has tried to. Now, it’s one thing when the opposition is screaming, and it’s reflective of public sentiment. But the truth is that where the Finance Minister has gone and spoken to business groups already, the reception — and those members know it — has actually been pretty favourable.

I know it’s hard to swallow, and I appreciate it’s difficult to be critical of something that is actually well received and pretty good politics — a budget that’s balanced, a budget that delivers services, that institutes programs that are important to people and that touch them in their daily lives. I know it’s hard to be critical. I get that.

That’s one thing about being in the opposition. When we were the opposition, boy, you could look at a Liberal budget, and you could see the poor being ignored for another year. You could see MSP premiums being forgotten about. You could see rising ferry rates. You could see all kinds of things that at the minimum were annoying and at the worst were absolutely appalling public policy. Instead, what we have is a budget that speaks to people. Whether it’s bringing down the cost of prescription drugs or eliminating deductibles for families with low income, it’s about delivering services that people count on.

The great T.C. Douglas in Saskatchewan and the CCF….

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, no reflection on his ego, says he would have been a Green today.

With great respect, hon. Member, you need to read more history to understand that T.C. Douglas would no more likely have been Green than the sky would be blue.

Speaking of the sky, I do look up with some comfort at the ceiling of this place, comfortable in the fact that notwithstanding the speeches of the members opposite, the ceiling has not collapsed today. The Chicken Little calls are not accurate.

The reason T.C. Douglas was popular, and the reason that government got re-elected in the toughest of fiscal circumstances, is because they delivered on programs that touched people in their daily lives. Whether it was rural electrification or whether it was ensuring that there were hospitals and schools and roads that they could drive to town on and deliver their grain on, to get to the railyard or whatever, they delivered programs.

That’s what these folks over here forgot. They aren’t like the old Socreds of the ’50s. Wacky sort of got it, you know. He may have taken the money from big business, and he may have made the boys on Howe Street happy, but he also made sure the guy living in East Vancouver who was a plumber or an electrician or an ironworker had a job.

Because Wacky understood that people want to be employed, and they want to be paid decent wages. They want to have enough in their pockets so they can support their families. They want to know that their children, if they have the desire and the ability and the interest, will have an opportunity for post-secondary education.

Now, we know the record of the B.C. Liberals. Tuition more than doubled. Our students were leaving post-secondary education programs with the highest per-capita debt in the country. We are moving in the direction that will actually see some of that student debt shrink. We are moving in the direction of making it more accessible. Just one program alone — removing tuition fees for adult basic education….

Or $30 million to increase financial support for the agreements with young adults, the program that’s going to help many of our young people aging out of care, helping them get an education. The very people who didn’t have the benefit of a comfortable home, who didn’t have the benefit of a decent family or decent community to support them — those very people are people who are being helped by the NDP government by this budget.

That’s why I can speak with enthusiasm and comfort and passion about what we’re doing. Because that’s just one aspect of it, one tiny aspect.

[5:50 p.m.]

And $30 million — I never thought I’d say this — isn’t a lot of money anymore, but it’s a lot more than was being put there before. So there will be literally hundreds of young people in this province who have the possibility of a future, a future to enjoy the same kind of security that each and every member of this chamber enjoys, in terms of income, support, community and education. They will have that opportunity because of what this government has done in this budget. That is something to be proud of.

It’s not just about those folks. It’s about the First Nations of this province, the Indigenous peoples. This government has made real and historic commitments to move forward — $50 million to support Indigenous communities to revitalize the connections to their languages.

Language is everything. It is how we transmit our culture. It is how we express ourselves. First Nations languages, as many of you know…. We have the highest number, I believe, of languages of any province in Canada — First Nations languages and dialects. We are in a unique position because of the lack of treaties.

This government has taken a significant step forward — $158 million in partnership with Indigenous housing societies and First Nations to build and support 1,750 units to address the housing shortage for First Nations; $16 million over two years to the First Nations Health Authority to support mental health and wellness in Indigenous communities. These are all incredibly positive things. These are the kinds of things that if that opposition had thought about doing or done it when they were in government, maybe we wouldn’t be in these roles today.

The difference is that as we’re doing it and all these positive things…. I get it that they’re opposition and their job is to criticize, but I would accept with a greater sense of generosity and heart if they had in fact said something nice about this stuff. Some of the things I’ve just recited are actually really positive, are good things, good public policy, the kind of things that I know many of those members over there support. But they just can’t bring themselves to say it, because they’ve been cast in this new role.

I know it’s hard for them to be in opposition. Once you’ve had power, it’s pretty tough to give it up. But it is life. I’m reminded of Robbie Burns. “O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.”

I just see over there a bunch of folks who are still fairly bitter about losing an election and can’t quite bring themselves to acknowledge that they’re not in charge anymore. But as much as they’re not in charge anymore and we are, this is a wonderful budget. This does so many good things.

I know the members opposite want to defend lower corporate tax rates and defend the business community. I get that. I’ve met a payroll a good chunk of my life. I understand these things. I appreciate the importance of it.

In a society where for years we saw that growing gap between the rich and the poor and where we saw people accumulating great fortunes and where we saw Porsche and BMW dealerships open up in places in the province where, before, you were lucky if you had a car dealership, period, there was a message being sent. Maybe it wasn’t like a big billboard that you drive by every day, but you would have thought thoughtful public policy–makers would’ve been able to look at it and say: “You know, that’s an interesting contrast. I’ve got Hummers on the road, but I’ve got people sleeping in doorways. Is there something wrong here?”

Did the members of the opposition think about that? You know what? I’m positive they did. There are lots of compassionate people over there. I like most of the members opposite, actually. I like most of the members of this chamber. But it is one thing to feel; it is another thing to do. That’s the difference.

The good things that needed to be done, the positive things that needed to be done, the right things that needed to be done, we’re doing, and they’re in the budget. They had that opportunity. They made different choices. That’s the great thing about democracy.

[5:55 p.m.]

When they made their choices and put their choices before the people of British Columbia, and we made our choices around policy…. They looked at 16 years of the B.C. Liberals, and they looked at the possibility of a fresh new government or a mixed new government or people who would work together for the common good, and they said: “We’re going to make a different choice.” And they did.

I know it’s hard on the members opposite, but the fact is, that positive choice has resulted in the things I’ve been talking about today.

For those of us who’ve been around a while, we remember the glory days of B.C. Parks when there were programs for kids and all sort of things. The parks were well maintained, wildlife was available for hunters and fishers, and we saw conservation officers all over the place.

Well, $9 million to cover operating pressures for conservation officers. And $14 million over three years to invest in protecting B.C.’s wildlife. And $5 million over three years to expand B.C. campsites so that families who can’t afford to buy a summer cottage in the Rockies in Alberta maybe could afford to go camping with their family in British Columbia. Some of the people the member is not getting letters from, actual British Columbians…. Those people will be able to go camping. They’ll be able to take their kids somewhere in B.C.

Whether you’re a senior who’s seeing a $58 million investment in the SAFER program to ensure that they can keep accommodation and not end up on the streets or be forced down the social scale into less adequate housing…. Those seniors, they get it. They understand. They like this budget, too, because this budget actually protects them.

I’ve said it a million times. My quotes get kind of tiresome, I know, but it’s like old Pope John said: “God bless the very young, and God bless the very old.” Those two stages of your life are when you’re the most vulnerable. So when this government puts money into SAFER to ensure that seniors can feel secure that they can maintain their residence, that’s a positive thing, just as it is when we put money back into the classroom.

So 3,700 new teachers. It’s a staggering number. I grew up in a community that only had a few hundred people. So 3,700 more teachers in a public education system which is the way up and the way out of tough circumstances for everybody. When you put money into public education, that is the investment, to use the business language. That is the expression of hope for the future. It is also the tangible way that people can escape their social circumstances, where the world can be opened up to them. So when we’ve done that, that is just incredibly positive.

I want to talk a little bit more about some of the other basic things. Ferry fares. Now, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast doesn’t go anywhere in his constituency if he doesn’t hop on a ferry — or a plane but ferries more commonly. I live on Vancouver Island. I’ve lived here most of my life and rely on B.C. Ferries. All the goods that come here, the food that we eat in the Legislative Dining Room…. Most it is coming here in a B.C. ferry.

Ferry fares have a real impact on the coastal economy. We know from the study done for the UBCM that by allowing ferry fares…. Not allowing, by actually driving them up through policy. By driving up those ferry fares, it cost $2.4 billion in economic activity on the coast. We have seen coastal communities and Gulf Islands businesses suffer incredibly. We saw it, and the members opposite….

This is why it’s just so amusing when I hear them expressing concern about property values dropping. What did they think happened to property values in the Gulf Islands when they drove up the ferry fares? Hundreds of millions of dollars in property value gone, except the difference was that a lot of those people live in the Gulf Islands. It wasn’t a vacation home, although there were lots of them too. It was their home. It was the elderly couple who were saying: “You know, as long as we can stick it out here before we’ve got to move to the big city where the hospital is…. This is our future.”

[6:00 p.m.]

They saw that value disappear because of this former government’s policies around ferry fares not taking into account the responsibility that Wacky Bennett, Dave Barrett and everybody else has recognized: the primacy of having an efficient ferry fleet on the west coast that delivers goods, services and people in an efficient and economically effective way.

The government didn’t want to listen. That’s why we’re freezing ferry fares on all three major routes. We’re rolling back fares on small routes by 15 percent, and we’re restoring the Monday to Thursday free ferries for our seniors. That’s good public policy.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Well, I’m always delighted to have the support of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. He speaks for a certain class of people; I speak for another class. I’ll take my class any day.

That classroom enhancement fund I talked about, and the 3,700 new teachers. Those moneys don’t just disappear into the Lower Mainland. They don’t just disappear into Burnaby or Richmond. Those moneys go to support school districts around the province. That is positive news for British Columbians, because British Columbians have been waiting a very long time to see the services they rely on restored, to see that their interests were put first and to see that a government was actually listening.

I have a fellow whose wife passed away in a care facility in Nanaimo, Dufferin Place. I won’t mention his name. I’m not going to embarrass him. She suffered a long, hard time there. He was one of the strong advocates on behalf of people living in those kinds of facilities. I can just imagine how excited he is now to see the commitment to increase the hours that our seniors receive care within those facilities — to ensure that they get decent meals and the kind of care they deserve.

I come back to my point around the most vulnerable, whether you’re really young or you’re really old. That’s the kind of public policy that British Columbians voted for in the last election. That is the kind of public policy that British Columbians support. That is the kind of public policy that this government is going to continue to deliver.

I, unlike the member for Kelowna–Lake Country…. Much to my surprise, he said he wasn’t going to vote for the budget. That was a real shocker. That had to be the best-kept secret in the western world. It’s like Donald Trump’s intelligence. That’s a well-kept secret too.

Unlike the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, I’m going to vote to support this budget, because this budget finally, after 16 long years, delivers on the things and policies and needs of British Columbians across this province, instead of a small group of very wealthy British Columbians. There’s nothing to apologize for in ensuring that people get decent public services. I am thrilled to support this budget, and I look forward to voting for it.

S. Cadieux: Now for something a little bit different.

Before I get started, the member for Nanaimo rambled on about our lack of support on this side of the House for the average British Columbian. You know, I need to debunk some of the alternative facts that that member has put forward and that so many of his colleagues, in very Trumpian ways, have been touting over and over.

“Sixteen years of neglect.” Just because you repeat it over and over again doesn’t make it true. I, for one, don’t have any rich Calgary oil-millionaire friends. I do, however, have many, many….

Interjections.

S. Cadieux: No, actually, they didn’t.

I do have many friends and family that are hard-working Albertans that I respect very much.

[6:05 p.m.]

This government showed it cared, year after year, with housing investments totalling over $6.3 billion, with an education budget that grew year over year, with over $4½ billion in capital funding in 1,100 projects for schools across our province, with a health budget that rose 82 percent on this government’s watch and with over 226,000 new jobs created while this government was in power. While our former Liberal government took over from the NDP with B.C. at a job-growth rate of just 7 percent, we led Canada with a growth rate of 4 percent when we left this year.

The member opposite suggested that seeing Porsche or other luxury car dealerships popping up in places that hadn’t previously had them was a bad sign. I see that as a good sign. That’s a sign that people are doing well. Porsche doesn’t open dealerships if they can’t sell cars, and people can’t buy cars if they’re not doing well. If we have more people doing well, it’s a good thing.

I also know that the member for Nanaimo knows well…. He knows, and has in past acknowledged, that I understand this too. Poverty is an intractable problem. It is something we need to address as governments. This government took steps, and that government is taking steps. There is no easy solution. It isn’t going to be ended overnight. I’ve acknowledged that I support many of the steps that that government is choosing to take in that particular file.

Let’s move on now. I am privileged to take my place to speak to the budget. It’s the first full budget of this government’s time. I know that all of us on this side certainly recognize that putting forward a budget for the entire province is no small feat. It’s difficult. It’s about making choices and trade-offs and tough decisions. But as the MLA for Surrey South, it’s important to me that the budget will benefit and serve the best interests of my constituents, as well as all British Columbians, both today and in years to come.

Before diving into the budget contents, I’ll take a moment to make some acknowledgements. I’d like to thank, of course, my constituents of Surrey South for giving me the opportunity to represent such a remarkable community. I’m proud to continue to have the privilege. I’d like to thank my husband and family and the staff members that support me, both in my constituency office in Surrey and the legislative staff and communications staff here.

To begin, this budget that we have before us today claims to focus on affordability. Indeed, the government news release headline reads: “Budget 2018 Puts People First, Makes Life More Affordable for British Columbians.” My critique will focus on two things this afternoon: which British Columbians will find life more affordable and who won’t, and broken promises.

First, some things that I support. I know this will come as a surprise to the members opposite, but I do in fact support a number of the things that are in this budget. I support the arts funding lift. As a longtime supporter of the arts, I’m glad to see the $15 million investment in the Arts Council.

I support the additional support for former youth in care, the enhancements of the AYA program. I support that there’s a new elementary school in the budget for Surrey South, although this was announced in December and isn’t new. In general terms, the investment in child care is a good thing, and I’ll expand a little more on my thoughts on that later.

I agree with some of the steps that government is taking to close loopholes and collect data on housing purchases. Those aren’t budget items, specifically; they’re policy.

There are some sound investments in Indigenous reconciliation, and the investment and support for transition houses for women and children fleeing violence is needed. Government has shown that they are interested in investing in some areas. I think we should agree that some of these should’ve seen attention earlier. I do think it’s important to recognize that.

We also need to look at the bigger picture. Government is making some significant spending plans, and in some respects, this is what British Columbians asked for in the last election. But unless increased spending is balanced with increased revenue, a budget won’t be balanced, at least not for long.

In this budget, we see that the NDP has indeed identified some ways to bring in new revenue, but these plans don’t involve growing the economy at all, and they certainly don’t make life more affordable for British Columbians that own small and medium-sized businesses. Instead, these measures all involve new or increased taxes, to the tune of $5.5 billion. The carbon tax increase will cost British Columbians more at the pump. Perhaps most notably, there’s a new payroll tax to replace the MSP. This comes as a payroll tax that will deliver a hard hit to some small and medium-sized businesses.

[6:10 p.m.]

It could, potentially, place a pretty large burden on non-profit and service agencies as well. I can’t believe that the Finance Minister didn’t realize that will affect these groups.

Community living agencies that serve people with developmental disabilities get their funds through CLBC. In my riding, one of these agencies has a payroll of over $2 million. Their contracts currently cover MSP, but they’ve already been adjusted for the reduction in premiums, so they aren’t socking any money away. Next year the payroll tax adds a $39,000 bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interestingly, the only increase to CLBC’s budget in this budget was for caseload growth. Presumably, the Finance Minister wants them to reduce services or staff to cover that new cost. That’s surprising, considering the Finance Minister had this to say about CLBC and their agency budgets when she was in opposition. “Adults with developmental disabilities are not receiving the supports they need to live as true members of the community.” That was a quote from the now Finance Minister in November of 2011.

Interjection.

S. Cadieux: Well, the members opposite can criticize all they want, but one thing they certainly didn’t acknowledge along the way was our continued investments in those agencies. However, now, apparently, they have plenty of money, according to this budget.

What about other not-for-profit agencies, like child development centres? Some will be small enough that it won’t be a problem. In larger communities there are large organizations. In my community, I expect they’ll be facing a bill of over $200,000. Some of their business, and businesses like those, is funded charitably and could force layoffs. Some is funded through government contracts from MCFD or CLBC, but those budgets haven’t risen in this budget either, so how will contracts for next year accommodate those increased costs?

What about child care operators and businesses? Plenty of these are large enough to have payrolls over $500,000. One in my riding, for example, has multiple locations, very happy customers and a payroll well over $1.5 million. The payroll tax could mean an increase in fees. That will reduce the benefit of the new subsidies proposed by this government to lower the already high cost of daycare.

Interesting that this moves counters the advice of government’s own MSP Task Force, which recommended against using a payroll tax as the only means to make up the MSP revenue. The same task force cautioned that: “A payroll tax would reduce the competitiveness of B.C. businesses at a time when they are facing several competitiveness challenges, including expected increases to the minimum wage, CPP and recent tax reform in the U.S. which improves the competitive position of many U.S. businesses.” Now, of course child care isn’t competing with the U.S., but many of the businesses in my riding who export are.

Nevertheless, we’ll see a payroll tax in this budget that will cost businesses $4.2 billion over the next three years. While small businesses are already grappling with the implications of a steep rise in the minimum wage — well-intentioned, certainly, but clearly considered in complete isolation…. I’ve been hearing from small businesses in my riding, the employers of young people, the corner coffee shop, the fast-food restaurants, the retailers, the farmers.

The minimum-wage increase alone will cost one nursery in my riding an additional $72,000 per year. The only way they see that they can deal with that is layoffs. For a local, independent coffee shop, a favourite of mine, a favourite independent retailer, the minimum-wage increase alone will mean letting go of staff or raising prices or both. Coupled now with the payroll tax, many are looking at a direct cost to their business of more than 15 percent, ensuring both of these outcomes.

Let’s add in the increase in the carbon tax. That means we pay more to move around, and goods and services cost more to cover the cost of getting them to market. Let’s break that down. The goal, according to the NDP, is affordability. Some people will make more per hour. That’s good. Some people will be laid off. That’s not good. But both will pay more for goods and services. It doesn’t sound like their lives are going to be a whole lot more affordable from this move.

Given that government seems to have no plan to grow the economy, aside from raising taxes, I certainly question how they’ll live up to their claim to make life more affordable for B.C. families, in the long run.

[6:15 p.m.]

Now let’s move for a moment to the Ministry of Children and Families. Let’s talk a bit about what was the NDP’s biggest focus in this House over the last five years or so — the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

I applaud the investment of $10 million per year to support and expand AYA, as I said earlier. It’s a really good move. I agree with them — or at least what they used to say — that the most vulnerable children in our province should be the government’s first priority.

Sadly, they’ve had seven months, a budget update and now their first real chance to show that they meant it, that it wasn’t just rhetoric for scoring political points, but they’ve missed their chance. For five years, we heard day after day that they had all the answers, if only government would invest the necessary dollars. The children couldn’t wait. In the Premier’s words, I was pathetic. I should’ve resigned.

This was their big chance to show me and to show British Columbia what should have been done, how to care about vulnerable kids. What do we see? Unlike our last budget for MCFD that saw $145 million investment to support the most vulnerable children in our province, there is in this budget no money to improve support for foster parents and foster kids, no money to reduce wait-lists and improve services for kids with disabilities and developmental challenges, no money for child and youth mental health services and no money to support successful adoptions.

One of my greatest regrets was that despite securing, as minister, a more than 14 percent increase in the budget for that ministry, a transformational plan created to improve services for Aboriginal families and kids that was long overdue…. My biggest regret is that I wasn’t able to do even more. It’s vital. The needs are real.

I’d like to say that I feel vindicated that their vicious attack on me personally over the last number of years was just politics, but instead I just feel sad. This government had a chance to prove they had the answers they said they had and that they cared, and they’ve failed.

Interjection.

S. Cadieux: No, no. The Attorney General would like to suggest that child care is the way to support vulnerable children. While I have said I’m going to get to that and don’t disagree that it’s an important investment, the most vulnerable kids in our province are the kids that the ministry cares for directly, and they are left out of this budget.

I’ll move for a moment to my own community of Surrey. While the message in this budget, of course, impacts communities across the province, I certainly need to focus a few moments on my own community, which faces some unique challenges and opportunities.

For one, we’re rapidly growing. As we’ve said multiple times in this House, we’re expected to welcome to Surrey more than 300,000 new residents over the next 30 years. We’re one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada, and certainly my riding is one of the fastest-growing areas of Surrey. While this incredible growth has opened up opportunities for our community, it’s also created transportation challenges and placed demands on other infrastructure.

Last week the government announced that they’ll replace the Pattullo Bridge. That’s good news for Surrey commuters. It is indeed good news for commuters throughout the Lower Mainland as this bridge is aging and does need replacing. However, the provincial government has agreed to take on the entire cost of this replacement, which is estimated at over $1.3 billion.

To take on the entire price tag of a project of this size, without assistance from any other level of government is…. Well, I’ll just say it’s an unusual move. While I’m happy this project is in the works, I’m concerned that by taking the full financial responsibility for this project, government will have little money left over for other much-needed infrastructure projects. While commuters south of the Fraser will benefit from that Pattullo Bridge, the budget does nothing to help the 80,000 commuters stuck in the George Massey bottleneck every day. Most of the commuters from my community would use that route.

I don’t need to remind members of this House that that tunnel replacement project was budgeted under our B.C. Liberal government, but soon after forming government, the NDP halted that project and ordered another unnecessary, time-consuming and costly review. Today British Columbians are waiting for a plan, and there’s no plan in the budget.

The budget also provides no funding for light rail in Surrey. While the government has said they will honour their commitment to the mayors’ ten-year transportation plan, the fact that government still hasn’t approved phase 1 and the money to move on with that is troubling.

Our population is outgrowing our current health facilities. Government committed to building a second hospital in Surrey during last year’s campaign. That’s a huge undertaking. While I understand project discussions have started, this could very well be like the hospital in Abbotsford — promised by an NDP government for ten years, built by a B.C. Liberal government. Certainly, either way it’s going to be a long time coming.

[6:20 p.m.]

Surrey’s rapid growth rate has put pressure on our schools. That is not any surprise to anyone in this House or anyone that might be listening. The NDP campaigned on a commitment to cut the number of school portables in half in two years and eliminate portables in four. However, there’s no mention of this promise in the budget. The three-year capital funding for education remains exactly the same as it was under the B.C. Liberals.

The government made a promise, and they aren’t going to make good on it. It’s another broken promise, and they need to come clean about it. It’s another example of where they told voters what they wanted to hear, not what they could actually deliver.

Now, I am pleased, as I said, that they announced another elementary school for my riding in December. Absolutely. It’s the only NDP announcement on school capital so far in Surrey. The other projects that we committed funds to are now moving through the stages and, hopefully someday, will open. But I remain hopeful that either they will adjust their priorities substantially and get on with meeting their commitments or come clean to the parents in Surrey.

As for post-secondary in Surrey, post-secondary students south of the Fraser won’t see any new money for additional seats, because there’s no new capital in the budget. That leads me to advanced education more generally. In my role as co-critic for Advanced Education, I’m obliged to offer a few thoughts on this.

The only real news for the post-secondary sector is that government will now allow the sector to borrow money to build student housing. They are actually counting on the sector to finance the building of 5,000 of their 114,000 promised units of housing. And while government won’t have to pay for this, it will impact the government’s overall ability to take on debt, which means it will impact the ability of government to embark on other infrastructure projects.

On balance, I think it’s a good move. It will be good for the universities and students and hopefully will alleviate some other rental challenges in corresponding communities.

The B.C. NDP government recently announced $42 million a year over three years for tech spaces at B.C. universities. This funding was already committed under our government in the B.C. tech strategy. It’s good news, and I’m glad they saw fit to go ahead with it.

But that’s it. That basically accounts for the entire lift to the AVED budget. And there’s been little notice of the elimination of the education and tuition tax credit. Brief mention in the budget referencing the federal tax change, but it’s also a hit to students to the tune of $12 million, according to the budget. Maybe I’m missing something, and I’ll inquire further in estimates, but perhaps I’ll get a good answer.

Beyond that, it seems they’ve abandoned all of their promises, because there’s nothing else there. There’s no mention of the elimination of interest on student loans or the $1,000 completion grant they were going to award every university graduate.

There’s no support for mental health or sexual violence initiatives on campus, which is what the minister has been more vocal about — in fact, more vocal about than any other academic issues. And while these would be costly initiatives, they are also promises the government made to British Columbians. Now they are broken promises.

Now, let’s just move for a moment to child care, because the NDP members were chirping about that a moment ago. The budget launches government’s much-discussed child care plan. The budget does take early steps to make child care more affordable for British Columbian families. But to be clear, it is not and will not be $10-a-day child care, a key NDP campaign promise in the last election.

Now, I’m not opposed to the investment in child care. It will help many families who need it. The plan being proposed by the minister has many of the elements I was championing when I was minister. I think the incentives for child care operators to offer hours beyond nine to five is important and a good idea.

I’m really pleased to see the reference to increase supported child development to ensure the inclusion of kids with disabilities in child care centres. And I’m pleased to see the plans for aboriginal investments with the federal funding contributions.

My hope is that the child benefit will be offered to parents, replace the subsidy, be streamlined and clear, so that it is not difficult to understand eligibility, and that it will have safeguards in place to track family income to ensure that benefits are supporting those families who need it most.

I do have reservations. Many families are going to be left out of this universal, affordable plan. The reality is that even with this ambitious plan, there won’t be a space for every child. The target is that 86,000 families might benefit. But there are 180,000 families in B.C. with children under age six, and never mind those with after-school requirements.

Parents are only going to see a financial affordability gain if they use licensed care, and many don’t choose this option for any number of valid reasons. I’m concerned that private providers may not be eligible for grants to create new spaces, and that, too, limits parental choice.

[6:25 p.m.]

I am concerned about a number of things in this budget, and I’m also supportive of many. But in closing, I appreciate the chance to speak today about the budget and what it means for the future of my community and our province. While the government has taken some positive steps that deserve our recognition, the budget also showcases significant spending that I hope is not foreshadowing a developing trend.

British Columbians deserve their government to invest in them. That’s for sure. Across the province, we recognize that many British Columbians are struggling with affordability. But government can’t expect to solve issues of affordability with tax hikes. As Winston Churchill said: “There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place.”

I don’t see a budget that makes life more affordable for British Columbian families, as the NDP would like you to believe — at least not if you’re one of those small business owners and entrepreneurs who is taking risks and building a business and employing others. Not if you’re a hard-working average Joe in the resource sector. Not if your job depends on interprovincial or international trade.

Because what this government fails to realize is that hard-working British Columbians drive our economy. Not big government. British Columbians generate economic growth that allows us to invest in the social services we all enjoy. Not big government. Government can’t simply tax their way to a balanced budget. We need a plan to grow the economy, or I fear this government’s plans, however well-intentioned, will not be sustainable.

I won’t be voting in favour of this budget for the reasons I have outlined, despite the fact that there are some well-intentioned and good investments being made. I just fear that the tax implications and the lack of foresight in terms of growing the economy will hurt us in the long run.

With that, I would move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker: Member, you mean you adjourn debate.

S. Cadieux: Adjourn debate. Sorry.

S. Cadieux 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 6:27 p.m.