Fourth Session, 41st Parliament (2019)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, February 28, 2019
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 210
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
Budget Debate (continued) | |
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2019
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the member’s gallery is Ms. Trinh Tu Lan, the consul general of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, based in Vancouver. The consul general was appointed in December 2018. I first met with her shortly thereafter.
Today is the consul general’s first visit to Victoria, and she’s scheduled to meet a number of government officials throughout the day. Would the House please make the consul general of Vietnam feel very welcome.
Hon. J. Darcy: I have two special guests I’d like to introduce today.
Lori Larson has been an administrative assistant in the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, doing amazing work in our office, also having to field very, very difficult calls, often from people who are in crisis and who reach out for help. She’s done an amazing job. Prior to that she was a banker for over 28 years. Her daughter was a page, also attended Reynolds Secondary School. Next week the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture is very lucky to have her as the new administrative assistant there. I’d like you to give a warm welcome to Lori Larson today and thank her for her service.
Carly Morgan is just beginning this week as an administrative assistant in the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. She recently graduated from the University of Victoria in physics and astronomy and is now beginning her work in government. I’m sure that her physics and astronomy will be helpful in whatever role she plays here in government. She’s also the niece of Lisa Oldham, the administrative coordinator for Minister Popham.
Welcome, please, today to Lori Larson and Carly Morgan.
Hon. K. Conroy: I have a group of guests here today who are here for an announcement that we have this afternoon. Jayne Wilson is here, the executive director of the B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Associations, as well as Carol Madsen, the executive director of the Parent Support Services Society of B.C. With Carol from the society is Christina Campbell, who does kinship care; Jane Bouey, communications; and Louise Costello, a board member. Would you please all join me in welcoming them to the House.
Hon. J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is an employee in the correspondence branch in the Premier’s office, Allegra Wolansky. Allegra, of course, sees question period fairly frequently. She’s joined today by a resident of Grand Forks, her soon-to-be mother-in-law Susan Blair, who hasn’t been here to see question period since the Barrett era. I just wanted to let her know that decorum is much better today than it was then. The humour is not quite as good, but we’ll do our level best to make it entertaining. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
AND HENRY HOUSTON
SCOTT
M. Hunt: Today I rise in honour of Black History Month, a time for us to celebrate the accomplishments and stories of black Canadians. In particular, I’d like to tell the House and the people of British Columbia about a former Surrey resident and his family.
In 1912, Henry Houston Scott emigrated from the United States with his wife, Amy, and three of their ten children. They were drawn to the fertile lands of the Fraser Valley and purchased the farm upon arriving. Henry grew hay on his orchard until his passing in 1934, when his son Jesse took over running the farm.
Henry’s other son, Roy, had a varied career working both in the lumber mill as well as being a porter for the Canadian Pacific Railway. His daughter, Benola, managed the family farm for almost 30 years after her parents’ deaths, before she passed in 1971.
Henry Scott no longer has any living relatives in Surrey, yet his family’s former farm continues to be recognized for its importance to the city of Surrey. On February 18, Surrey city council passed a resolution to have the park where the Scotts once farmed renamed Henry Houston Scott Park in honour of Henry, Amy, Roy, Jesse and Benola.
The Scott family story is the first and currently the only of its kind to be identified and researched in Surrey’s history. There is no doubt, however, that there are many more like it throughout British Columbia.
Would the House please join me in honouring the Scott family, as well as all other British Columbians whose stories we reflect upon during Black History Month.
COMOX VALLEY
THERAPEUTIC RIDING
SOCIETY
R. Leonard: There is a beautiful, sandy network of trails along the bank of the Tsolum River in Courtenay-Comox that lead into a forest that’s blanketed in fawn lilies and trilliums in the springtime. Adjacent to this little piece of paradise is our exhibition grounds, with an unassuming barn that houses a most amazing program.
Between September and June, out of that barn and into the natural elements come children and adults with diverse abilities riding specially trained horses and ponies surrounded by trained volunteers. Now in its 33rd year, the Comox Valley Therapeutic Riding Society serves about 100 children and adults with the invaluable help of 150 volunteers. Qualified therapeutic riding instructors teach riding and working with physical challenges, and other staff come with experience in facilitation and working with youth.
Volunteer coordinator and program scheduler Hilary Doucette brings all the pieces of the puzzle together so that everyone succeeds. Referrals come from doctors, therapists, schools, and even family can directly refer their children to this program that changes lives.
The program has traditionally served people with physical challenges, but more recently the vast majority are children with autism, ADHD, anxiety, depression — children who are lacking skills to manage their feelings and behaviours. Executive director Nancy King explains how the horses mirror the feelings of the rider, and that feedback helps the children to learn to self-regulate, gain physical coordination and confidence.
Julie McLaughlin shares how the therapeutic riding helped their adopted boys and how barn buddies helped their youngest son gain social strength. Volunteer Anne Lawrie describes how it’s the most gratifying volunteer job she’s ever had, watching the transformation of the children on their gentle ponies.
Big thanks to the volunteers, horses, staff and funders. Congratulations to all who benefit from the therapeutic riding program.
RURAL B.C. ENVIRONMENT AND
CONSULTATION ON CARIBOU
PROTECTION
M. Bernier: When I look at the reasons for living in rural B.C., the list is long. The MLA for Peace River North, the rest of the rural caucus over here — we know this all too well. It’s an amazing place to have a good, balanced quality of life. It’s a great place to raise a family.
One of the main reasons so many people want to live in rural B.C. is our province’s incredible opportunities for hunting, skiing, snowmobiling, ATVing and camping right in our backyards. Then there are all the jobs that rural B.C. has thanks to all the resource opportunities right there. Whether it’s forestry, mining, oil and gas, tourism — these and other industries make sure that thousands of people can call rural communities home.
People choose to live, work and play in rural B.C. because of everything it offers, but there is growing fear that this might be changed. This fear comes from lack of consultation and information being shared with the people who have the most to lose. The Concerned Citizens for Caribou Recovery in my riding have done a great job highlighting what my region will lose if bad, reactive, knee-jerk decisions to shut down parts of our back country happen without consulting the people who use it and know it.
Rural B.C. should not be taken advantage of just because they are quiet, hard-working people who don’t usually raise their voices. But their voices deserve to be heard. Imagine the outcry and protests if all human activity in Stanley Park was shut down just to save a bird with no public consultation at all. Now imagine shutting down something the size of seven Vancouvers without any public input.
Rural British Columbians are at the front of the line when it comes to fighting to preserve our environment and our species at risk. After all, it’s our backyards. That’s why we are asking to be at the table for discussions before a few ministers who don’t even live in our region decide for us.
MEN’S HEALTH PROMOTION
M. Dean: Thank you to the Canadian Men’s Health Foundation who are here today to build our knowledge and relationship with them as they work to encourage men to adopt a healthier lifestyle. They also aim to prevent men’s health problems, such as prostate cancer.
Research shows that over 5,590 men die from cancer every year in B.C., with prostate cancer accounting for over 19 percent of all cancer diagnoses in B.C. men. Additionally, more than 3,000 men die from heart disease each year. That’s why the foundation’s work is so important, as it helps bring awareness to the importance of making healthy choices to prevent health problems and help men create a happier and longer life.
For example, the Don’t Change Much program is a campaign and website with quick recipes, easy tips on how to be active and advice from celebrities like NHL veteran Trevor Linden and four-time Olympian Simon Whitfield. It gives men simple tips on how to be more active by making small, manageable lifestyle changes.
The Downtown Urban Knights Defending Equality and Solidarity, DUDES Club, is a modern way to involve the community in promoting healthy living for Indigenous men. It’s helping Indigenous men reconnect with their families and cultures through spiritual, social, physical, mental and emotion-focused events and activities.
Thanks for your dedication and hard work in inspiring men everywhere in B.C. to be healthy, present and engaged in the community as we all work towards a better quality of life for everyone.
PUBLIC TRUST IN GOVERNMENT
AND LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY
A. Olsen: There’s a crisis of confidence in this institution. Thinking back to the thousands of stories I heard on the doorstep during the 2017 election, it did not matter whether I was on the top of the mountain in North Saanich, the waterfront in Sidney, on Saltspring Island or Tsartlip First Nation. Trust in this institution was in tatters. The internal narrative of our local campaign was built on trust. Trust is an important value for me.
On one hand, it seemed like a political opportunity, right? People had lost trust in government. It appears to be a perfectly delicious scenario for change. On the other hand, it is devastating to be enticed to celebrate a crisis in confidence in our government because of a potential political win.
These statements from members often celebrate the lives of influential British Columbians or special days of advocacy. They draw attention to critical, non-partisan issues in our ridings and across the province. That, too, is my goal today.
Since my election, there has been a steady stream of constituents who’ve approached me, encouraging me to directly address the issues that are diminishing the stature of this House. These people have seen the inside. They carry the burden with them as part of their story.
It is for these constituents of mine and for British Columbians right across this province that today I shine a light on our commitment to rebuilding the public’s trust in our government institution. I stand here in this chamber, where we undertake the most important business of this province, and reaffirm the oath that we swear to protect the honour of this House, the people’s House. I am reminded that this place is indeed nothing if it’s not built on trust.
WOUNDED WARRIORS FUNDRAISING RUN
S. Malcolmson: “Honour the fallen. Help the living.” This is the mantra of seven runners just this side of Campbell River. They’re making their way here right now to raise funds and awareness about post-traumatic stress disorder and operational stress injuries affecting military veterans and first responders.
The Wounded Warriors are relay-running the length of Vancouver Island this week. That’s 600 kilometres in seven days. Seven police, Coast Guard, DND and firefighter runners started in Port Hardy on Monday. In three days, they’ve raised $60,000 for veterans’ mental health. Tonight they’ll rest in Comox. Check out woundedwarriors.ca to see when they’ll be passing through your town.
I’ll cheer them on, on Saturday in Nanaimo, along with the cadets and our legions. Tilray in Nanaimo is sponsoring them; so is Serious Coffee. The support is the beautiful part of this. The families support their injured veterans and first responders, and Wounded Warriors supports both the veterans and families. Couples Overcoming PTSD is an award-winning program. It’s life-changing, repairing families. The Vancouver Island Compassion Dogs is another beautiful charity providing service dogs to veterans. There’s also trauma resilience training for people already working on the front line. Wounded Warriors funds them all.
Friends in Victoria, if you can, please greet these fine runners and their support team at the Wounded Warrior Run grand finale, right here Sunday at 4:30. It’s at the back of the Legislature along Superior Street.
The front line keeps us safe every day, so please come out and support the Wounded Warriors as they finish their epic journey down Vancouver Island, and let them know that we have their backs too.
E. Ross: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
E. Ross: My apologies to Judy Fraser, sitting in the gallery today. She’s a Prince Rupert resident, a big supporter of all the activities in the region as well as the province, and a friend to many of us here in the House. Would the House please make Judy Fraser welcome.
Hon. K. Conroy: I also seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. K. Conroy: Joining us shortly in the gallery is a group of students who are here, from the West Kootenay regional debate team, for the Law Foundation Cup Provincial Debating Championship 2019. These students will debate against six other teams from the regions in the province, honing their questioning and debate skills. This team is made up of students from both Kootenay West and Nelson-Creston. I’m going to introduce the students from my constituency, and the member for Nelson-Creston will introduce hers.
From J.L. Crowe Secondary in Trail, we have Katie Mountain, Grace Holden, Ripley Shubert and Mattea Palesch, all in grade 8; Sasha Leithead in grade 9; and Chris Mountain in grade 12. With them are a couple of teachers — Kim Eggert, the coach and chaperone; and Marilyn Lund, the coach — as well as the regional coordinator.
It’s really great to welcome them all here, but especially Marilyn. We have known each other for quite a long time, as we went to school together, although it just seems like a few years ago.
Please join me in welcoming them to the House and wish them well on their debates.
Mr. Speaker: Continuing with the second part of that introduction.
Hon. M. Mungall: Joining the group that the Minister for Children and Families just mentioned we have Harlan Hofman-Miller, Jayden Stallings, Sophie Edney, Sarah Wensink, Sabien Edney, Michael Rhodes-Bliss, Willa Morrison, Marissa Price and Margaret Saville. They are all from L.V. Rogers. From Wildflower School in Nelson, we have Bea Kelley.
These are amazing young people who are learning the art of debate, and I have no doubt that in question period, we will show them our best artistic form in debate today.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We’re joined by a number of search and rescue volunteers that are here to mark Search and Rescue Volunteer Memorial Day. They include Jim Spencer of Nanaimo and Patrick McSorley of Victoria, representing PEP Air; John Johnston of Kelowna and Ruth Sharun of Ladysmith, representing Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue; and Christine Strub of Squamish and Cheryle Bass of Squamish, representing the British Columbia Search and Rescue Association. Would the House please join me in welcoming them and thanking them for the wonderful work that they do.
Oral Questions
SOFTWOOD LUMBER NEGOTIATIONS
AND TRADE WITH
U.S.
J. Rustad: Two years ago the Premier said: “I will go to Washington, D.C., myself to get a deal.” Well, I guess the Premier did get a deal — a cheque for a quarter million dollars from the U.S. Steelworkers for the NDP — but he got nothing on the softwood lumber agreement. The Premier has failed miserably to advance this file anywhere.
Yesterday the Premier claimed that he raised issues of mutual interest when he met with Governor Inslee earlier this month, but not a peep about softwood lumber.
Why does the Premier care so little about the men and women working in our forest industry that he didn’t even raise the topic with the governor?
Hon. J. Horgan: Jurisdictional questions seem to confuse the opposition. The challenges we have with softwood lumber are not with the state of Washington, not with the governor of Washington, but with the United States department of trade and the United States Department of Commerce. Again, had the people on the other side spent more time thinking about this when they were on this side of the House, they might have had more success in the negotiations going forward.
The member is partly correct. I did go to Washington, as one of my first tasks as Premier. I spoke with the Department of Commerce. I spoke with the trade ambassador. I made it abundantly clear that the tariffs and the countervail duties that were being contemplated at that time by the United States were unfair, they were unjust, and we would challenge them every step of the way. That’s exactly what we’ve been doing.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes on a supplemental.
J. Rustad: Here are the facts. There wasn’t a single mention of softwood lumber that made it into any of the recent releases from last month’s meeting — not a word. The Premier committed hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money and did photo-ops but did not raise the issue.
Workers and communities are hurting, while the Premier cozied up to his buddy Governor Inslee. The Premier very well knows that you need allies to be able to move forward on issues such as softwood lumber. He has failed to move this file forward, either on the Canadian agenda or with anybody in the U.S. that he had an opportunity to meet with.
Will the Premier admit that he has not kept his promise on softwood lumber and that forestry workers and families are suffering because of it?
Hon. J. Horgan: I’m really delighted that the members on the other side of the House are interested in the conversations I have with leaders in other jurisdictions. But again, I’m struggling to find the thread here, the relevance here.
I did talk to Governor Inslee, just three or four months ago, about the impact of groundwood duties on our coated paper industry. It was a case being brought forward by a Washington state company that precipitated that trade dispute. I made it abundantly clear to the governor at that time that this was ill informed and ill conceived.
Of course, the International Trade Commission agreed with us in Canada, those of us who were standing up for British Columbians. People are still working in Powell River, people are still working in Crofton, and people are still working in Port Alberni because of the interventions we made at that time.
Having said that, I know that the member for Nechako Lakes understands this file fairly well, and that’s what surprises me about why he’s going in this direction. He knows that we made interventions at the appropriate time. We were in regular contact with the Minister of Trade at the federal level, where these issues are decided. We are vigorously defending the interests of British Columbians, and we’ll continue to do that.
J. Tegart: There are 140 forestry-dependent communities in British Columbia that are suffering without a softwood lumber deal, communities that feel abandoned by this government. In the community of Merritt, I’ve had constituents come into my office in tears because of rolling layoffs at the local mill. These are hard-working people who are losing family-supporting jobs right now.
Will the Forest Minister explain to my people when they can expect the signing of a softwood lumber deal?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’m absolutely delighted to be patient, as the people on that side get used to being in opposition. But it’s outrageous for them to stand here and ask questions about an arrangement between two nation-states that has been a perennial problem between our two countries.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. J. Horgan: They’re doing this when all the while, on their watch, 30,000 forest jobs were lost, 100 mills were closed. To stand here today and say, when the former Premier did not go to Washington, did not heed the advice of David Emerson, the eminent person that we put in place to help us get through this…. For them to stand here and say they care about forest workers when 30,000 of them are doing something else now is outrageous.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola on a supplemental.
J. Tegart: My constituents want to know about today and why this callous government doesn’t even seem to care. This is a bigger issue than “The Premier goes to Washington.”
In 2017, the Premier said: “I’m going to directly involve myself in the softwood lumber negotiations and make sure that we get a deal.” Well, that was nearly two years ago, and millworkers in my constituency, whose shifts are being cut, are getting sick and tired of waiting for your government to do what they promised.
When, Mr. Premier, are we going to see a signed agreement?
Hon. J. Horgan: Clearly, the research department in the Liberal caucus doesn’t have any sense of what’s going on. The issue is now in the courts. That’s where it has to go because the negotiations failed, because the United States was not prepared to do a deal. It is irresponsible in the extreme…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Horgan: …to come in today, on a Thursday morning, and say: “We’re going to blame the B.C. NDP for the failure of a negotiation….”
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Premier, you can proceed when you feel it’s quiet enough for you to speak uninterrupted.
Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate that, hon. Speaker.
Now, if there was just a molecule of sincerity and genuineness in the question being asked — just a molecule…. So 100 mills, 30,000 jobs lost while you sat idly by and let that happen.
We have been working aggressively in trying to revitalize the coastal forest industry. We’re working on the Interior. We’re meeting with COFI later this week. We’re trying to build a better, stronger economy for forest and rural workers. Why don’t you get on board rather than whining about it?
Mr. Speaker: We’re ready for another question.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
INTO MONEY
LAUNDERING
A. Olsen: For the past two weeks, my colleagues and I have been raising the issue of — groan — money laundering. I know; it’s such a groaner, eh? We’ve asked about top investigators losing their jobs when they tried to take action. We asked about the lack of prosecutions and how this shameful situation is heavily linked to housing and the opioid crisis. I mean, these are just groaner issues in this province. I get it from the official opposition.
Yesterday the Attorney General stated that he agreed that “a public inquiry does bring the benefit of going into significantly more depth on these issues.” The Attorney General has done important work, but when is enough evidence enough? The government is agreeing that a public inquiry could be useful, but not actually wanting to start one.
My question is to the Attorney General. When will the public know if this government is serious about a public inquiry?
Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question, and I thank the Green Party for raising these issues. I think about the people in the Lower Mainland, the families in rental housing who earn a good income, who have been priced out of the market because they’re competing, in part, with people earning money illegally. They’re competing with people who are evading taxes. I don’t think that’s enjoyable, and I don’t think that’s wacky. I think that’s the worst.
When we look at this issue of money laundering and the connection to the real estate market, we take it incredibly seriously. The first priority for our government has been to stop the activity that’s taking place. That has been something the Finance Minister has been working on since day one, something I’ve been working on since day one and something the Premier has been working on since day one, because we get how serious this issue is, unlike some political parties.
Now, I’ve also tried to be clear that we are doing this work right now with the reviews to stop this activity. That doesn’t mean that there is not benefit, potentially, in a public inquiry and doing deeper work on that. But our first priority is to stop the activity, and that’s the work we’re doing right now.
Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.
A. Olsen: Frankly, the silence from our colleagues in the opposition tells a story. The groaning on these questions paints the rest of the picture.
My colleagues and I appreciate that the Attorney General wants to ensure that he’s taking the right path. However, we have an abundance of evidence to support an inquiry, and it keeps growing. Three-quarters of British Columbians support it, and thousands have signed petitions. Legal experts, major unions, advocacy organizations and municipal governments in this province are calling on the government to launch an inquiry.
Yesterday we again made international news — again for all the wrong reasons — when the Washington Post had a headline that called the situation in British Columbia “an emergency.” We agree. An independent inquiry is critical to exposing the truth and getting to the bottom of this. This is what British Columbians are expecting, and this is what they deserve.
My question is to the Attorney General. Finally, will he commit to launching a public inquiry?
Hon. D. Eby: I read the article with interest in the Washington Post — one of many articles, by the way, in international media that feature the scandals of the previous government, including this one. We take it incredibly seriously. We are taking the steps to stop this activity as quickly as we can.
The article relied heavily on a lot of material that was made public through the efforts of this government to bring forward a report that was being kept secret, that wasn’t being released — to bring forward the issue that was being kept secret, that wasn’t being advised to the public, even though publicly, international anti-money-laundering personnel were being educated on the Vancouver model of money laundering at the same time as British Columbians were being told it was functionally impossible to launder money in our casinos.
It’s an unacceptable scenario. I understand why 75 percent of people want a public inquiry. I understand why the members for the Green Party want a public inquiry. I also hope that the member understands why we’re working as quickly as we can to stop the activity as our first priority.
SOFTWOOD LUMBER NEGOTIATIONS
AND TRADE WITH
U.S.
M. de Jong: I have to say I’m a bit surprised that the Premier doesn’t apparently recognize the important role he plays as Premier in informing leaders within the U.S. — there are 50 governors — of the importance of the softwood lumber dispute and the impact it is having on Canadians and British Columbians.
Now, the Premier’s office is pretty good at issuing press releases.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
M. de Jong: The Premier’s office is very good at issuing press releases. I did look at the one. Presumably, they issue the press releases to highlight the things that are important, the things that were discussed or the issues that the Premier wishes to raise.
On February 4, they issued an information bulletin. Not a mention of softwood lumber. February 8, they issued a press release. Not a mention of softwood lumber. The Premier is in a foreign country that is attacking our number one industry. February 9, they issued a press release. Not a mention of softwood lumber.
Now, contrast that with the actions of the Premier of New Brunswick, who had a meeting with U.S. senators and U.S. state leaders and made a point of raising softwood lumber and articulating how important it was to all of Canada to get a solution.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
M. de Jong: With our number one industry under assault, will the Premier explain why he is refusing to highlight the issue with Americans and why he has abdicated leadership on this issue to the Premier of New Brunswick?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, a little lesson in jurisdictional responsibilities. Trade is the responsibility of the Department of Commerce, in the department of trade, in the United States — not the governor of Washington. There are jurisdictions in the United States that are bringing forward these countervailing duties towards us. They’re usually found in the southern United States. The former Forests Minister, who saw raw log exports go from almost nothing to 55 percent, probably should have remembered that.
As a former Forests Minister…. I absolutely know with certainty that the member understands that a binational panel was appointed in November of 2018 to continue to get a resolution on this dispute. We’re quite delighted, if there is a Forests critic on that side…. I’m not sure who it is. If they want to have a thorough briefing, the minister is quite happy to sit down with them and walk them through the process. But to come into this House after an appalling 16 years of ignoring the forest industry, ignoring the job loss, ignoring mill closures and seeing logs disappear out of British Columbia faster than they can get put on the back of a truck is just outrageous, and everybody knows it.
Now, I absolutely appreciate that you have to have something to say on a Thursday morning in February. But if you really want to understand and work with the province and the people of British Columbia, why don’t you get on board? Let’s have a pan–British Columbia view on this issue, and let’s stand together to defend the interests of British Columbians.
M. de Jong: Well, I guess the Premier is saying that the Premier of New Brunswick doesn’t know what he’s doing, because he made a point of going to a meeting of the National Governors Association of the U.S. and made a point of highlighting the importance of this issue. But I’m trying to understand the Premier’s strategy and the government’s strategy.
Just a few days before he went to Washington…. This is kind of interesting. Just a few days before he went for his photo-op with the governor, the president of that country, Donald J. Trump, issued Executive Order 13858. This is the document. It has the force of law. It excludes the use of foreign goods, products and materials on U.S. infrastructure projects. It defines an infrastructure project as being a project to develop public or private assets, including — this is interesting — roadways, bridges and railroads.
Did our Premier express outrage? Did he articulate on behalf of Canadians and British Columbians how unfair this was? Did he register any kind of protest? No. Our Premier’s response to this was to dip into the taxpayers’ pockets of British Columbia and hand over a cheque for hundreds of thousands of more B.C. dollars for a project to be built largely in the U.S. that Canadians and British Columbians won’t even get a chance to bid on because of a presidential order.
That’s showing them, Mr. Premier. That’s getting their attention. That is not standing up for British Columbians.
When will the Premier have the backbone to stand up and defend the interests of British Columbians on our number one export, the softwood lumber dispute?
Hon. J. Horgan: The thespian from Abbotsford stands again, looks squarely into the camera and does the feigned indignation better than any member of this House, save and except the member for Port Coquitlam.
Again, I realize it’s been 18 months since the people on that side of the House used to sit over here, but they seem to have forgotten a lot of protocols and procedures. I went to Washington at the invitation of the governor of Washington to talk about orcas, to talk about climate change and to talk about chinook salmon — profoundly important issues to the people of British Columbians, within our ability to make a difference.
I understand now that there’s a new sheriff, the head of the crew on the other side. They’re certainly entitled to change their policies. But I have a note here from the New York Times of October 2, 2016, the former Premier, Ms. Clark, saying the following: “Vancouver has a lot more in common with Seattle than we do with Calgary, Montreal, Toronto or anywhere else in this country.” The Premier said, “We should make the best of those cultural commonalities,” and, in fact, then announced that she was going to work with Governor Inslee to work on high-speed rail between Seattle and Vancouver.
The official opposition has now decided that softwood lumber is an important issue. They had 16 years to deal with it, and they didn’t. Now it’s the most important issue. So if they want to abandon relationships with Washington state, if they want to abandon the high-speed rail initiative that they started, I’m happy to step back. But sometimes a good idea is just a good idea, whether it came from a Liberal, a New Democrat or a Green.
I would argue, again…. I appreciate it’s question period and it’s important for the members to stand up and look as indignant as they possibly can, but the people of British Columbia want to know that their government is focused every day on making life better for them. That’s exactly what we’ve been doing, and to good results — the highest growth rate in the country, the lowest unemployment rate in the country, successive balanced budgets, a $40 billion private sector investment in the north, working with Indigenous people to bring true reconciliation to British Columbia — so that we can all benefit from this spectacular place we call home.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a second supplemental.
M. de Jong: Look, I don’t think the Premier should…. Probably he’s not worried about the indignance on this side of the House, but he probably should be worried about the indignance of British Columbians who have today learned that his response to a presidential edict in a foreign country that precludes them from participating in a project that he’s using their tax dollars to help finance…. That’s what they’re going to be indignant about.
Maybe it’s not all the Premier’s fault. I mean, I have to believe that his intrepid Trade Minister briefed him on the presidential edict. I can’t believe his Trade Minister would let him go to a foreign country without briefing him on the fact that the edict had been applied. And while he’s talking to his Trade Minister, when he gets around to doing that, ask him to tell him about the softwood lumber agreement negotiated by the previous government.
One last bit of advice for the Premier, though I’m sure he’s not inclined to take it. When you are a leading a province, when you are leading a people in a trade dispute, you don’t wait for an invitation from the other guys to raise the issue.
Will the Premier demonstrate to this House and to British Columbians and families in forest-dependent communities that he at last recognizes the role he plays, show some leadership — this is British Columbia’s file; we have the bulk of the softwood lumber trade in Canada — and not default to the Premier of New Brunswick?
Hon. J. Horgan: It looks like the Abbotsford West leadership juggernaut is up again — third chance at it. Didn’t make it the first time. Didn’t make it the second time. But I think you’ve got a pretty good chance here, unless you dabbled in renting when you were a child or unless you dabbled in the rental market, unless you want to support the people who live in coastal ferry-dependent communities. Then you might have a little bit of trouble. But I wish the member well in his third try to become leader of the moribund B.C. Liberal Party.
Having said that….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Horgan: I would argue, again, that when it comes to taking on Donald J. Trump, I think the presentation by Mr. Cohen yesterday was far more persuasive than that of the member from Abbotsford.
COMPENSATION TO GUIDE-OUTFITTERS
FOR MOOSE HUNTING
REDUCTION
D. Barnett: Last November I wrote to the Minister of Forests on behalf of 13 guide-outfitters who have had their moose allocations cancelled by this government. He acknowledged his ministry was “looking at the compensation issue.” It’s now February, and these guide-outfitters have yet to hear back from the minister.
To the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural Development, when will the minister follow through on his promise to compensate these guide-outfitters?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I thank the member for her letter advocating on behalf of some of the constituents that live in her constituency.
The issue of moose management is a very important issue. We’ve been taking measures to ensure that the moose populations are sustainable. I know the guide-outfitters are very interested in that, as well as local First Nations. I want to ensure the member knows that with the Tsilhqot’in National Government, we’ve been in contact and in conversations and, in fact, working with them on the issue of moose management as it relates to not just their own needs but to the needs of guide-outfitters.
I want to say that it’s an inclusive process. In fact, the president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation commends us. “You and your staff are to be congratulated for your efforts to resolve issues around moose and moose-hunting in the Tsilhqot’in territory. On behalf of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, I am grateful for your even-handed effort in trying to resolve this exceedingly difficult situation.”
Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin on a supplemental.
D. Barnett: For many of the guide-outfitters, the cancelled moose allocation represented their only source of income. This government made a commitment to these guide-outfitters and their families. They should honour that commitment.
When will the minister provide the financial compensation he promised?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Our ministry officials are working with the guide-outfitters on this topic as we speak. The bigger issue, of course, is moose management. We’re taking control of that in a way that was never done under this other opposition government.
ASSISTANCE FOR CASE OF FLOODING
AND WATER
CONTAMINATION
T. Stone: Tiffany and Devin Wilson and their three children, ages one to nine, have lived on their current property in rural B.C. near Chase for eight years. For the last two years, they’ve experienced extreme groundwater flooding of their home and property due to a creek on adjacent Crown land rising during freshet. Unfortunately, this is all happening as a result of activities approved by FLNRO.
FLNRO and MOTI decided to riprap ditches to protect MOTI infrastructure. However, when asked about making a similar fix to the creek to protect the Wilsons’ home, the family was told by FLNRO: “The province would not be fixing the creek when it’s only affecting one family.”
Here’s what Tiffany Wilson has to say: “Our well is contaminated when Archer brook flows. We are unable to drink or cook with our water. We were advised by the public health nurse that we should vaccinate our children against hep A, as they’re bathing in contaminated water. Our basement has now been completely destroyed two years in a row. Our property is a danger zone for our children, as there are streams of water and standing water everywhere. We fear for the health of our children.”
Now, the FLNRO minister knows the details of this family’s plight from multiple letters that I personally hand-delivered to him back in July. This is a family that’s trying to raise their kids in a safe, healthy home. They’re stressed and exhausted, and they’re facing significant financial hardship.
My question to the minister is this. Will the minister step in before the Wilsons are flooded out again in the coming months?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the question. I know the member has come to meet with me on, I think, at least two occasions, maybe three. We’ve exchanged correspondence, and we’ve also had one-on-one conversations around this topic. The approach I take as a minister in this new government is that my door is always open to members on the other side to have discussions like this.
I’ve directed staff — and he knows this — to look into this issue. They visited the family. They visited the site. They have looked at the flooding situation. Many of the reasons that the floods are being experienced on the property, which was not flooded in previous times, are activities outside of the land base of the actual property.
If the member has new information that he wants to sit down and discuss with me, I’d be more than happy to have a look at it.
[End of question period.]
Government Motions on Notice
MOTION 3 — COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
TO SIT IN TWO
SECTIONS
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the motion standing in my name on the order paper:
[That this House hereby authorize the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in two sections designated Section A and Section B; Section A to sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time, and Section B to sit in the Chamber of the Assembly, subject to the following rules:
1. The Standing Orders applicable to the Committee of the Whole House shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of Supply save and except that in Section A, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.
2. All Estimates shall stand referred to Section A, save and except those Estimates as shall be referred to Section B on motion without notice by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be decided without amendment or debate and be governed by Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation.
3. Section A shall consist of 17 Members, being 8 Members of the New Democratic Party and 8 Members of the BC Liberal Party and one member of the Green Party. In addition, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his or her nominee, shall preside over the debates in Section A. Substitution of Members will be permitted to Section A with the consent of that Member’s Whip, where applicable, otherwise with the consent of the Member involved. For the fourth session of the Forty-First Parliament, the Members of Section A shall be as follows: the Minister whose Estimates are under consideration and Jagrup Brar, Mitzi Dean, Bob D’Eith, Mable Elmore, Anne Kang, Rick Glumac, Rachna Singh, Simon Gibson, Jane Thornthwaite, Peter Milobar, Coralee Oakes, Mike Morris, Jordan Sturdy, Teresa Wat, Ellis Ross and Sonia Furstenau.
4. At fifteen minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of Section A will report to the House. In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial Estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the Government shall have a maximum of eight minutes, and the Official Opposition a maximum of five minutes, and all other Members (cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to summarize the Committee debate on a particular ministerial Estimate completed, such summaries to be in the following order:
(1) Other Members;
(2) Opposition; and
(3) Government.
5. Section B shall be composed of all Members of the House.
6. Divisions in Section A will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells four times.
7. Divisions in Section B will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells three times at which time proceedings in Section A will be suspended until completion of the division in Section B.
8. Section A is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during consideration thereof in Section A, and for all purposes Section A shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to Section A shall be made upon motion without notice by the Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals.
9. Bills or Estimates previously referred to a designated Committee may at any stage be subsequently referred to another designated Committee on motion of the Government House Leader or Minister responsible for the Bill as hereinbefore provided by Rule Nos. 2 and 8.]
Motion approved.
J. Sturdy: I rise to table a petition.
Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
Petitions
J. Sturdy: The Highline Road is a spectacular high-elevation road that connects the communities of D’Arcy and Nequatque with Seton Portage and Shalalth. For decades, the province denied it was a public road, but the courts determined otherwise, and it is indeed an MOTI responsibility.
Today I submit a petition signed by 574 hard-working people of the region, who rely on the road for services, employment and community connection. They ask that the ministry live up to its obligation and upgrade the road standard, add road-surfacing material and increase the frequency of grading and snow clearing, all in the name of safety and community-building.
The Highline Road is very suitably named, and I would be happy to tour the minister through the magnificent country so she can understand the challenges these community members face every day.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued debate on the budget.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Deputy Speaker: Members, those who don’t have a House duty, maybe you can either leave or be quiet.
Budget Debate
(continued)
S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the 2019 budget.
It doesn’t matter how long you’ve been in the Legislature. These are always important opportunities, and I think that all of us recognize what a humbling experience it is to be elected and to be able to stand in this chamber and speak on behalf of the constituents that sent you here.
I want to begin by thanking all members of the House for the comments that they’ve provided on the budget. Obviously, I don’t agree with all of them, and that isn’t surprising to anyone. But it is important that we have an opportunity to stand in this place. I think that at times we’re concerned when we hear differences, when we hear people that agree with elements of the budget. There are people who speak very strongly and passionately in this place. In fact, that’s exactly what should be expected, and it should be welcomed.
This is a place where each person who is elected brings their perception, their ideas and their support from the constituents that sent them here. We were elected to do just that — to come to this House and to speak on behalf of our constituents.
On that note, like other members of this chamber, I want to say how incredibly grateful I am to the people of Prince George–Valemount. I cannot be more proud to represent the people in that incredible region of British Columbia. I continue to be thankful for their faith in me and for the incredible resilience they show. I’m very proud to be the member for Prince George–Valemount.
The observations of MLAs from all parts of the province matter. I think when we look at this budget, as we will have more conversation about in the next few minutes, that input is essential. It’s even more important when you look at the balance of members in this House and where they geographically represent.
We have members from urban British Columbia, rural British Columbia. It is important that, in a budget, we see all of those regions reflected, and that’s why commentary in this House matters, because not everyone has the same experience in British Columbia. We live in different places. My riding is basically the size of Belgium. It takes a lot of time and energy to visit all of the parts of my riding, whereas some members in this House represent very small, urban ridings. We bring different perspectives.
I want to recognize the minister…. I also want to congratulate the Minister of Finance. She has delivered her second complete budget, and I want to thank her for…. At the beginning of her comments and in her budget speech, she spoke a little bit about her own personal experience — in fact, growing up just a few blocks away from the Legislature.
I always appreciate when ministers and members of this place talk a little bit about their own personal experience because, first of all, it’s never easy to do, and as much time as we spend in this place, we rarely know very much about each other. I want to thank her for being personal and sharing some of her own background. It served as an important reminder for me that our values are often shaped at a very early age and that all of those experiences better prepare us for our future challenges in life. So I do want to begin by recognizing the minister.
I also want to thank her staff and the ministry, because we know this: it takes hard work to put together a budget. In fact, a budget represents an incredible amount of work and consumes the ministry for many months. We’ve certainly had that experience.
On a personal note again, I, like others in the chamber, want to recognize my family for their continuous support and particularly for the forgiveness they have for missing those big days. All of us go through that experience. You know, they’re pretty fantastic at being willing to adjust dates and making things work. There are more of those special dates coming up. In fact, soon Bill and I will celebrate our 40th wedding anniversary. I am hoping that won’t be one of the big days that I have to miss.
I also want to thank our hard-working staff in both Prince George and Victoria for their dedication and their effort on a daily basis. I want to send a special get-well-soon wish to Krystine in my Prince George office, as she recovers from unexpected surgery, and to Dorothy for working so hard to carry the load while Krystine recuperates.
Before I go on to the balance of my comments, I do want to recognize my co-critic, the member for Surrey–White Rock. She has an excellent history and background. She comes from an executive background in the financial services sector and provides me and our caucus with invaluable insight and advice.
In this budget cycle, we decided to switch roles. My colleague provided the initial response to the budget, and it is now my opportunity to make a few remarks as we get ready to end the budget debate. But I can assure you, my co-critic and I look forward to continuing to examine the budget document in even greater detail, as we enter the estimates phase.
When I think about this budget, I look at the content and the context of this budget. I have to say that the devil is, of course, always in the detail. My colleague and I — and, in fact, members of this House and British Columbians — certainly discovered that after the rollout of this minister’s 2018 budget. We’ll talk a little bit about that.
However, much has changed in the course of the year, especially the outlook for the economy. As difficult as it is to say, we need to recognize — in this place and in the policies that we make and the decisions that we make — that storm clouds are beginning to gather globally.
According to Deloitte Insights most recent analysis, global economic growth peaked in 2018, and a slowdown is inevitable. The economic threats looming on the horizon are well known. And, in fact, today in question period, we talked about one of them: U.S. protectionism, including the ongoing softwood lumber dispute. It does not appear to be receding, despite the recently signed U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade agreement, which itself remains unratified.
The fallout from Brexit threatens to disrupt not only the United Kingdom and the European Union but will further market volatility on a global scale. And, of course, we will certainly feel the impact of a shrinking growth outlook in Asia and, in particular, in China.
Here in Canada we are not immune. Just in the last few weeks, Payless shoes is closing all 248 Canadian stores, including two in Prince George and four in the minister’s own riding in Victoria.
Hudson’s Bay is shutting down all 37 Home Outfitters across the country. And General Motors closure of the Oshawa assembly plant is telltale of rapid changes to Ontario’s traditional manufacturing base. In addition, Alberta continues to struggle by selling oil at a discount to it’s only customer, the United States.
As we all know, all of this is because of ongoing pipeline disputes that prevent the sale of Canadian energy products overseas — something that this government knows an awful lot about.
So what does that matter, Mr. Speaker? How does all of this impact the provincial economy in British Columbia. Well, it’s because we are not an island that stands alone isolated from the global economy. If anything, one of the things about our province is that we have one of the most highly diversified provincial economies in the country. And that means we need to be paying attention to those global storm clouds that are gathering. Because we stand to lose the most from a downturn in overseas markets, especially in Asia.
My point is that British Columbia has benefited from a strong economic performance with our trading partners abroad. But there is a risk in assuming that the strength of our economic momentum will last forever, because if there’s one thing we know, it won’t.
That causes us a great deal of concern. As the minister is well aware, the meltdown of the global economy in 2008 is absolutely proof of that, yet this minister and this government appear to shun the basic principles of financial planning: prudence, caution and being mindful — acutely aware — of factors outside of this government’s control. All of these are absent in Budget 2019. I’m sure it will come as no surprise to you that my comments today will outline the reasons why I and this side of the House will not be supporting the budget that the Finance Minister tabled just days ago.
That being said, I do want to recognize several things that members on our side of the House appreciate and support in the budget as presented. We know that it’s important to care for the most vulnerable. One of the most difficult things to do in this Legislature is to stand and listen to the partisan comments that suggest that the previous government paid no attention to people in British Columbia. The fact of the matter is: that is not true.
Today I want to take a moment to reflect on two things, in particular, that we are appreciative of in this minister’s budget. The increased support for foster parents and, in addition, the extension of those same benefits to extended family, who support children and keep them out of care. Every member in this House cares about vulnerable families, about vulnerable children. The difference is how we, through our policy-making and through the budgets we table, reflect that. I do want to give the government credit for that particular initiative.
Secondly, all of us in our communities, all of us in our families, all of us have been touched by the issue of having a loved one, a friend or a colleague who’s dealing with mental health and addictions issues. So we welcome the initiative to create a distinct program for child and youth mental health, with a $74 million investment.
Those are the kinds of things that do make a difference for British Columbians, and those are the kinds of things that all of us in this House should stand up and be supportive of. Every budget is like that. Every budget has items that have merit and that can be supported by the entire House. It is important for us to recognize some of those things today.
However, there are many items contained in this budget that cause me great concern. I will address some of those. But what concerns me the most is what doesn’t appear in this budget. This budget lacks some of the same substance as the government’s ill-fated throne speech. Budget 2019 has some deficiencies.
If I were to characterize this budget in just one sentence, I would have to say that it is a high-risk budget. While it appears to be balanced on paper, British Columbians should be aware that it would not have been possible without a one-time federal transfer payment of $1.6 billion.
Let’s look at why and where that money came from. This money came as a result of the province’s higher-than-anticipated economic performance in 2017, which generated extra credit when the final numbers came in. That happened in 2017. It happened as a result of the economic circumstances of this province in 2017. Suffice it to say, there is absolutely no guarantee that that will happen again.
Budget 2019 contains significant spending, increased debt and ongoing tax increases. Budget 2019 affirms this government’s rather alarming rate in program spending — a 26 percent increase, to be precise — and all of this within the last 18 months since this minister took office. The risk seems so obvious.
In the event of an economic downturn…. Let’s go back to the beginning of my comments. Those warnings are already being issued — that the momentum of the economy simply cannot continue. In the event of an economic downturn, how on earth will this government sustain this rate of spending without resorting to deficit financing?
We all know, by looking at the budget documents, that the projected surpluses are razor-thin. Again, there is absolutely no room for error or allowance for unpredictable economic challenges, unpredictable events such as another record wildfire season or extensive flooding. Those kinds of things could tilt the balance back into red ink.
Oddly enough, the Premier made the following observation during the height of last year’s wildfires. “Clearly, the traditional means of budgeting for fire season is laughable, and it’s not something that’s just developed in the last 13 months. It’s been going on for 30 years. Choose an arbitrary number, put it in the books, and hope for the best.”
Well, clearly, the Minister of Finance didn’t take heed of what the Premier said about that. Budget 2019 only makes accommodation for $101 million in 2019 — yes, that’s progress; we’re seeing some change — yet we have the benefit of knowing exactly how much those wildfires cost the province in the last two record-breaking wildfire seasons. In 2017, it was $648 million. In 2018, it was $615 million, despite only having $63 million in the budget.
How will the minister account for this a year from now? Let’s remember the reason this budget is balanced, on paper, is largely because of a $1.6 billion federal transfer based on economic circumstances that were generated in 2017, and there is absolutely no guarantee that that will be repeated.
If all of this is sounding fairly familiar, it should. It’s pretty much the same playbook that was used the last time this government was in power. And what was the end result? The last time the NDP was in government, they managed to take our province from first to worst in Canada. In fact, if you can imagine, this proud, incredible province was relegated to have-not status, where we became recipients of federal equalization payments. That is an embarrassment for this province, and it was totally avoidable. That’s the risk of paying attention to one side of the ledger: the spending side. The same applies to the debt.
Many constituents approach me, and I’m sure my colleagues, and ask how the minister can claim the budget is balanced yet still add $14.5 billion to the provincial debt over the next three years. Of that, $10 billion represents taxpayer-supported debt. It’s one thing to borrow and invest in public infrastructure, but it’s quite another to open the floodgates to the point where we could potentially reach a 90 percent debt-to-revenue ratio, all the while ignoring the signs of a slowing economy.
I know this government certainly didn’t like to talk about things like our triple-A credit rating. To be sure, the previous government, this side of the House, faced unending criticism from the NDP for placing a focus on the province’s enviable credit reputation, including our efforts to wipe out B.C.’s operating debt. And yesterday, in this very chamber, one of the members on the opposite side of the House stood up and celebrated the elimination of the operating debt as if it had happened overnight under the watch of this government.
Well, I want to point out that while a triple-A credit rating may not be top of mind for the governing side, I do know this: no one pays attention to a triple-A credit rating until you no longer have one. The impacts of a potential credit downgrade would have a significant impact on the province’s finances. One need look no further than the risk of our provincial debt on a per-capita basis.
Over the course of this minister’s fiscal plan, taxpayer-supported debt will increase from a current $1,595 per person to an astonishing $10,401 worth of debt for every British Columbian over the course of this government’s fiscal plan, and that’s in just three years. And that’s not even the worst of it. When you take into account the total spending plan, that number increases from the current $2,265 per person to $15,871 for every single British Columbian in just three years. I can assure you of this: that will attract the attention of credit-rating agencies.
Yet the primary source of revenue that this government appears to rely on is what they can extract from taxpayers in the form of income and carbon tax and an increased burden on the private sector. That is simply not responsible. It is not sustainable.
To support this government’s spending plan, there have been no less than 19 new and increased taxes since this government assumed office less than two years ago. These increases began in the 2017 budget update, then Budget 2018 and rolled right into Budget 2019. Two of the most prominent tax measures, the speculation tax and the employer health tax, stumbled out of the gate and required serious revisions just months later.
After considerable opposition from the private and public sectors, we arrived at the current form of both taxes — muted yet still deeply flawed. In the process, the spec tax and the EHT have generated considerable confusion in real estate markets and placed a heavy burden on both business and local government. For a government that has launched in excess of three or four dozen program reviews since they assumed office 18 months ago, the failed launch of both taxes is nothing less than remarkable.
Even to a casual observer, this indicates a complete lack of preparation, no public consultation and a willingness to apparently just make up tax policy on the fly without any regard for unintended consequences or the damage caused by uncertainty. Indeed, the general disposition of this government, reflected in their budgets, seems to be: raise taxes first; ask questions later. Well, I can assure you, we’re going to continue to ask questions — tough questions — because we know from experience that the devil is always in the details.
Let’s quickly look at the speculation tax. When it was introduced by the Finance Minister in her 2018 budget, British Columbians were told it will only target foreign and domestic speculators. She kept reassuring British Columbians that 99 percent of homeowners don’t need to worry.
Well, that was until the middle of January, when 1.6 million taxpayers suddenly discovered that they would indeed be captured by the speculation tax unless they file annual exemptions to prove to this government that they are not speculators. Failure to do so will result in homeowners being charged the maximum rate. This is quite simply negative-option billing, similar to what cable companies attempted to do in the 1990s until the federal government outlawed the practice. I can only imagine what’s going to happen when the tax bills start arriving on people’s doorsteps.
There are countless other examples of how the spec tax is penalizing hard-working British Columbians, and I know for a fact that members on the government bench are hearing those stories too. Yet we have not seen one of them — not one single one of them — stand up in this House and raise a single concern. Not one. So we have a so-called speculation tax, which we know is really a tax on assets.
The employer health tax. As I had mentioned, this is a government that’s fond of launching dozens of program reviews. A case in point is the MSP Task Force chaired by Dr. Lindsay Tedds. It also included former NDP Finance Minister Paul Ramsey. In the weeks before the minister came out with her budget, the 2018 Budget, the task force had released their interim report telling the province that under any circumstance, the province should not adopt a new replacement tax until the MSP was completely eliminated.
Yet within a few weeks, this minister, the Minister of Finance, blindsided the business community and municipal governments with the introduction of a new employer health tax that she had received specific advice not to introduce. No adequate preparation, no public consultation. It has a pretty familiar ring to it.
The EHT was just another prime example of a failed tax policy that this government introduced. Worst of all, the minister continues to charge MSP on top of the EHT through 2019. This double-dip approach to tax policy is apparently one of the few revenue generation plans we have seen from this government — no economic strategy, no jobs plan and 19 new or increased taxes.
British Columbians are also led to believe that the government will turn around the financial prospects of B.C. Hydro and ICBC in just one year. Unrealistically ambitious, if not downright naive.
Make no mistake about it. Taxpayers will be hit with higher property taxes because municipal governments have no other options to cover the increased costs, not to mention higher costs for goods and services. The list goes on. How can this possibly be interpreted as making life more affordable for British Columbians?
Then we get to the carbon tax. In 2017, the minister launched a series of four consecutive increases to the carbon tax. At the very same time, despite announcing increases, she abandoned the revenue-neutral feature of the carbon tax. In this budget alone, the government will collect $6 billion in carbon tax revenue, and to date, we have seen very little transparency on where that money will go. But what we do know is that less than 15 percent of that revenue will be used for CleanBC. The remaining 85 percent of the carbon tax will go into general revenue.
I seem to recall this minister saying taxpayers didn’t mind paying a little more as long as the revenue went specifically to green initiatives. Well, surprise, British Columbians. That promise isn’t being kept either. I guess the devil really is in the details. As I said earlier in my remarks, this should be considered a high-risk budget. It’s only balanced because of a one-time federal transfer payment and the carbon tax going through the roof.
The spending commitments contained in this budget are significant. And where are all the more expensive promises, the undelivered campaign promises that are not reflected in the budget? British Columbians were told there would be a $10-a-day daycare program. Today you have to be the winner of a lottery, basically, to be one of those lucky daycares that has been selected by this government. In other words, winners and losers for families in British Columbia. And where did the $400 renter’s annual rebate go?
There is a wide range of capital projects previously announced by this government — hospitals, highways, schools — simply missing. The capital plans laid out in Budget 2019 — nowhere to be found. It is one thing to have lots of photo ops, but there are MLAs in this House who are deeply concerned that much-needed infrastructure has simply fallen off the list of priorities of this government.
On top of that, business confidence is dropping in the province. Investors are uncertain about whether or not B.C. remains a good place to invest. Housing starts are projected to drop. Natural resource revenues are projected to drop by 30 percent. And miraculously, ICBC is going to go from a deficit of $1.8 billion in the current fiscal year to a positive balance of $50 million.
Well, batten down the hatches, British Columbia. This is a government that can see the looming storm clouds on our economic horizon, just like everyone else, yet they want you to believe that everything’s going to be okay.
Let’s end with this. Here’s what Jock Finlayson of the B.C. Business Council had to say about Budget 2019: “I think the government, in this budget, is coasting a bit on what has been a fairly strong economy. What we do see is a material slowdown in the U.S. and globally. I don’t think this budget takes enough account of the economic risks that are there.” So you don’t have to take my word for it or that of the members on this side of the House.
The business sector, economists, are saying it’s time to pay attention. Yet this budget represents an expression of unyielding optimism. The Finance Minister keeps saying: “Don’t worry. Be happy.” Well, British Columbians deserve a government that isn’t content to cross their fingers and hope the economic situation doesn’t deteriorate. Frankly, this budget is long on spending, increased taxes and a growing debt load. Sadly, it leaves British Columbians vulnerable in a time when there is a growing concern about a slowing global economy.
When this government took office, they inherited the strongest economy and the No. 1 job-creating jurisdiction in Canada. That’s correct. They inherited the situation. And despite the minister standing in the House taking credit for that, we all know it didn’t happen in 18 months. The devil is in the details. Batten down the hatches, British Columbia.
Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to acknowledge that we’re gathering on the traditional territory of the Lekwungen-speaking people, members of the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations. Simgigat, Sigidimhaanak, K’uba Wilksihlkw. I’d like to acknowledge the matriarchs, the leaders in these chambers. I’d like to thank the member opposite and all the members who have spoken to this budget, Budget 2019, a budget that makes life better.
When I stand in these chambers, I never forget where I came from. I never forget the fact that I was raised in the projects by a single mother, as an Indigenous east side kid who went to Van Tech, who knew a thing or two about going without. I’m a proud mother. I’m proud to be Nisga’a. I’m honoured to have the opportunity to stand in these chambers to be an advocate on behalf of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Indigenous people across this province.
When I think about this budget making people’s lives better, I think about what 50 bucks means to people. When you have nothing, 50 bucks can go a long way. But before I continue, I want to acknowledge something, because this budget is about values. And my values are….
I didn’t get here alone. I want to thank my mom, who is my constituent. I want to thank my grandparents for their resilience and strength as Indigenous people, who taught me to work hard, fight hard and to never forget who I am. I am the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, a diverse riding that has faced challenges. I have a constituency office at 1st and Commercial, the Drive. People love the Drive because it represents our eclectic diversity.
I want to acknowledge my staff who open the doors every day, Carven and Amy; Kevin; the volunteers that help out in my office. I want to thank my ministry staff who help me every day — Cindy, Mike, Negin. I’m surrounded by people that are paddling with me. I am not here alone.
I am here with the expectation that I am going to make a difference in people’s lives, and I take that duty and honour very seriously. So again, I am standing here with the values of gratitude. It is my privilege to stand here, not only as the MLA but as the Minister for Advanced Education, Skills and Training.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Before I continue, I want to talk about what I think the themes are of this budget. The theme is the policies…. The announcement is about making good public policy. I’ve listened to the members opposite shrill about the fishnets and how we’re overspending and we’re bloated and we’re going back to the ’90s. I have a different version of this budget.
Barack Obama wrote a book called The Audacity of Hope. I stand in these chambers with hope that if you make decisions with people in mind, people’s lives will get better. So I have a different version of truth in the way I see this budget and how it impacts people in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.
I am thinking about the child care centres, thinking of the Woodward’s building. I used to go to the Woodward’s building when I was a young kid, when there were dollar days. I’m thinking about the poverty reduction strategy that we were committed to doing because it’s going to benefit people. I’m thinking about that $50, that extra $50 to my constituents and people across British Columbia. A small amount can go a long way. And again, I will never forget where I came from.
Foster parents. Before I got into politics, I was an advocate for children. Why? Because I wanted the rights of children in care to be upheld. In this budget, we extended a policy to ensure that extended family members can get the same rates as foster parents. That is good public policy. It was a recommendation from Grand Chief Ed John. We acted quickly because it was the right thing to do.
I think about levelling the playing field and increasing benefits for foster parents. I’m not the only one who thinks that’s a good idea. Even the members opposite agree that levelling the playing field is good public policy.
I think about this budget and education and seismic upgrades to Lord Strathcona, with a $25 million investment. I think about the 380 homes that are now in Mount Pleasant. I think about my constituents who had to sleep on the streets, who have faced homelessness. Let’s not forget what brings people there. Let’s never forget that people don’t wake up homeless, that those 380 beds are making a difference for people in Mount Pleasant.
I’m thinking about the $400 million investment through the B.C. child opportunity benefit for kids going all the way up to 18. I’m going to pause for a minute. It won’t be clawed back.
We are making decisions to lift people up. This budget is about “Lift as we climb.” It’s balanced. We have a triple-A rating. But it’s all about people. If you create good opportunities, you get good outcomes, if you invest in people. The audacity of the members opposite to act like if you invest in people, there will be consequences — the fear that goes along with investing in people. Well, there’s a consequence if you fail to invest in people, if you continue to leave them behind.
When it comes down to kids, I will always stand on their side. I’m the mother of two children. I want to say hi to my young, beautiful daughters, Maya and Makayla, and my husband, Cassidy. I wouldn’t be here without you. Thank you for your sacrifice so I can stand in these chambers and be a voice for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training. I signed up for this job to make a difference.
I want to thank the Minister of Finance. She’s a Métis woman. She’s an Indigenous woman. She stood in these chambers with the NDP government. It’s balanced. It’s about people. It’s a game changer. It’s going to make people’s lives better.
On another note about Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, there’s going to be more access to justice through pilot programs that are going to level the playing field. There’s going to be a $76 million investment in mental health. There are going to be retrofits — $902 million to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
There isn’t enough time in these chambers to talk about all the amazing things that are happening through Budget 2019, but I want to highlight four things, as the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training.
Tuition-free adult basic education. Free tuition for adult basic education is going to continue. There are no cuts. We are not going back to the decisions that were made in 2013. We are going to continue investing in people.
We are going to continue investing in tech seats — 2,900 tech seats, the biggest lift in a decade. I know we don’t want to talk about the last 16 years, but let’s talk about the last ten.
Student housing, half a billion dollars in student housing. We’ve invested in almost 1,200 beds in the last 19 months, and we’ve got more to come.
The highlight of this budget for me, and all the thank-you letters that came from students…. It’s even benefitting Keith Baldrey, our legislative reporter for Global. It made the front page of the newspapers. Guess what it is. We eliminated interest on B.C. student loans. That is good public policy.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk about how we are making life better for British Columbians. Haawa.
Mr. Speaker: Minister of Finance.
Hon. C. James: I see no further speakers, so I’ll close off the debate.
I want to thank the members for their comments and for their interest in getting involved in debating the budget. While I certainly didn’t agree with all the comments that were made, and I’m not going to go through all of those pieces, I think it is a very important process that we go through in this legislative chamber. It is a very important role that both government and opposition play in debating, holding the government accountable and putting forward their ideas and approaches. It’s a key part of our democracy. So I want to say how much I appreciate the discussion and the debate.
I also want to say that I really appreciated the opportunity for members’ comments that they brought forward and advocacy that they brought forward on behalf of their communities. Again, each of us comes to this place from a community, elected by a community, and brings forward the advocacy and the important issues from their community. That’s a critical part, again, of our democracy and a critical part for government to pay attention to because those voices are important and are reflected in this Legislature.
Just as I do when I listen to those discussions during the budget debate, just as we do formally through the Select Standing Committee on Finance, I will continue, and our government will continue, to listen to those voices, regardless of whether we agree or disagree, to take the opportunity to be able to hear the feedback, to hear the ideas and, yes, to hear the criticisms that come forward. I, again, believe that that’s an important part of democracy.
Budget 2019 continues the work that we began in Budget 2018, and that was built on listening to the people in British Columbia. I’m putting their needs first each and every day. You know, when we became government, the people of the province very clearly said that they wanted and expected a government to reflect the critical issues that were facing them. They wanted us to address those issues. So we got started as a government.
Certainly in 2018, two of the key issues, as you know from our previous budget, were child care and housing. I just want to comment for a minute, because I’ve heard a few members on the other side talk about the importance of making sure that there are supports for business and for investment. I have to tell you that in fact, child care and housing — and this is probably the crux of the difference between the past government and ourselves — are business investment issues. They are, in fact, not only social issues and good for families, good for communities and good for seniors. They’re, in fact, business issues. They are, in fact, issues that are critical for us to continue to grow a sustainable economy.
When we see the kind of housing crisis we see in British Columbia, that’s a detriment to growing our economy. When businesses can’t attract employees, when they can’t retain employees, that’s a detriment to a strong economy. It’s not either-or, as we’ve heard from some on the other side. It’s both. It’s making sure that we make those investments in people to grow a strong economy. That’s what you see in Budget 2019, and you’re really seeing the results.
We’ve got continued strong economic growth; wage growth; lowest unemployment rate in our country; prudence built into the budget, despite what we’ve heard from a few comments on the other side; $1.5 billion in contingencies; $1 billion in forecast allowance; a growth projection below the Economic Forecast Council — again to build in prudence.
We are maintaining our strong economy while making key investments in people. I just want to run through a couple of those pieces. I don’t have time to go through all the good news in the budget. I don’t have that opportunity, but I just want to go through a few pieces.
B.C. child opportunity benefit. Eliminating interest on B.C. student loans. Providing stable long-term funding for First Nations communities. Eliminating medical services premiums. Investing in the largest investment in climate action in B.C.’s history in Clean BC. Continuing our historic investments in a made-in-B.C. child care program and continuing with our 30-point housing plan to ensure that housing is available for all British Columbians. Major capital investment — $20 billion — which will create jobs and build the infrastructure needed across British Columbia. And $800 million for tax benefit for businesses who are investing in equipment, who want to look at green technologies.
It’s a long list. I know that I don’t have time to run through it all. Is there more to do? Yes. No question there’s more to do, and we are going to continue our work. We’re going to continue our work in investing in people to build a strong economy. We’re going to continue investing in a green, clean economy to create jobs and spur on investment.
It is a real honour to be Finance Minister for this province. It’s a real honour to work with our Premier and to work with my colleagues across our caucus and across government.
I want to say a huge thank-you to all of them, because you don’t build a budget by yourself. You build a budget based on the values and the hard work of your team that comes forward. So I want to express my huge appreciation to my colleagues for the incredible work that they do each and every day and the support that they provide to make sure that the ideas and the values are represented in Budget 2019.
I want to thank the staff in the Finance Ministry. The public is very well served by the civil servants that we have, who represent the public well. I want to express my appreciation to them. Certainly, the staff in my office and my constituency office and my Finance office again provide an extraordinary support.
With that, I move, seconded by the hon. Premier, that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.
Motion approved on the following division:
YEAS — 44 | ||
Chouhan | Kahlon | Begg |
Brar | Heyman | Donaldson |
Mungall | Bains | Beare |
Chen | Popham | Trevena |
Sims | Chow | Kang |
Simons | D’Eith | Routley |
Ma | Elmore | Dean |
Routledge | Singh | Leonard |
Darcy | Simpson | Robinson |
Farnworth | Horgan | James |
Eby | Dix | Ralston |
Mark | Fleming | Conroy |
Fraser | Chandra Herbert | Rice |
Malcolmson | Furstenau | Weaver |
Olsen |
| Glumac |
NAYS — 40 | ||
Cadieux | de Jong | Bond |
Polak | Lee | Stone |
Coleman | Wat | Bernier |
Thornthwaite | Paton | Ashton |
Barnett | Yap | Martin |
Davies | Kyllo | Reid |
Morris | Stilwell | Ross |
Oakes | Johal | Redies |
Rustad | Milobar | Sturdy |
Clovechok | Shypitka | Hunt |
Throness | Tegart | Stewart |
Sultan | Gibson | Isaacs |
Letnick | Thomson | Larson |
| Foster |
|
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.
Copyright © 2019: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada