Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 88
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Public Service Benefit Plan Act, annual report for year ending March 31, 2017 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
Budget Debate (continued) | |
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2018
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure today to acknowledge a distinguished former leader of the federal New Democratic Party, a former cabinet minister in the Quebec Legislature and former Member of Parliament for the riding of Outremont in Montreal. He’s out here visiting the west coast. He has contributed greatly to the political conversation and political events in this country’s history during his career in politics.
I’d like the House to give a very warm welcome to Thomas Mulcair. [Applause.]
T. Shypitka: It’s my honour and privilege to introduce four great friends of mine that are in the gallery here today. I’ve had the pleasure of working with all of them. Mr. David Kim is the CAO of the city of Cranbrook. Wayne Price is our beloved fire chief and the director of fire and emergency services. Wesly Graham is a councillor of the city of Cranbrook and also a director of the regional district. Last, but certainly not least, is a mentor of mine and the mayor of one of the most beautiful cities in the world, Mr. Lee Pratt. I’d like to give them a big, warm welcome.
Hon. A. Dix: Today members on all sides of the House met with B.C. representatives and B.C. and Yukon representatives of the Heart and Stroke Foundation. I know that the members of the Green caucus, the official opposition and the government were there, and there will be meetings throughout the day.
I want to introduce Adrienne Bakker, the CEO of Heart and Stroke B.C. and Yukon; Mark Collison; Mary Stambulic; Brian Curin; Michael Korenberg, who’s also the new chair of the board of governors of the University of British Columbia; Dr. Karin Humphries, who gave an excellent presentation this morning called Ms. Understood, which dealt with issues of women’s health care, especially women’s heart health; and Dr. Jim Christenson. I’d like the House to wish them all welcome.
S. Gibson: I rise today to welcome to the House important leaders of British Columbia colleges. We’re fortunate to have with us today President David Walls of the College of the Rockies, President Ken Burt of Northwest Community College, President Bryn Kulmatycki of Northern Lights College, President Henry Reiser of the College of New Caledonia, President Jim Hamilton of Okanagan College, President Peter Nunoda of Vancouver Community College and President Lane Trotter of Langara College. They’ll be meeting with MLAs later today to talk about the issues that face them. Let’s all give them a warm-hearted legislative welcome.
Hon. M. Mark: I’m delighted to introduce our House guests for B.C. Colleges Day, which we’ll be celebrating all day throughout this province and later on this afternoon in the Hall of Honour.
I’d like to welcome John Bowman, the chair of B.C. Colleges and the president of North Island College; Sherri Bell, the vice-chair of B.C. Colleges and president of Camosun College; Lane Trotter, past chair of B.C. Colleges and president of Langara College; and Colin Ewart, who is the president of B.C. Colleges.
I’d like to also welcome all the students, presidents and staff who are here to celebrate B.C. Colleges Day. B.C. has 11 colleges in its post-secondary system. I’d like to acknowledge Camosun College, College of New Caledonia, College of the Rockies, Douglas College, Langara College, North Island College, Northern Lights College, Northwest Community College, Okanagan College, Selkirk College and, last but not least, Vancouver Community College, which is in my riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.
Will the House please join me in welcoming these leaders who support our ecosystem and public post-secondary education.
Hon. C. James: I have the pleasure to introduce a group who is visiting from the best high school in Victoria–Beacon Hill. It is the only high school in Victoria–Beacon Hill, but it’s still the best high school in Victoria–Beacon Hill. Both of my children graduated from Victoria High School. We have a school group with 38 grade 10 students and two adults and their teacher, Ms. Jean Campbell. Would the House please make them very welcome.
Hon. G. Heyman: It’s my honour to introduce two people who are integral to managing traffic and running the operations in my minister’s office. Joining us today in the gallery is my administrative coordinator, Kirsten Neilson, and on her very first day on the job, new administrative assistant Ashley Drew. Will the House please join me in making them very welcome.
Tributes
NORTH SHORE ATHLETES
AT B.C. WINTER
GAMES
B. Ma: The North Shore did very well this year in B.C.’s Winter Games up in Kamloops in bringing home 21 medals, 11 of which were gold. I would like the opportunity to congratulate them by name very quickly.
We have Yvonne Orr, Brianna Bisaillon, Anastasia Kimovska, Talia Harasym, Pyper White, Stephan Schoeller, Pierce Burns, Daniel Gawenda, Stephanie Lum, Helena Andres, Zakk Harman, Veronica Fong. Some of these are multiple-medal winners, so that’s why I’m skipping ahead here. Victor Cai, Oliver Kraatz, DJ Gilbert, Sangeon Yoo, Nick Kellof, Emily Millard, Markus Cordy-Simpson, Dylan Stevens, Eric Bullington, Julian Hassan, Brooke Armstrong, Henry Brewster. I really hope I didn’t miss anyone. Would the House please join me in congratulating all of these wonderful North Shore athletes.
Introductions by Members
Hon. J. Sims: It would be remiss of me if I didn’t rise in the House today to acknowledge a very special guest, a man I had the privilege to work with in Ottawa. I would say, without any doubt, one of the best parliamentarians. He could make question period come to life. A wonderful player with the English language.
Overall, I would say that it was an absolute honour and privilege to work with him while he was Leader of the Official Opposition and to have the critic roles that I did have. I knew that when he was the leader, he had your back in every which way.
I can still remember the filibuster we did in Parliament. Tom was just relentless in his support, very solid. The kind of support he gave to a new parliamentarian and the role model he turned out to be when it came to social justice, when it came to doing the work that was necessary to build a more inclusive Canada, was exemplary.
I want the House to join me in welcoming Thomas Mulcair to this chamber.
S. Furstenau: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Laura Colpitts, a dear friend and an extraordinary photographer who captured in her pictures the story of the Shawnigan community coming together and standing up for our water and our future. I’m absolutely delighted she’s here. Would the House please make her feel very welcome.
J. Routledge: It gives me great pleasure to introduce someone in the gallery who is my most enthusiastic supporter and my most trusted strategist. I can truly say we’re in this together. I wouldn’t be here if he wasn’t there. Please join me in welcoming my husband, Bill Brassington.
By-Election Results
MLA FOR KELOWNA WEST
Clerk of the House:
February 26, 2018
Hon. Darryl Plecas, MLA
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
Room 207, Parliament Buildings
Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X4
Dear Mr. Speaker:
On August 4, 2017, this office received your warrant advising of the vacancy in the Legislative Assembly resulting from the resignation of Christy Clark, the member for the electoral district of Kelowna West.
On direction from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I issued a writ of election for the electoral district of Kelowna West on January 17, 2018, ordering a by-election to be held to fill the vacancy. The writ specified general voting day to be February 14, 2018.
The by-election was held in accordance with the provisions of the Election Act, and the completed writ of election has been returned to me.
In accordance with section 147(2) of the Election Act, I hereby certify the following individual to be elected to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly: Ben Stewart of the B.C. Liberal Party for the electoral district of Kelowna West.
Sincerely,
Keith Archer, PhD
Chief Electoral Officer
British Columbia.
Hon. D. Eby: I move that the certificate of the Chief Electoral Officer of the results of the election of the member be entered upon the Journals of the House.
Motion approved.
A. Wilkinson: It’s a great pleasure to rise in this House and welcome back the re-elected member for Kelowna West. He’s a person who brings great experience to this House, having served multiple times before as an MLA. He has been through a number of elections in Kelowna West, each time with decisive victories, and of course, he has served as a cabinet minister in this facility and for this government before.
It’s a great asset to bring back to this House the newly elected member, whose name I want to blurt out but will get in trouble for. Since he hasn’t yet taken his seat, perhaps I can mention his name.
Mr. Stewart has served the province of British Columbia in a number of roles, not only in the community, in his involvement with the wine industry, but also serving as a representative of this province in Beijing, expanding British Columbia’s trade opportunities. He has shown a certain propensity to come back to this chamber, though. Like a boomerang or some kind of off-cycle Pacific salmon, he shows up every four or five years, gets re-elected and comes in here.
It’s a great pleasure to see him back here. It’s perhaps a coincidence that the wine dispute that emerged in the last few weeks was resolved just before he appeared. I suppose that means the opposition is so intimidated by his arrival that they caved in.
In any case, his task will be as an elected representative for his riding to represent the fine community of West Kelowna and the parts of the city of Kelowna that lie within his riding. His job will be to join us in the opposition and make all of the members of government accountable for their actions — whether they’re good, bad or ugly.
We will welcome him into this House as a member who has a lot of experience with the traditions of this place, knows how the rules work. Of course, we each can turn to Mr. Stewart in these moments before he becomes a member for Kelowna West and say: “Estimates, take your pick.”
Thank you to Mr. Stewart for taking on this task again, for becoming a member of this House once again.
I would ask the members of the Legislature to give him a warm welcome after his decisive win in the Kelowna West by-election.
I have the honour to present you with Mr. Ben Stewart, the member for the electoral district of Kelowna West, who has taken the oath, signed the parliamentary roll and now claims his right to take his seat. [Applause.]
The hon. member for Kelowna West took his seat.
Mr. Speaker: I welcome the member for Kelowna West to this assembly.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
B.C. COLLEGES
S. Gibson: It’s great to honour our colleges in the House today with B.C. Colleges Day. B.C. colleges are — and I choose this word carefully — lovable. They provide accessible education to 125,000 students annually. They’re welcoming, especially to adult learners.
They’re relevant and student-centred. They offer flexible admission, sometimes even rolling admission; smaller class sizes for students to help them understand their curriculum more easily; great advice from counsellors; and an amazing number of programs — 250, from adult education to career, technical trades and university transfer in 60 communities, in the far north right to the border.
It’s great to report that 90 percent of B.C. college students graduate and transition to the workforce in just six months. There’s a network of colleges, providing all kinds of programs, close-to-home education, and sensitive to the ever-changing labour market. Some B.C. colleges even offer applied undergraduate degree programs, ideal for making those employment moves even at a later stage of life.
It was my privilege to teach at the University of the Fraser Valley, when it was previously a university college, and also summer school at Douglas College. So I know the importance and I’m convinced of the value of B.C. colleges.
Congratulations to B.C. colleges. Thousands of career-minded British Columbians appreciate the great educational experience you are providing.
HEART HEALTH FOR WOMEN
R. Leonard: As many of us know, February is officially Heart Month. It is the time for all of us to not only remember but to emphasize the importance of a healthy heart. It’s time, and it’s especially important for women.
According to a recently released report by Heart and Stroke, there are startling facts about women and heart disease. Notably, despite medical advancements, women are more likely to die from a cardiac event than men. Another startling fact is that women are more likely to have a second heart attack within the first six months of the first.
Unfortunately, today in Canada, heart disease claims a woman’s life every 20 minutes. Why is that? The answer is complex. However, research shows that women’s hearts differ from men’s in ways that are just beginning to be understood.
For example, heart disease is more likely to occur in the smaller blood vessels of a woman’s heart, while for men, it is more likely to happen in their major coronary arteries. Pregnancy, menopause and hormonal changes also affect women’s hearts, and newly uncovered types of heart disease that primarily affect women are only beginning to be studied.
Fortunately, there are studies underway that will help to close the gaps and improve outcomes. In the meantime, there are ways women can reduce their risk of heart disease.
It starts with talking to their doctor about risk factors, staying smoke-free, maintaining a healthy body weight, being physically active, eating nutritiously, drinking in moderation, if at all, and minimizing stress. This is good advice for everyone, I’d say.
GRIEG SEAFOOD AND
DONATION OF SALMON TO FOOD
BANK
L. Larson: A recent request to the B.C. fish farmers from the Grand Forks food bank was responded to by Grieg Seafood.
Established in 2001, Grieg Seafood has farming operations on the east and west sides of Vancouver Island. They hold 21 marine farm licences and have a land-based hatchery in Gold River. Their production capacity is 20,000 metric tonnes. They are most famous for Skuna Bay salmon, which is served in quality restaurants around North America. B.C.-farmed and -processed salmon contributes $1.5 billion to the B.C. economy.
The Grand Forks food bank serves 150 families and wanted to serve their clients something different and highly nutritious — farmed salmon. Marilyn Hutchinson from Grieg Seafood responded to the Grand Forks request and arranged for servings of salmon for all the clients of the food bank. It was a bit of a logistical challenge, but Marilyn and her team made sure that the fresh salmon was delivered to the food bank in a timely manner. Over 300 servings were distributed before Christmas through the volunteers of the Grand Forks food bank, and additional servings were enjoyed by all the seniors with a special dinner at the seniors centre.
Thank you to all the volunteers around B.C. who work at their local food banks, helping those who need a helping hand, and to all of the companies, corporations and individual donors who support those food banks. A special thank-you to Marilyn and Grieg Seafood for stepping up and helping the food bank in Grand Forks.
INTERNET SERVICES IN
COASTAL
COMMUNITIES
J. Rice: We’ve all had that experience of pounding out a Shakespearean-quality speech or email, to have the spinning globe of death appear on our computer screens. Timed-out crashing or no Internet is a fact of life in rural and remote B.C. For too long, people living along B.C.’s coast and Haida Gwaii have been forced to live in technological isolation. This has affected our ability to communicate and do business in a digital world.
The government of B.C., in partnership with Canada, is helping to close the connectivity gap in the province through a combined investment of over $45 million. This venture will enable the installation of a new subsea fibre optic line from Prince Rupert to Haida Gwaii, down the entire B.C. coast and around northern Vancouver Island.
This will bring new or improved high-speed Internet to 154 rural and remote communities, including 56 First Nations communities. Coastal communities will have better access to key services like health care and education; bring new economic opportunities, tourism and other industries; and improve our ability to respond to emergencies throughout the region.
One of the key partners of this extraordinary project is City West, a profitable company owned by the city of Prince Rupert. City West employs 85 people, who live and work in the north, and is an example of an employer who provides opportunity for an advanced–skill set in northern B.C.
Part of the reason City West wants to undertake this project is to provide redundancy. Why is redundancy important? Well, on February 3, a single tree fell on a hydro line, which cut through the only fibre line that provides Internet services to thousands of customers across the north. With redundancy, their experience will not be interrupted.
To paraphrase the Minister of Citizens’ Services: in the past, it was railroads that brought new services and economic opportunities to our communities to help them grow. Today it is Internet connectivity that’s changing the way we live and do business.
A. Wilkinson: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
A. Wilkinson: We’re joined today by another federal Member of Parliament, the member for Central Okanagan–Similkameen–Nicola, which will probably be renamed as B.C. wine country. That’s Mr. Dan Albas.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
LNG DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHWEST B.C.
E. Ross: From small rural communities to First Nations, people are starting to ramp up their efforts to ensure that LNG is part of B.C.’s future.
At the Prince George B.C. Natural Resources Forum in January, Mayors Lori Ackerman, Dale Bumstead and Phil Germuth and Haisla Hereditary Chief and elected leader Kevin Stewart all rallied for LNG development. They did it because regular people want a good job and to provide a good life for their families.
There’s good reason to be optimistic. Shell is predicting in its 2018 outlook that demand is growing faster than expected. We might even be looking at a supply shortage in 2020. All of this bodes well for the two LNG projects in Kitimat.
Support for LNG on the ground is everywhere, and more and more people are starting to find the courage to bravely speak up in favour of the LNG industry.
In Kitimat, a group of volunteers collected signatures for a letter-writing campaign to encourage the federal government to strike down a federal tariff that threatens the progress of LNG in B.C. Volunteers like Barb Campbell, Gina Versteege, Linda Campbell, Gareen Ball, Chief Councillor Crystal Smith of the Haisla Nation and Sarina St. Germaine show their commitment to the region by organizing and then sacrificing their time to collect over 1,700 signatures.
When asked why he was doing this, volunteer Dave Johnson said this: “I’m tired of seeing friends move and businesses shut down. I want to stay in Kitimat, which I love, but can’t without opportunities for making money. It’s a sad state of affairs here right now with special interest groups and foreign governments influencing the economy. It’s really sad to see people so fooled by all the opinion-based information. I just want to stop the misinformation out there and wake people up.”
Thank you to Dave Johnson and to all of the volunteers of Kitimat for their love for Kitimat and the region.
B.C. COLLEGES
R. Kahlon: I’m proud to speak to the House today about B.C. Colleges Day. B.C. is home to 11 public colleges serving 125,000 students each year. With more than 60 campuses in every corner of our beautiful province, students have access to more than 250 program choices in their local region.
Colleges add a great diversity to our post-secondary system, providing a wide range of academic, vocational, trades and apprenticeship, technical training as well as adult basic education. Every year B.C. colleges educate thousands of students in business management, engineering, applied sciences and health care, especially as the market demand increases. In the next decade, 42 percent of the job openings will require a college or trade certification, and 36 percent will require university credentials.
Through university transfer programs, B.C. colleges enable students to achieve the first two years of a university degree while studying in their local region or to earn an applied degree without having to leave home at all.
B.C. colleges and their graduates contribute an impressive $7.8 billion of income to the provincial economy annually, and 93 percent of the B.C. college graduates stay to work and pay taxes in this province. B.C. colleges produce a well-educated, highly skilled workforce that, in turn, gives back to strong, sustainable communities in rural and urban centres throughout B.C.
Today we recognize the incredible, positive impact that B.C. colleges have made on our province over 50 years.
D. Ashton: I, too, seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
D. Ashton: I, too, would like to introduce another respected parliamentarian that is in the House today.
I had the incredible privilege of working with Dan Albas at the city of Penticton and at the regional district. I need to say to every member in this House that this gentleman is a gentleman that represents every member of his riding, whether you voted for him or not. We could all learn from the personal communication skills that he has brought to not only myself and to members of our council but also specifically to members of the parliament, where he serves the people that he represents.
Mr. Speaker and everybody, thank you for the opportunity.
Oral Questions
REFERRAL OF SPILL RESPONSE
REGULATIONS TO
COURT
A. Wilkinson: Over the past month, we’ve seen that the Premier triggered a completely unnecessary trade war, with repercussions across Canada. The Premier has wisely relented and realized the mistake that he made and is now salvaging this messy situation by correctly making a reference to the B.C. Court of Appeal.
To avoid further embarrassment, will the Attorney General guarantee to this House that the reference question will be brought to this House for debate before it goes to the court?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question, although his premise is certainly flawed.
This government is standing up for British Columbians in a number of ways. This government is asserting our jurisdiction and right to regulate environmental impacts in order to protect our economy, protect our coastline, protect jobs and protect the interests of British Columbians.
When the members opposite were in government, they saw lots of flaws in the NEB process, lots of problems and threats to B.C. Yet when the chips were down, they simply turned their backs on British Columbian interests and ceded all regulatory authority to the federal government.
That was wrong. British Columbians believe it is wrong. We are proceeding later this week to introduce a discussion paper, an intentions paper on regulations to protect B.C.’s coasts, our economy and our interests. We’re referring the fifth point to the courts to assert and defend our jurisdiction. We are confident — confident — that the courts will stand on the side of British Columbians and our government’s right to regulate in their interests.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: I have attempted to raise a legitimate question to be addressed by this House. Instead, I received empty rhetoric from the Environment Minister which is designed to trivialize this procedural point in the House and to presuppose the result of a decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal. My suggestion is the Minister of Environment should be ashamed of himself.
The federal government has refused to participate in the reference to the B.C. Court of Appeal. The Alberta government says it stands in wait to see if British Columbia is going to take any more rash steps before they decide what to do next. Further serious consequences for our economy are at stake.
I’ll repeat the question for the Attorney General — a purely legal question, a procedural question for this House that needs to be answered in a responsible fashion. Will the Attorney General bring the reference question to the B.C. Court of Appeal to this House for debate?
Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. I mean, there are mistakes in the member’s question. He assumes, necessarily, that we would refer to the Court of Appeal. We could also refer to the B.C. Supreme Court.
There are a number of variables that need to be determined in a reference: what the specific question is, whether it will be draft regulations or whether it would be some type of a question. We’ve seen the polygamy reference in the past. We saw the previous government refer electoral regulations to the Court of Appeal. There are a number of variables, and that’s why we’re going to expert counsel.
I’ve been very clear. We’ll retain expert counsel. I know that everybody is now a constitutional expert. I heard Christy Clark is now a constitutional expert. But we will actually retain constitutional experts to advise us on this question, and we will take their advice to defend B.C.’s interests, defend B.C.’s economy and defend B.C.’s coast.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: Well, it’s becoming apparent that this government has no intention of getting a decision on this point, because taking a referral to the B.C. Supreme Court first would add another two years to the process, thereby dragging things out when British Columbians are looking forward to an answer.
The appropriate vehicle is to go to the B.C. Court of Appeal. The Attorney General should know this. It’s been done many times in the past by the British Columbia government, but he has now decided to reinvent the procedural rule book to benefit the delay that his government seeks to inject into this.
The question is…. The Premier made an impulsive decision. He had to backtrack. He had to admit that he’d made a mistake. Now we have an Attorney General who is refusing to bring a fairly fundamental question before this House. Will the Attorney General accept that it’s appropriate to bring the question to this House for debate, rather than act in a unilateral way and wander into another mistake, to the embarrassment of British Columbians?
Hon. D. Eby: If there is a delay in court, it’s probably due to the opposition underfunding our court system. I note, on that point, that my colleague the Finance Minister has put forward a budget with $5 million for new clerks and new sheriffs for our courts, to eliminate delays.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response. Thank you.
Hon. D. Eby: The member knows full well that this is not a reinvention of any rules. This is the Constitutional Question Act. It allows us to refer matters to the B.C. Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal. We will take the best advice possible.
When that member was on this side, he didn’t show up in the Federal Court of Appeal to defend B.C.’s interests. We had to scramble to get there after we were elected. We got there. We defended B.C.’s interests in the Court of Appeal. We’ll do it again.
ENVIRONMENT MINISTER COMMUNICATIONS
WITH ENVIRONMENTAL
GROUPS
M. Lee: The Environment Minister’s actions have had very little to do with the best interests of British Columbians. It is all about keeping activists on side.
The goal of the Bowen Island group is to support mass resistance. I’ll say that again, and I’m reading from their own document: “This group is coming together to support mass popular resistance.” There is even an example in the document of a situation where, if a small group — described as part of “the swarm” — is arrested, they will be given assistance from “the hive.”
Does the Minister of Environment seriously have no concerns with whom he is colluding to stop the Trans Mountain project?
Hon. G. Heyman: As Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, I regularly meet with stakeholders from across British Columbia. That’s an important thing to note, and it’s a practice that all members of our government engage in. We engage in it because people in British Columbia — whether they’re in business, whether they are community groups, whether they are municipal governments, whether they are citizens concerned about their jobs or their environmental future — have had enough.
Enough of 16 years when they couldn’t get in the door — 16 years of a government that was so arrogant they didn’t think they needed to consult with anyone but their friends, the richest 2 percent at the top; 16 years where they didn’t give anyone a heads-up about their best ideas for policy or legislation. They didn’t consult with them about what should go into it.
That’s not the practice of this government. We are proud of consulting with British Columbians in every walk of life.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.
M. Lee: Well, with respect, we’re not talking about concern for the environment. We are all concerned about the environment. We’re talking about the nature of the groups that the Minister of Environment is meeting with.
Let me say this.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please, we shall hear the question. Thank you.
M. Lee: This is a group that does not wish to face public scrutiny. I’m reading again from the Bowen Island document.
Interjections.
M. Lee: This is what we see in this House, right? This is what we see about this group.
The quote is: “We will not have a brand or a presence in public. Use Signal, with disappearing messages.” What kind of group is this? Former Premier Glen Clark once referred to these types of groups that are organizing against B.C. workers as “enemies of B.C.”
The question has to be asked again. Will the minister stop colluding with these radical activists?
Hon. G. Heyman: As I’ve said, this government respects British Columbians from all walks of life. We don’t engage in name-calling. It’s interesting to watch members opposite — the member for Vancouver-Langara, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson — channelling former Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Joe Oliver, two people that the people of British Columbia clearly are happy to have seen the last of.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Minister, proceed.
Hon. G. Heyman: Last week I met with members and representatives of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. I met with representatives of northern chambers of commerce. We had a frank discussion over a number of issues, including the facts that we disagreed in our approach to this particular project and that they disagreed with many of the opponents. But they never descended to referring to British Columbians, holding honest opinions about what’s in the best interests of their future, by name-calling.
I encourage members opposite to take a step back and take a page out of the book of those public representatives.
FISH FARM TENURES AND
WILD SALMON
PROTECTION
A. Weaver: I am so sorely tempted to ask about that dinner on Bowen Island, but I’ll digress. I’d rather ask this.
Interjections.
A. Weaver: No, I wasn’t there.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, if we could get to the question.
A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
Under previous governments, open-net fish farms were approved within First Nation territories without adequate consultation or consent, yet our present government claims it’s committed to reconciliation. In Alert Bay, the ’Namgis Nation have lost their once prolific salmon runs. They desperately want fish farms removed from their waters. They’ve been occupying Marine Harvest fish farms since August.
The Swanson fish farm is currently empty, and its tenure is up for review this spring. Yesterday we received notice from the ’Namgis Nation that they believe that Marine Harvest has made final preparations to restock the Swanson farm. The fish food has been delivered, they say, and the bird nets are now in place. They believe that the restock could happen as early as today.
My question to the Minister of Agriculture is this. If Marine Harvest is pumping new smolts into those pens, how will that impact the government’s assessment of their tenure status come June?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Wild salmon are a fundamental part of who we are in B.C. — socially, economically, environmentally, First Nations and non–First Nations alike. The member knows that the old government oversaw declining salmon stocks along our coast. Instead of responding to concerns about fish farms, they pushed the issue aside.
Our government is committed to protecting wild salmon and the nearly 10,000 great jobs that depend on those stocks. We’re working with First Nations, building a new relationship based on partnership and respect, and we’ve started a path forward with First Nations.
The Leader of the Third Party mentions the ’Namgis First Nation. On January 30, four cabinet ministers had an extensive meeting with the five First Nations who have the most interest in the fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago. It was a good meeting, with good dialogue. It was based on the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples principles. We’re planning a follow-up meeting based on a mutually agreed-upon process in a government-to-government manner.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
A. Weaver: Now, I recognize that this is not answer period, but that was so far from the question I’d actually posed. I would have thought we’d get some semblance of a response to a very important issue.
When we reviewed correspondence between DFO and the B.C. government with respect to the steelhead issue, which my colleague raised yesterday and the day before, it was clear that nobody knows who’s on first base with respect to dealing with salmon in British Columbia. And that answer…. We deserve much better in this House.
Alert Bay isn’t the only community where people are worried about open-net fish farms. It’s widely recognized as being a key issue within the web of threats facing our wild salmon populations. We’re beginning to see other jurisdictions, like Washington, take steps. Legislation, unfortunately, didn’t pass but was tabled to actually ban new salmon farms and issuing of new licences in Washington state.
The B.C. NDP have explicitly said that keeping farm sites out of important salmon migration routes is critical. In fact, the member for North Island made a promise to the ’Namgis Nation where she reiterated, in the nation’s big house, that the main reason they should vote B.C. NDP in the last election was to ensure that the fish farms got out of the wild migratory routes of sockeye salmon.
My question to the Minister of Agriculture, who actually grants the tenures, not the Minister of FLNRO….
Interjections.
A. Weaver: Is it FLNRO? Okay. We’ll do FLNRO. I thank the former minister. Maybe my question should be to the former Minister of Agriculture.
The minister has the Advisory Council on Finfish Aquaculture report. When will the government remove farm sites from the wild migration routes of salmon, which they promised they would do and told British Columbians that they needed to elect them to ensure this would happen?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you, I suppose, for that lengthy question. I’ll address the overall issue.
The overall issue is that we’re proceeding with a shared decision-making process with the five First Nations, not just one First Nation, who are concerned about fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago. That shared decision-making process incorporates the principle of consent and a government-to-government approach.
That’s the way that we’ll be proceeding. To unilaterally make a declaration in this chamber around the concerns of one First Nation is not the way this government proceeds. We proceed in partnership with First Nations, involving discussions from the start. That’s the way we’ll get to reconciliation in this province.
IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX
ON SCHOOL
DISTRICTS
D. Davies: The school boards across this province, which are already strapped for cash and being extremely creative making things work, are now discovering they’re going to be hard hit with the new NDP double-dipping employer tax grab. In fact, the Vancouver school board is now facing a $7.2 million shortfall with this government tax grab.
My question is to the Minister of Education. Is there money in this budget to cover the shortfall?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you so much to the member for the question.
Budget 2018 was the most significant investment that has been made in public education in generations in British Columbia, and we are proud of that.
The last budget that government tabled, which cut tens of millions of dollars compared to our budget that we tabled last week…. It’s a $500 million difference. That’s a half-a-billion-dollar investment in students that our government has made in this budget. That’s a significant decision.
That government used to claw back all kinds of money out of school districts — low-hanging fruit, all that kind of stuff. We’ve returned savings in the tens of millions of dollars to schools to put into classrooms for learning resources for our kids.
This province has never had a lower teacher-to-student ratio in history. That’s a feature of this budget that we’re proud of.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.
Hon. R. Fleming: And 3,700 new teachers are on the job in schools right around British Columbia, 600 new education assistants helping students with learning disabilities. That’s in a budget that invests in families. It gets better, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Minister, please take your seat.
The member for Peace River North on a supplemental.
D. Davies: I have a soapbox over here in the corner, Mr. Speaker. But anyways, my apologies.
The minister is going to need to come up with a better response. In fact, a response would have been nice to my question.
School boards are looking at their budgets, and it’s very clear that they are worse off under this new tax grab from this government. That’s not just me saying that. In fact, that’s Patti Bacchus who has been stating that. So again….
Interjections.
D. Davies: I know. It’s part of the fan club.
Can the minister tell us, again, where the money is going to come from to support school districts that are hurting?
Hon. R. Fleming: I’m just delighted to hear that the members across the aisle are now quoting education advocates who fought against their government for 16 years because they went to court against kids.
Let’s start with the facts. The member is actually wrong, entirely wrong. This school year Vancouver is actually achieving a $1.5 million savings, and our government has said: “Keep it. Put it into the classrooms so you can help kids.” That’s the reality. The Vancouver school board’s budget has never been higher — tens of millions of dollars of new investment. Just since Labour Day, we’ve invested $300 million to fix the seismic backlog of projects that that government never approved. Many of them are in Vancouver.
I’d really like to understand the position of the Liberal Party on getting rid of the MSP. It’s delivering savings to school districts now that they can keep. Most importantly, for the 500,000 parents of kids in our school system, money in their pockets — 1,800 bucks a year for regular working families who take their kids to school. That’s progress.
J. Yap: The Richmond school board has discovered that the new employer tax will cost Richmond schools $2.2 million.
To the Minister of Education: is there an additional $2.2 million in the budget for the Richmond school board to pay the new NDP employer tax, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker: Minister of Education, and short answers are good.
Hon. R. Fleming: I’ll try my best, Mr. Speaker. But with so much good news in the education sector and early childhood education…. It’s hard to be so concise when we’re investing more money in kids and families than any government has done before, but I’ll try.
The member from Richmond is wrong. There will be savings to Richmond school district by cutting the MSP by 50 percent this year. That investment will be made in classrooms. That’s where we expect it to be. In addition, in this budget, we’re returning $10 million of money to school districts, including Richmond, for the next-generation high-speed broadband Internet service. We’re returning tens of millions of dollars in pension overcontributions.
We’re not taking it back, like the old government used to do. We’re telling school districts like Richmond to invest it in kids, invest it in classrooms, invest it in special education programs, and that’s what Richmond is doing.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston on a supplemental.
J. Yap: The new employer tax that the government is downloading on school boards was not anticipated. Richmond school board is facing $2.2 million in cuts to the classroom.
Again to the minister: is there money in the budget for school boards to pay the new employer tax, or will Richmond need to cut $2.2 million from classrooms, yes or no?
Hon. R. Fleming: The member is just completely wrong in what he is asking here today. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars of savings by cutting MSP in the Richmond school district budget this year and next year.
What I would like to point out to the member — he was at an announcement in his constituency recently — is another thing that I’m very proud of in terms of our government. We’ve done something that that government refused to do over 16 years. We have invested in making schools safe, seismically, in Richmond. They never did it. Our government is investing $1.8 billion in school capital, the largest school capital budget in B.C. history. Richmond is going to be a part of it, and I hope the member will come to more announcements in the near future.
IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX
ON
BUSINESSES
R. Coleman: The Jansen family have been working the land in Langley for over 40 years. They’re one of the greatest contributors of people, an example of family in my community. They have been doing it that long. Profit margins in farming are tight. They’re always tight. But the Jansen family have found a way to maintain the homestead and employ 250 people. Now they’ve been blindsided by the new tax from this government, a tax which imposes a $100,000 additional cost on the Jansen family with their employees.
To the Minister of Agriculture: do you think this family should lay off people; should they reduce production, make it a smaller farm, sell the farm or increase prices? Which is it, Minister?
Hon. C. James: Once again, I’ll run through the employer health tax. I think it’s important to note that in the first year, because of the reduction of the medical services premiums by 50 percent, implemented January 1, there is a $1.3 billion savings for businesses and individuals in this province.
We have ensured, when we bring in the employer health tax, that we are protecting small business. Anyone with a payroll of under $500,000 will not pay anything on the employer health tax. Businesses between $500,000 and $1.5 million will pay a portion of the tax. So it is progressive. Those 5 percent of businesses that have a payroll of more than $1.5 million will pay the health tax.
We are ensuring that we are getting rid of a regressive tax. We are protecting health care, which we all care about in this province, supporting small businesses and supporting citizens in British Columbia.
[End of question period.]
L. Throness: I seek leave to present a petition.
Leave granted.
Petitions
L. Throness: On Saturday, I attended a meeting of constituents concerned about the imposition of assisted suicide on palliative care. In the region of the Fraser Health Authority, 98 people signed a petition citing four reasons why it should not be done, including that the practice is contrary to World Health Organization guidelines for palliative care. The petitioners request that this honourable House publicly debate the practice of medical assistance in dying in palliative care in B.C.
Tabling Documents
Hon. C. James: I rise to table a report, the 41st annual report pursuant to the Public Service Benefit Plan Act. This report provides the cost for employees participating in the public service benefits plan for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017, and is tabled in accordance with the Public Service Benefit Plan Act, part 1, section 8.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued debate on the budget.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Budget Debate
(continued)
Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to join the debate on Budget 2018. When I was thinking about the comments I would make and what I would have to say about the budget, I was reflecting back on something that, as electeds, we’ve all heard at different times from people in the public who are skeptical about politics and all of that, the people who say: “The politicians are all the same, and the parties are all the same.” You hear that. What I would say is that this budget clearly demonstrates that we’re not all the same.
This budget is a great example of a government that has identified and taken a path that is so clearly and distinctly different than what went on for the previous 16 years of the B.C. Liberal government. It was a period of time, a period of 16 years, when the government, I believe, had a very narrow focus on how it paid attention and who it paid attention to. It was a period of time where we saw the previous government neglect, ignore — choose your word of choice — those people who needed help around affordability and who were looking for services to be restored, enhanced and reinvigorated, who were looking for opportunities for themselves and their families.
This budget, Budget 2018, I believe, has taken us a long way down the road to begin to accomplish that. Clearly, nothing changes overnight, and 16 years don’t change in eight months, but we have seen significant progress. We saw it in the budget update that occurred last fall, and we’ve seen it in an even more substantive and significant and broader way in Budget 2018, which was introduced into this House last week. We have a budget that is balanced. Its projections are of a $219 million surplus in ’18-19, $281 million in ’19-20 and $284 million in ’20-21.
I would note that with those surpluses, you also have a forecast allowance which, again, provides room. It’s part of the contingencies of budget that are included in budgets: a contingency allowance of $350 million in 2018-19, $500 million in 2019-20 and $600 million in 2020-21. It also includes contingencies of $550 million in 2018-19, $750 million in 2019-20 and $750 million in ’20-21. So there is room there as well.
The budget, as I said, is balanced. The budget continues to project economic growth, nation-leading levels of economic growth. It delivers on social services in a way that we have not seen in a couple of decades, including putting in front of British Columbians the first new significant social program, child care, that we have seen in this province — and, largely, across the country — in a very long time. It addresses affordability issues for British Columbians, making people’s lives more affordable — something that we have heard consistently, something that we campaigned on and something that we know is critical for hard-working families in British Columbia who are working to make ends meet.
Post-budget, we’ve all heard comments. We all hear comments. I have been very pleased with the comments that I’ve heard from people in my constituency of Vancouver-Hastings and people I’ve had the opportunity to talk to in other communities — comments about the changes that were made; about the initiatives related to housing; about the initiatives related to child care; about the initiatives related to deductibility on PharmaCare; excitement for those people who have been paying medical services premiums at a personal level, who are excited that they’re now going to be able to use that money to, in fact, invest in other essentials that their families need.
In all these cases, we’ve heard from people who are anxious about new initiatives that they want to see move forward in British Columbia. Also people who are confident in the efforts that have been made by the Finance Minister, the Premier and this government in advancing this particular budget and people who are confident that they’re beginning to see the path forward to the kind of British Columbia that they’re looking for in the future — a British Columbia that does put affordability first, that does put everyday families first, that does address the challenges of some of our most vulnerable citizens, that does look at how we build a network, a framework in this province that is supportive of people moving forward.
Hon. Speaker, it’s been quite a ride for the last number of months as government. You’ll know that we started last fall. At that time, I was pleased that in October, we were able to give a $100 increase to temporary assistance and disability benefits, to increase the earning exemptions at that time, in October, for people who were receiving income assistance and disability benefits, and then in January to put a transportation supplement in place that supports 100,000 people who are living on persons with disabilities.
Those investments are about $250 million or $260 million of annual investment in order to be able to achieve those particular improvements. They are improvements that have been needed. They are improvements, particularly around the increase in rates, that we have not seen in this province for well over a decade. Rates had been frozen by the previous government, and this is a step forward.
I would acknowledge it is simply a step and that there’s much more work to be done. I look forward, moving forward over this year, to be putting in place a poverty reduction strategy that will lay out the path forward over the coming years for us to be able to, hopefully, significantly reduce poverty in British Columbia.
The other pieces of this budget, as we move to this year, include continued and ongoing support for those initiatives that were first introduced and put in place in October.
We’ve had the opportunity to add some FTEs, some staff in my ministry, which will help improve service quality — 30 new FTEs to advance and improve service quality.
We are able, through the negotiation with the federal government around the labour market development agreement, to get additional resources into British Columbia for employment programs and to expand and broaden those programs in terms of who will be eligible to participate in those programs; and for service providers who deliver those initiatives through Work B.C. on our behalf to be more innovative and be more flexible in how they deliver those programs; and to be a very important and complementary tool to the poverty reduction initiative, moving forward, as we look to create greater employment opportunities for people who either are underemployed today and looking to improve their employment situation, or who are struggling to find employment.
I think particularly of persons with disabilities who I know, from my conversations day in and day out — meeting with persons with disabilities — who almost without exception say to me: “I want a job. I want an opportunity to work. I want to improve my life, and I want the opportunity to do that with employment. I’ve got something to contribute, I’ve got value, and I want to put that forward.” We’re going to support and assist those efforts to improve those opportunities.
The other piece that we’ll be talking more about in the next couple of months is the basic income initiative. That will look very clearly at modelling a basic income and what that looks like in British Columbia. People will know that this is a model going back to the ’70s in Dauphin, Manitoba, with Mincome, when this was first explored in this country in any meaningful and substantive way.
We’ve now looked across the globe at examples of basic income initiatives. Members of this House may know that Ontario is right now in the first year of a three-year initiative on basic income that will be a pilot engaging a number of people in Ontario and looking at the basic income model.
We’re looking forward to being able to get information from their work and to doing something that is a different initiative here. But it’s an initiative that really will allow us to look very closely through the basic income lens and how that might reflect and affect income support programs and how we move forward and what income security looks like.
I would note that we’re hearing from people who both want to talk about basic income as a vehicle around poverty reduction and also talk about it as a vehicle for a changing economy around automation, around robotics and around what that means.
I think that we went through an industrial revolution, and we’ve talked about that. We know there’s great change happening now. It will be a challenge for us in British Columbia and for governments across the globe to determine how they deal with the future of automation, of robotics, and what that does to employment. New jobs will be created. Old jobs will be lost. But there is a transition there that’s going to prove difficult, I believe, for a significant number of people, and we need to determine how we address that.
I read a report out of the United States where they anticipate, in the next decade or so — maybe a little bit more than that — that 40 percent of the jobs that exist in the United States today won’t exist. They will have been replaced by automation, by robotics in some fashion. They do say there will be other opportunities, but they will be different. I still think we’re uncertain. The basic income will provide us with some information and some insights on how we may need to move forward and look at those issues as we do.
I talked a little bit about some of the things that we’ve done as first steps relating to poverty reduction. I’ll talk about how this budget has afforded us support there, too. We’ll know that we have put in place a forum that’s providing me with advice. We are a little more than two-thirds of the way through 28 consultations around the province, being facilitated on our behalf by the Social Planning and Research Council, and we’re well into the work on what the plan looks like and what legislation looks like moving forward here.
As we look at what’s happened in this year, and we look at what’s happened moving forward, there have been some critical and important steps around the work that my ministry is doing. We know that a poverty reduction strategy is not the purview of this ministry alone. This ministry is providing some leadership on the file, but it is a cross-government initiative, and we have seen some steps there.
We know that homelessness is a critical issue. We’re very excited about the opportunity to put in the 2,000 modular units and, very importantly, the operating dollars that go with those units to allow us to optimize the effectiveness of those units. We’ve seen now, across the province, those units being scooped up by local governments which are looking for that support to assist them in dealing with the homelessness issues.
As I said, the operating dollars are really the critical component to the success, I believe, of the modular housing strategy. They’re dollars that allow us to provide wraparound services for people who have complex issues. They’re dollars that allow us to support people who have mental health and addiction challenges. They’re dollars that we can certainly use, which local governments and others can use, to provide great supports for that. So I’m very excited about that opportunity, as we see governments across the province picking those units up, finding sites and moving forward with the modular unit initiatives.
The other piece that’s a very important piece is the minimum wage increase. We have about 680,000 people living in poverty in British Columbia today. Over 40 percent of those people have a paycheque or a couple of paycheques coming into the house. They’re struggling. They’re struggling to make ends meet while they go to work every day. Part of that is directly linked to minimum wage. So the efforts to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour, in fact, will be a significant step in helping to deal with the struggles of the working poor. That’s an important piece for us to pay attention to.
When it comes to this budget directly, we have made some remarkable steps. There are the two cornerstones of this budget that I want to talk a little bit about. From travelling the province, talking to people about poverty reduction, the number one issue that comes up in those meetings is housing. It’s affordable housing. It’s a place to live and having a safe, secure place to live.
The other issues that come up are mental health and addictions — this government invested $322 million in mental health and addiction supports last fall — and child care. Young families are looking for child care support as they are staggered by the cost of child care today — either the cost that they struggle to pay or the availability of that child care, moving forward.
I want to talk about the importance of those two issues. In housing, we will invest, through this initiative, over $7 billion over the next ten years — building almost 34,000 units of housing across the province, including mixed-income social housing, student housing and housing for the homeless, among others.
We will increase the benefits in the rental assistance program, adding up to $800 a year of additional support for people who need some help to pay the rent. We will see seniors who are under the SAFER program have their supports increased by an average of about $930 a year, supporting some 35,000 households to be more affordable.
And $141 million is earmarked to build 1,500 units for women and children who are fleeing abusive relationships. This is a critical piece for families which are trying to escape those situations — to have safe, secure housing and, then, for us to be able to work with and support them as they get back on their feet and build lives, moving forward.
An innovative approach that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has moved forward, a new housing hub office for B.C. Housing, will be a tool we will use as a vehicle, through B.C. Housing, an organization that has a depth and wealth of expertise and experience in housing development in this province, which is exceptional. We will now be asking them to use that innovation in an even broader and more substantive way — to work with the private sector and others to begin to find the innovative ways to build the housing partnership that we need moving forward.
All of these are steps in the fulfilment of the ten-year commitment that we’ve made to provide 114,000 units of housing in this province, moving forward.
The other component of this that is critical — it is really the first new social program we have seen in this province in a very, very long time — is child care. We initiated, in this budget, the start of the first universal child care plan that, certainly, this province has ever seen.
Key investments have been made, including, starting in September, up to $1,250 a month per child of a benefit to child care, which will provide supports for 86,000 families by the year 2021; a fee reduction program for up to $350 a month that will go directly to licensed care providers for child care spaces — this is estimated to support, again, 50,000 families; and the creation of more than 22,000 new licensed child care spaces throughout the province, including support to help facilitate unlicensed family care providers to become licensed, moving forward.
We know, too, that if we’re going to have success in child care and move that forward, we need to make sure we have the early childhood educators in place to be able to do that work. We’re working with our partners to develop a workforce development strategy that includes innovative approaches to how we train those ECE staff and how to grow the programs in our colleges and universities to move that forward.
These are just first steps. I would encourage people who are paying attention to these issues to really get into the information to read more clearly what exactly is being proposed here and see how it might affect you or your family.
Those are the cornerstone pieces, but there is more to this budget than that. I just want to talk through a little bit of what that looks like.
The elimination of MSP premiums by January 1 of 2020. This means that a family that is paying their MSP will save upwards of $1,800 a year. A single person, $900 a year. These are tangible affordability initiatives that put real dollars in the pockets of people who are challenged to make ends meet.
PharmaCare. So $105 million to expand fair PharmaCare programs and expand coverage for 240,000 families. This is for families that have incomes under $45,000 a year. They will be the major beneficiaries. Deductions will entirely eliminate these costs for our most-modest-income families in the $15,000 to $30,000 range. They won’t pay anymore. That’s a huge issue.
When you talk about affordability, there are things that we choose to buy that are discretionary, but health care is not discretionary. For those families and those people who are struggling…. You don’t have any choice. When you need those medications, you need to pay. We’re saying: “For those people who are most challenged to pay, we’re going to help you. We’re either going to reduce those costs for you or, in many cases, we are going to eliminate those costs entirely.” That’s about getting at critical goods and services.
Legal aid. So $26 million over three years to expand legal aid, including Indigenous and family law services.
Increased financial support for former youth in care.
A piece that’s very important is around our Indigenous people, as we talk about UNDRIP and reconciliation. We’ve invested over $200 million in this plan to support reconciliation and Indigenous people, including funding to expand culturally based child care; $158 million to partner on Indigenous housing, including building up to 1,750 new units of supportive housing; $16 million for the First Nations Health Authority to support mental health and wellness in Indigenous communities — a critical investment; $6 million over three years for friendship centres — 25 friendship centres around this province that provide essential services in communities like Prince George, where the friendship centre is the most significant social service organization and agency in that city.
In 25 communities, they provide services. They provide services to the 80 percent of Indigenous people who live off reserve in our urban centres, and in most cases, those centres don’t close their doors to non-Indigenous people in those communities. They welcome them in, and they provide services there as well. We’re going to support those friendship centres in the work that they do.
This is maybe the most critical investment of all around UNDRIP and around reconciliation — $50 million for languages. I was sad to hear a member on the other side be dismissive of that in his comments the other day. I think that’s unfortunate. If we believe in reconciliation; if we believe that we need to build a new relationship with First Nations; if we believe that we need to provide, through partnership, support for our Indigenous people to be able to meet their full potential and embrace their culture, language is such a critical piece of that.
Culture fails and culture disappears without language. That’s my belief. We need to provide those supports. This becomes a critical piece. It’s one of the pieces of the budget. There are a lot of exciting things in this budget, but this is one of the pieces that is most exciting to me. It’s this $50 million for languages that will enhance, I guess, at least 30 key language groups in this province today.
These are just some of the aspects of the budget. I think what we hear and what I’ve heard from people is an excitement that all of these initiatives are there as we move forward, and on how the government has responded to what people are saying.
I heard the new Leader of the Official Opposition, through one of those debates that went on during the leadership debate, talking about how out of touch his party was with British Columbians — how out of touch. It’s probably, maybe, the most thoughtful thing I’ve ever heard out of the Leader of the Official Opposition. What we have is a situation where it is time to be in touch with the people of British Columbia. That was our commitment — around affordability, around the services and around an economy that’s built on family-supporting jobs.
That work is moving forward. We’re seeing these investments. We’re also seeing, as we move forward, significant investments in capital initiatives. We’re going to see investments that will create upwards of 50,000 direct and indirect jobs during construction. Those are important jobs. We all know that governments have to work to build this province, replacing the Pattullo Bridge, replacing Handsworth Secondary School in North Vancouver, partnering with our post-secondary institutions to deliver 5,000 units of student housing.
All of these are first steps. I know that there’ll be more to come, and you’ll be hearing more in the coming months around infrastructure projects and infrastructure initiatives that move forward, as we spend the dollars to build British Columbia moving forward.
We know as we do that, we have an opportunity here to create real opportunities for young people who are looking at careers and at futures. It’s great that we’ve got an investment in skills training to help support that. It’s an investment, again, with our First Nations partners in creating opportunities for young people in their villages to learn trades, to get to work and to find opportunities to build their futures and build their careers.
There’s a lot in this budget. As I said at the beginning, some people often would say: “Political parties are all the same. You all act the same.” Well, you can look at this budget, and you can look at the investments and the priorities of this government. You can look back at any of the last number of budgets of the previous government. What you will see very clearly is that there are real differences in political parties: a political party that spent 16 years narrowly looking after a small group of people in British Columbia and a political party that in its first eight months has delivered on promises around affordability, services and building a new economy.
I’m very proud of this budget, I’m proud of the work this government’s done, and I’m proud of the years and years of building that is still to come with this government in place.
D. Barnett: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the 2018 provincial budget. As we all know, the provincial budget is an important statement about what a government stands for and what kind of future British Columbians should expect. This is the first provincial budget the NDP has delivered since 2001, so expectations were very high.
The public had every reason to expect a great deal from this budget. When the government changed hands this summer, they inherited the best-performing provincial economy in the country. Public finances were in top shape. We had an AAA credit rating and five balanced budgets in a row. The NDP also inherited a $2.7 billion budget surplus. No incoming government in our history had a better starting point. The new government also followed through on some key tax cuts that were announced in the 2017 budget by the B.C. Liberals. These included cutting MSP premiums by 50 percent, reducing the small business tax rate from 2.5 percent to just 2 percent and eliminating the PST that industry pays for electricity.
All of these are tremendous tax cuts. We in the opposition supported these budget measures, and not just because they were announced by the previous Liberal government. Rather, cutting MSP premiums and reducing the small business tax were already announced in the 2017 budget. British Columbians were already counting on government to make these tax cuts happen. All of these measures were announced in the September update budget. This brings us back to the NDP’s first full budget released last week.
There is one thing that really stands out in this budget. This budget does not speak to rural and northern residents. There is no mention of the forest industry, mining industry or agriculture industry.
In the Minister of FLNRO’s speech to the budget, he said there is $75 million in the budget for rural development under a new rural development bottom-up strategy. I asked: “What does he mean?” We have had a bottom-up strategy. It took over a year to put this strategy together from people across the province of British Columbia taking time and listening. This rural strategy includes all ministries. This is a bottom-up strategy, the one that we put together, not a 28-day on-line consultation process. There is no mention of a solid recovery plan from last summer’s wildfires.
I have asked everywhere: “Where is the recovery plan?” I can find none. I have constituents on a daily basis coming to my office and begging for help. It is getting worse, not better. There is no hope, and there is no plan. “Where is it?” I ask.
I would like to see it on paper, as would my constituents, who are hurting badly. We talk about economic recovery. We talk about poverty. Without help, there will be more poverty in the areas that were hit by the wildfire, and it will be massive.
People in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin will continue to ask what is in this budget. I can honestly say I am very pleased with the Minister of Health’s announcement that he is carrying forward with an announcement we made earlier for the business plan for a new hospital in Williams Lake, which is much needed. I thank the minister for his commitment. But more than that is needed in my riding, and more than that is needed in rural British Columbia.
I’ve gone through the budget very carefully. I am so concerned and so worried. I see nothing in the Transportation Ministry to carry on with the Cariboo connecter. I see no capital for rural road projects, which we had in our strategy. I see so many missing components in this budget, and I will be spending a lot of time in estimates, hopefully getting answers I need for my constituents.
This budget contains a lot of spending and a lot of tax increases. I’ll address those in a minute.
What this budget lacks is any consideration for the growing divide between urban and rural British Columbia. Just look at the results of the last election. There were very few NDP members elected in rural and northern British Columbia. This budget reflects the dominance of the Lower Mainland, where all the NDP seats are located — and on the Island.
The budget contains some punishing taxes on foreign buyers speculating on real estate in Metro Vancouver. The NDP has now expanded coverage of these real estate rules to the Interior and parts of the Island. But this budget had very little to say about northern and rural British Columbia, as if we really don’t matter.
The only thing people in the Cariboo have to worry about is getting hit over the head with this new payroll tax on small business, and they are concerned. This came as a huge surprise to the private sector. There was no warning given to the business community. There was no public consultation. For a government that has launched umpteen dozen public reviews and consultations, this new employers health care tax came as a big surprise — schools, universities, daycares, societies, local governments. Consultation? Where?
How are all these organizations going to pick up the costs? More taxes, download — a nasty surprise. Also, according to Jock Finlayson of the B.C. Business Council…. The business community has every right to be furious, as do others I previously mentioned.
It’s true that last fall the NDP followed through on the tax cuts announced in the September budget update: a 50 percent cut to MSP and the reduction of the small business tax. But now it appears the government wants all the money back. That’s what the 2018 NDP budget does. It’s a giant list of tax increases, $8 billion worth of tax increases in just seven months of being in government. That is quite an achievement.
We’re talking about a government that was handed a $2.7 billion surplus just seven months ago. Now the NDP wants more. Let’s take a moment and list them all off so that people can get an idea of just how much this government plans to tax and spend. It all began last fall. The cost of doing business in B.C. started with the September budget update.
One of the first things the NDP did was to raise the corporate income tax rate from 11 percent to 12 percent. The Finance Minister said that this was a good thing because it put British Columbia in the same league with other western provinces. In other words, B.C. would lose its competitive edge.
I’m not sure why the Finance Minister thought this was a good thing. If you are a company looking to locate your headquarters in western Canada, B.C. is no longer a better place to do business. You might as well locate in Alberta or Saskatchewan.
The increase in the corporate tax rate was just the beginning. The September budget update also contained another nasty surprise. The NDP announced it was going to increase the carbon tax and abandon the principle of revenue neutrality. British Columbians will get hit with this tax increase on April 1. It’s going to feel like some kind of cruel joke, but it’s not. This is real. This is going to hurt every taxpayer in this province.
Let’s start with the fact that the carbon tax will no longer be revenue-neutral. The reason why the carbon tax was so well received by the general public was because any increase in the carbon tax would be met with a corresponding decrease in income taxes or some other form of tax. We even, when we were government, received world recognition from the United Nations for delivering one of the world’s first and most successful carbon taxes in the world. That’s until the NDP got a hold of it last fall.
Remember, this was a party that campaigned on Axe the Tax, but now the NDP has turned the carbon tax into a giant government cash cow. The new government is going to increase the carbon tax by $5 a tonne each year for the next four consecutive years.
That may not sound like much, but consider what it is going to cost you every time you fill up your gas tank. Prices at the pumps will go up to about 8.5 cents per litre of gasoline and approximately more than ten cents for diesel. That means consumers will pay more than $5 extra in carbon tax every time they fill up and nearly $10 if you drive an SUV.
This is what the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has to say:
“If you have two vehicles in your family, this means the carbon tax will now cost you about $360 per year just to drive your children to school and get yourself to work and the grocery store. With more than 5.7 billion litres of gasoline sold in B.C. last year, it means the provincial government will make an average of $490 million in gasoline carbon tax, and when the diesel carbon tax is included, that jumps to more than $600 million in tax revenue taken from motorists in one year.”
Now we are talking about just the price of gasoline. What is really going to hit the provincial economy is the rising cost of diesel. Just about every vehicle that is heavy transportation runs on diesel. When food gets delivered to your grocery store, it gets delivered by trucks that run on diesel fuel. When the bus comes to pick up your children for school, it’s diesel. When you take out the garbage to the curb, it gets picked up by a diesel truck. If you take a ferry in British Columbia, it currently runs on diesel. I think you are beginning to see my point.
Whenever the cost of overhead increases in the private sector, those increases are ultimately borne by the consumer. It’s not enough that the NDP is going to stick it to people filling up at the gas pump. In the end, we are going to be paying more and more for basic necessities. That’s just plain wrong.
The Finance Minister is smiling for a reason. The NDP isn’t required to tell British Columbians how much money it is raising from the carbon tax cash grab. It just disappears into general revenue. The government doesn’t have to earmark any of this money to help fight climate change. They’re just going to use it to spend on all sorts of weird and wonderful campaign promises.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
That’s just two major tax increases so far, the increase in corporate taxes and the giant cash grab through the carbon tax, and we still haven’t finished with the September budget update. There was an increase in income tax too. The personal income tax rate for individuals earning over $150,000 gross — from 14.7 to 16.8 percent.
Now, that might sound reasonable — to make people who earn more pay more. But it also signals that the NDP has already exhausted the low-hanging fruit by whacking all the high-income earners.
Remember that company that was thinking of locating its headquarters in British Columbia? It may no longer be an option because the corporate tax rate has been increased. Any employees earning salaries on the high end might not want to pay the highest personal income taxes in the country. This is especially true in the tech industry. That leaves the NDP in a bit of a dilemma. Now that they have maxed out income taxes on the high-income earners, their next target is the private sector.
Noting the hour, I hold my place to continue speaking and move adjournment of the debate.
D. Barnett moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.
Copyright © 2018: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada