Fifth Session, 41st Parliament (2020)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, February 20, 2020
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 310
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, a youth first voices
report, From Marginalized to Magnified: | |
Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, special report, Raising
Young People’s Voices on the Issue | |
| Orders of the Day | |
Budget Debate (continued) | |
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2020
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: D. Barnett.
Introductions by Members
J. Thornthwaite: I’m delighted to be able to welcome the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee’s women in politics group from Vancouver. There are eight of them here. I’d like to recognize and welcome Elena Banfield, Shayna Horvath, Grace Miller-Day, Alexis Pavlich, Enav Zusman, Leah Rubin, Noa Farrage and David Friedland. Could we please welcome them all to the House today.
Hon. S. Robinson: I’d like to welcome the members from the CJPAC that are here today that the member across the way just introduced. I want to wish them b’ruchim haba’im. Welcome to the people’s House. I look forward to meeting them all later today.
I also have a series of introductions. The UBCM executive has been here yesterday and today. They hosted us to a lovely gathering yesterday. They’re in the precinct and meeting with various members of the House, so we can give them a warm welcome.
We have Mayor Maja Tait, Coun. Brian Frenkel, Coun. Laurey-Anne Roodenburg, Coun. Jen Ford, Coun. Arjun Singh, Coun. Pete Fry, Coun. Craig Hodge, Mayor Mitch Campsall, director Grace McGregor, Coun. Paul Albrecht, Coun. Trish Mandewo, director Roly Russell, Coun. Carl Jensen, Mayor Jack Crompton, Coun. Gord Klassen, Coun. Lori Mindnich, Coun. Chad Eliason, director Travis Hall, director Claire Moglove, Coun. Ben Geselbracht and Coun. Helen Poon. Will the members of this chamber please make them all very welcome.
N. Simons: Nick Carter-Desbiens is an English literature grad from the University of Victoria, and he’s in this House today to observe the functions of government. He has some aspirations to work in government one day. I hope we don’t change his mind. Would the House please make him welcome.
J. Rice: I wanted to make introductions for the newest addition to my family. This is my son, Lu̓á Alan Rice. Would the House please make him feel welcome.
E. Foster: Yesterday I had a very pleasant surprise. I was at a meeting. I returned to my office to find my entire family from Nova Scotia had come out to help me celebrate my birthday.
It gives me great pleasure at this time to introduce, and I will go just in the order that they’re sitting up in the gallery: my mom, Leytha Foster; my sister-in-law Brenda; my sister Janice; my sister-in-law Michelle; my brother Donald and my brother Mark; and of course, my lovely wife, Janice.
Thank you all so very much for coming.
Hon. J. Horgan: I say to the member for Vernon-Monashee that he only looks a day older than he did yesterday.
I want to remind members of this place that there was a long-standing tradition, that there used to be pages who presented in this place — for decades, in fact.
I remember full well that when I was in grade 8, I was called to the office at Reynolds High School. Some of you may know I went to Reynolds High School here in Victoria. I didn’t go to the office, because I thought I was in trouble. Turns out they were selecting the pages for that year, and I would have been in the Legislature about 2½ decades earlier had I shown up.
Yet here I am, and I’m delighted to see so many Roadrunners here again today. They’re the grade 10 social studies class from Reynolds Secondary. Alecia Jones, their teacher, is here.
Would the House please give a roaring welcome to what could have been pages but now are just participants in our democratic process.
M. Dean: It’s my honour today to introduce Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Forrest of Canadian Armed Forces from CFB Esquimalt. He’s here for his defence security diploma for Canadian Armed Forces. I’m giving advance notice to all members here today that he will be writing an essay on his experiences here.
I’m also very honoured to welcome a group of guests today, starting with Ian Fleetwood. He’s a neurosurgeon at Victoria General Hospital, a clinical associate professor at UBC and the president of the Capital Region Female Minor Hockey Association. Also from that association, we have his daughter Lauren, who is a player. We have Kristen Kay, who’s the director of communications; Maegan Thompson, who’s the VP, hockey operations; Lisa Parkes, who’s the secretary; Steve Marsh, who’s the referee-in-chief. We’re also honoured to have Barry Petrachenko, who’s the CEO of B.C. Hockey.
Would everybody please make them all very welcome.
P. Milobar: Hailing from Canada’s tournament capital in Kamloops, we’re always very proud of all of our athletes that participate in sport and certainly the ones that participate on the national and international stage that little bit more.
Currently at the Scotties Tournament of Hearts, Team B.C. is skipped by the Corryn Brown rink from Kamloops, a team of young ladies that are still in university. Our former Canadian junior champions — this morning they won a nail-biter playoff against Nova Scotia to move on to the final eight at the Scotties.
Will the House please congratulate and cheer them on to bring home the gold — or the Scotties — for British Columbia on the upcoming weekend here.
Tributes
BRIAN PORTER
J. Sims: Today I want to acknowledge two of my colleagues who are no longer with us. Brian Porter, a longtime member of the BCTF bargaining division and later a member of the field service division, passed away unexpectedly in his sleep a few nights ago.
His support and advice on bargaining matters, attention to detail, wise input and institutional memory served many bargaining teams. His dry wit and sense of humour were appreciated by many, and his love of bagpipes was well known. He will be very much missed. I can tell you that during some of those darkest hours of bargaining, he was the one who could bring a smile to everyone’s face and lighten the moment.
Please join me in extending our heartfelt condolences to his family.
MICKEY KINAKIN
Hon. K. Conroy: I, too, have sad news to share from our community. On February 9, Mickey Kinakin passed away. Mickey was born in 1950 in Nelson, and at an early age, his family moved to Rutland, where Mickey attended school. He decided to pursue further education and moved to Castlegar to attend Selkirk College. Upon completion of his studies, Mickey began working for Selkirk College, where he worked in various positions, including the maintenance department; the library; and, finally, as an occupational health and safety officer.
Anyone who was a school trustee in B.C. would remember Mickey as a passionate advocate for community, children and education, as he spent 31 years serving as a trustee on the local school board. He was a strong supporter of language immersion programs, in particular the Russian immersion program — one of a kind in B.C., located in Castlegar.
In recognition of his many years of service, he was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2012. After he retired from the school board and just before he got ill, he told me he still wanted to be involved and was wondering about sitting on the board of UBC — always giving, always incredibly passionate about education.
He is survived by his wife, Adriana; daughters Varenka and Natalia; sons Darren, Yuri and Max and their spouses; siblings Bill and Nettie; many nieces and nephews; and countless friends. But his favourite part of his legacy was his grandchildren, Lucy, Wendy, Sofia and Julia.
A celebration of life will be held in the spring. He’ll be greatly missed by so many. In true Mickey fashion, he asked, if people would like to remember him, to please make a donation in his name to the Blueberry Creek Community School, in which he played an incredible role, to carry on its existence. It’s an incredible hub of services to children from all ages: infant-toddlers, preschools, right through to school aged, teens and seniors.
It’s a lasting legacy that showed Mickey’s commitment to the community. I ask the House to please join me in sending our condolences to Mickey’s family.
Introductions by Members
S. Malcolmson: I welcome to the Legislature Nanaimo city councillor Ben Geselbracht. He and I are both missing a great occasion in the city of Nanaimo, where Snuneymuxw First Nation is returning its flag to fly on the flagpole of Nanaimo city hall. It’s a testament to the leadership of Mayor Leonard Krog and Snuneymuxw Chief Mike Wyse.
S. Furstenau: I have the delight to introduce two people to the House today. I have the great pleasure and fortune to work alongside Candace Spilsbury, the chair of school district 79. Candace is serving her fourth term on the school district. She demonstrates an inexhaustible passion and commitment to being in service to education in the Cowichan Valley.
Also here today in the gallery is Brenda Bailey. Brenda is the executive director of the digital media association of B.C., DigiBC. This non-profit organization represents the growing creative tech sector in B.C., and Brenda’s leadership has been particularly innovative in regards to their education initiatives.
I’m excited to connect with both Brenda and Candace over lunch today, and I’m expecting great synergies.
Please join me in welcoming Candace and Brenda to the House.
Tributes
MARGARET ROSS
J. Sims: I also want to remember today Margaret Ross, a teacher and a member of the professional development division at the BCTF that included social justice. Margaret’s commitment to teacher education, teacher professional development and, later, her work on social justice areas — including anti-racism, LGBTQ community — will be long remembered. She will be missed by her family.
Please help me by sending her family heartfelt condolences.
Introductions by Members
D. Routley: I’d like to introduce two heroes of the theatre scene in Nanaimo, Dean and Diane Chadwick. Dean is the 2019 recipient of the Nanaimo Honour in Culture Award for his fine work over several decades in amateur theatre in Nanaimo. I want to welcome them and let people know that my experience with Dean has led to me being a very subdued person, in terms of self-expression. We can credit Dean for that.
Thank you, Dean.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL M201 — ASSESSMENT
(SPLIT ASSESSMENT
CLASSIFICATION)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020
T. Stone presented a bill intituled Assessment (Split Assessment Classification) Amendment Act, 2020.
T. Stone: I move that the bill intituled the Assessment (Split Assessment Classification) Amendment Act, 2020, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce this bill today for a second time. As our urban centres grow, the resulting plans for significant densification are placing huge pressure on small businesses through dramatically increased property taxes based on the unused airspace above their heads.
This is resulting in the hollowing out of many neighbourhoods as an increasing number of small businesses make the painful decision to lay off their employees and close their doors.
The good news is that a working group, including a number of Metro Vancouver municipalities, has come up with a solution. These local governments are supported by a broad coalition of stakeholders, including arts, culture, neighbourhood and small business organizations, as well as supportive UCBM and B.C. chamber resolutions.
The solution proposed includes two parts: first, the creation of a new commercial property subclass for the airspace above small businesses and other affected organizations; and secondly, maximum flexibility for local governments to set the property tax rate on this new subclass as they see fit from zero dollars to just below the existing commercial property tax rate.
I’m proud that this bill provides for the exact solution that local governments have asked for. That is an optional tool that they can choose to use or not use, at a rate that they determine makes the most sense for each unique situation that they’re trying to address. We urge the government to call this bill for debate, as small businesses, arts groups and charities are counting on the government to take swift action by empowering local governments to use this new tool as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
T. Stone: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M201, Assessment (Split Assessment Classification) Amendment Act, 2020, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
HUMAN TRAFFICKING AWARENESS
AND SEX TRAFFICKING OF
CHILDREN
J. Thornthwaite: Just this week, Victoria police are inviting victims of human trafficking in the Victoria area to come forward. The news came after the arrest of four individuals suspected of numerous human trafficking–related charges who have ties to the Victoria area. This Saturday is Human Trafficking Awareness Day. Sex trafficking of children is the fastest-growing business in organized crime.
The Rutherford Institute commentary on January 28 called “The Super Bowl’s Biggest Losers: The Boys and Girls Being Sold for Sex 20 Times a Day” reported that “adults purchase children for sex at least 2.5 million times a year in the U.S.” and that “every two minutes, a child is exploited in the sex industry…. On average, a child might be raped by 6,000 men during a five-year period.”
They are being lured, forced, drugged, addicted and have no choice. “Every transaction is rape…. This is an industry that revolves around cheap sex on the fly…sold to 50 men for 25 bucks apiece, while their handlers make $150,000 to $200,000…a year.”
It’s happening right here in British Columbia in all of our communities. Just ask your local police or your local rape relief centre, or even ask your school district: “Where do you think these guys hang out to lure the next victim? Who are the johns?” It’s just your regular guy next door, from all walks of life. It could be your co-worker, doctor, pastor or spouse.
Last fall I went on a ride-along with Kamloops RCMP, who tackle this issue every day. Kids are being taken to decrepit, run-down houses, trailers, tents and even the forest. Police can rescue them, but they go back to their pimps because they’re addicted, and the pimps have the drugs. Addiction, trauma; addiction, trauma; and addiction, trauma.
We need to wake up that this horrible crime is happening in all of our communities, and we need to find and prosecute human traffickers and rapists. We can only do that when our system fully supports the victims, and we have a long way to go.
On national Human Trafficking Awareness Day, let’s stand together for the victims, the children.
SURREY FOOD BANK
R. Singh: We all know or have heard of local organizations which have a real and tangible impact on the lives of families and whose services have become vital for many in our communities — organizations which are essential parts of the social fabric of a city and its people.
For almost four decades, Surrey Food Bank has been one such organization. What started as a philanthropic food cupboard by a group of local churches in response to economic decline in 1981 has now become an 8,000-square-foot warehouse and a fleet of vehicles serving over 14,000 people a month.
The food bank not only makes food accessible to residents of Surrey and Delta when they fall on harder times, but it also connects people to other community services to help them become self-sufficient and navigate additional challenges they might face.
In addition, they run specific programs for seniors and families with pregnant mothers and children under one, while their hamper to your home program serves those with mobility or other health issues. The organization runs on donations of food and money from individuals and organizations, but at its heart are the selfless efforts of its dedicated volunteers and staff whose primary objective is serving the people of their community. It is these people that make the functioning of a food bank a success.
Surrey Food Bank is the epitome of an organization that is of the people and for the people. I, not least, am in awe of their commitment to serve our community. I request you all to join me in appreciating all those involved in this service and the incredible work that they do.
SQUAMISH YOUTH FACILITY PROJECT
J. Sturdy: The Squamish youth centre will, unfortunately and somewhat unexpectedly, be closing on March 16. It was hoped that the funky yet tired old building would last through construction of a new facility, but unfortunately, that’s just not going to be possible.
The good news in this story is that the brand-new youth hub is being built and is expected to open in early 2021. The other good news is that programming for youth in the community will still be delivered even while construction takes place. Community partnerships with the district of Squamish, Sea to Sky Community Services, the arts council and other organizations across the community will offer programming at various locations in Squamish.
Significant work has gone into the development of a new youth strategy to meet the growing needs in Squamish. In November 2019, the district of Squamish entered into an MOU with a number of agencies, including the Squamish Nation, Vancouver Coastal Health, school district 48 and Sea to Sky Community Services to operate a new youth hub. Those young people that are going to be served were included — in fact, integral — in developing the district of Squamish’s new youth strategy with a key value being to bring programs to youth.
Youth programs and spaces should be affordable, diverse, inclusive and accessible. They should also be offered in places such as the new youth hub, the library, at recreation facilities and in schools. As well as continuing to offer programs and social services to young people during construction of the new youth hub, Sea to Sky Community Services is also focusing on fundraising for the $1.5 million needed to build the new facility.
I certainly support the work that Squamish has done to engage youth in developing a new strategy and trust there will be support for this worthwhile project as the funding campaign continues.
IAN FLEETWOOD AND GIRLS HOCKEY
M. Dean: “Pass. Here. Shoot.” Familiar calls we all hear at a hockey game — boys and girls. But in March 2019, the capital regional district was hearing less from girls. Their enrolment had declined by one-third over the previous four seasons.
In contrast, in Saanich, the atom division director was charged with building a female hockey program. From 2015 to 2018, it was the fastest-growing female hockey program in the whole of B.C. It was thanks to Ian Fleetwood, a neurosurgeon at Victoria General Hospital and clinical associate professor at the University of British Columbia, a dad of two who’d been a coach or assistant coach with 17 teams across Canada.
While developing this program, Ian identified several barriers that were making hockey programs for girls not as accessible. He recognized that a dedicated all-female minor hockey association was the way to go. He found help. While the initial effort to launch a female minor hockey association failed, they persisted and were successful in 2019.
The Capital Region Female Minor Hockey Association has registered 217 players, including 79 girls who are new to hockey.
Female registration in the CRD has grown by one-quarter, and the association hosted 14 teams in its inaugural season, doubling the number of local teams.
The goal of the association is to guarantee that any girl can play hockey on an all-female team regardless of geography, skill level or financial need. I’ve watched their games and been in the locker room. The girls are building leadership, mentorship, friendship and having fun.
Thank you to Ian and all of his colleagues for bringing hockey and the thrill of competition to more girls in our region. He is truly a champion.
RESPONSE TO INDIGENOUS
AND CLIMATE JUSTICE
ISSUES
A. Olsen: Let’s acknowledge the mix of emotions that British Columbians and Canadians are feeling right now. Confusion, frustration, anger, anxiety, fear. Love, compassion, kindness and hope.
The pressure building on Indigenous and climate justice issues is immense. The Indigenous justice issues before us right now are deeply personal for me. The scale and scope of the challenge we face as a modern society expands far beyond the horizon.
Our political systems have conditioned us to take our spot on one side or the other. Unfortunately, it cannot be defined into this or that. For many people, they are experiencing deep conflict — internal conflict with self, external conflict with each other and with nature. It cannot be a question of whether you stand with me or stand with them. Let’s stand with each other.
For two decades, I struggled with this identity crisis that we are all now enduring. When I reconciled that I was neither, either, or, nor would I ever be — rather, that I was this and that — that’s when I found self-acceptance.
When we face conflict with ourselves, each other and the life-sustaining world around us, at the centre are relationships. Drawing lines in the sand and demanding that we align ourselves on one side or the other does not improve those relationships.
Conflict is at the core of this political system. It’s how we score points. It’s how we evaluate and determine the winners and the losers.
When we are firmly on our side of the line, it’s easy to be overcome by confusion, frustration, anger, anxiety and fear. When we are sitting with a seat at the same table, we can start to understand, and it’s through understanding that love, compassion, kindness and hope emerge.
THEATRE ACTIVITIES OF DEAN CHADWICK
D. Routley: I’d like to talk to the House today about my friend Dean Chadwick. Dean is the 2019 recipient of the Nanaimo Honour in Culture Award for his fine work over several decades in theatre.
He remembers the smiles of his relatives as he sang and danced across the hearth of the fireplace. But for Dean, it was never about applause. It was always about the feelings that he could bring to other people. He loves all of it: acting, singing, dancing, directing, producing.
His favourite roles include Sweeney Todd; Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye; Jesus, in Jesus Christ Superstar; and so many others. Dean is a teacher, both philosophically and practically. During his training at Vancouver Island University, he participated in a plethora of drama, theatre and creative writing courses.
Today he is proud to be a retired elementary school teacher, where he spent 22 years honing his skills to connect with a variety of individuals and then applying those skills to instructing actors in his other passion, theatre.
Now, Dean…. I did a play with Dean. It was La Cage aux Folles. I played an arch conservative politician. I have examples to go by. My daughter was engaged to the son of a gay couple. In order to escape the media, I had to dress in drag. When it came to the Legislature, I’d have the costume on under my suit. I don’t know how many of you know how good silk stockings feel under a suit.
Interjection.
D. Routley: Yeah. Some of you may.
What I got introduced to was the talent of people in our communities. Two of the people played this gay couple. One of them was on stage, lamenting, broken-hearted, and the other, who was backstage, was crying, still in character backstage. I could see how much emotion people poured into what they were doing.
The great talents that exist in our communities — retired, professional and amateur. I want to celebrate these people, the people of the arts community, of theatre and, particularly, my friend Dean Chadwick.
Oral Questions
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TARGETS
AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
UNITS
T. Stone: Almost three years ago the NDP promised to deliver 114,000 units of new affordable housing in every region of the province. Based on the latest B.C. Housing report, the second quarterly report which I have here in my hand…. On page 4, the report says that the government has actually, to date, only completed 2,430 units. Now, that’s only 2 percent of the lofty target of 114,000 units.
Also on page 4, it says that only 71 affordable rental housing units have been completed to date. The number of completed housing units in the community housing fund is zero. The number of completed units in the Indigenous housing fund is also zero to this point.
Again, these are not our numbers. These are B.C. Housing’s numbers. They are the minister’s numbers, the government’s numbers.
The question to the minister, quite simply, is this. Will the minister tell British Columbians not how many announcements she has made to this point but how many actual units of affordable housing will have been delivered, will have been opened and will have people in them by the end of 2020?
Hon. S. Robinson: I can certainly let the members know that as of December, we have completed over 4,300 new homes. That means that 4,300 people now have homes that they can afford. It means that 4,300-plus people, I imagine, have a safe roof over their heads. It means that we took action very swiftly.
We are two years into our plan, and we have another 7,700 under active construction. What does that mean? It means that in the months ahead, we’re going to see more and more people move into homes that meet their needs.
Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.
T. Stone: The minister’s housing plan has been a complete failure to this point. The minister is failing to deliver the affordable housing units that have been promised. The minister has no plan to increase housing supply.
Rents are going up across British Columbia. Housing starts are projected to decline by 22 percent this forthcoming year, while prices are going to go up 10 percent. This is a growing disaster under this government.
Now, the minister loves to talk about all of the new homes that have been “initiated” in her plan. On page 4, homes initiated is defined as projects that don’t yet have their final B.C. Housing approval. That follows the previous definition of initiated, which was in the Q1 report for B.C. Housing only a few months earlier. It was: “Initiated are projects that have been announced but don’t have any funding attached.”
How many units of affordable housing have no funding attached to this point?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
T. Stone: How many units of housing have no funding attached? Again on page 4 of the minister’s report, the answer is 46 percent of all announced units to this point. Page 11 of her report also says that 42 percent of announced units are behind schedule. Maybe this explains why Budget 2020 this week commits government to over 2,400 fewer units of affordable housing over their first four years in power.
Now, it’s not just us saying this. Thom Armstrong, the CEO of the Co-operative Housing Federation of B.C…. I know that the minister knows Thom well and the great work he and his team do. He had this to say during budget day this week in referencing B.C. Housing’s 2020 service plan showing the government delaying completion of over 2,400 units. These are Thom Armstrong’s words: “Kicking the can down the road…will only make B.C.’s housing crisis worse,” and “It was a difficult day for us.”
Again, to the minister, recognizing what an absolute failure the NDP’s housing plan has been, will the minister admit today that her so-called ten-year housing plan is actually a 100-year plan?
Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I’m very proud of this government’s action on housing because we have nearly 23,000 homes that are completed or underway in over 90 communities. In fact, it would appear that the member does not understand, actually, how construction happens. You know why? Because they didn’t do enough.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. S. Robinson: In fact, 23,000 homes in two years. They did 22,000 in 16 years. Perhaps the members need a housing 101 class in terms of how development actually happens. I want to use an example, because I don’t think they quite understand.
There’s a seniors housing project development in Kamloops, in the member’s community. In spring 2018, we launched our new community housing fund to fund affordable rental housing for families and seniors. The project applied, and last fall we determined that it was a worthwhile project, so they got funding. Then the project went through the municipal steps, including design, rezoning and public hearings. Then they needed a development permit, which was a project received in February 2019. Then they needed a building permit, which they recently received.
Now, I know that they don’t always appreciate that there’s a process that it needs to go through. I’m very proud of the work that we’re doing and that the people in his community are going to have a place to call home.
S. Bond: Well, the minister can stand in the Legislature and try to convince British Columbians that there has been significant progress on a promise that was pretty clear to this province. This Premier stood up in front of British Columbians, and he said: “We’re going to build 114,000 new homes.”
Interjections.
S. Bond: Well, I guess if the opposition wants to clap for a 2 percent progress, that tells you what they’ve got to get excited about these days. So let’s be clear. The minister’s….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the question.
S. Bond: To be clear, the minister should flip her book over and take a look at page 4. This report, her very own report, was published in January of 2020. What does it say under the completed column? So 2,430 units in the document this government actually owns.
It’s not just the opposition, in fact, that is very concerned, but advocates, people that this minister would know very well who work on this file tirelessly. Here’s what Paul Kershaw of Generation Squeeze had to say: “They have now committed to almost” — maybe they want to applaud for this line — “2,500 fewer units of affordable housing over their first four years than they promised.”
Could the minister stand up today and tell Paul exactly how many of the promised 114,000 homes will actually be built and have someone living in them this year?
Hon. S. Robinson: Well, we are continuing to deliver on our housing. This is a ten-year plan. We didn’t commit to 114,000 in two years. We said that over ten years, we will work together with our partners to deliver housing. And you know what? They might want to bark all they want about this because they have no idea what they’re talking about because they didn’t do it when they had the opportunity.
In fact, I think we should remember what those people did over there when they were on this side.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. S. Robinson: In 2001, when they formed government, do you want to know what they did to all the projects that were in the pipeline? They cancelled every single one of those programs — every single project.
We didn’t do that, because we know that people are hurting. That’s why we’re delivering on our commitment for housing for people that they can afford.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, I suppose the minister can stand here and call the opposition anything she wants to. But the minister just said that apparently Paul Kershaw of Generation Squeeze doesn’t know what he’s talking about either, because it was his comment that this government is actually producing less affordable housing units.
Let’s look at someone else’s comment, not the words of the opposition. The minister can be as disrespectful as she wants to people who care about this issue. Let’s look at what….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
S. Bond: The minister said that she wanted to pay attention to what people in this sector said. Well, let’s listen to someone who works very closely on this file. Let’s see what the minister has to say to Jill Atkey, because Jill Atkey of the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association said…. Not me, not the opposition, answer the question for Jill Atkey, because here’s what she said. “We are looking for an additional $200 million. Instead, we actually have a decrease over the next couple of years.”
To the minister, how about standing up and answering Jill Atkey’s question and doing that in a way that respects the views that these advocates have about housing in British Columbia.
Hon. S. Robinson: Well, it’s so interesting that somehow the member suggests that I don’t have respect for these housing advocates, who, for 16 years, couldn’t get anything out of the people on the other side.
In fact, I just met with those….
Interjections.
Hon. S. Robinson: If they’d settle down, I could actually answer the member’s question, but they’re really having a hard time settling down. They really are. If they’d like to hear the answer….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please. We shall hear the response.
Hon. S. Robinson: I actually have just recently had a second round-table discussion with this advocate group, a second one. They are thrilled with what our government is doing. They are pleased.
You know what? We know that we need to keep working. They know it’s a ten-year plan. They understand….
Interjections.
Hon. S. Robinson: I just spoke to her on Friday, and she has lots to say about how we are working well together, how we have been listening to them….
Interjections.
[Mr. Speaker rose.]
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order, please. We must be listening to the response.
[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]
Hon. S. Robinson: We’re two years into a ten-year plan. We committed to delivering on those over the ten years, and we’re going to do just that.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CLIMATE
CHANGE AND ECONOMIC
PLAN
S. Furstenau: Yesterday my colleague highlighted some of the inconsistencies in the way this government talks about protecting industry competitiveness and being a climate leader. There are numerous sectors across our economy that rightfully deserve government support in making a transition to a low-carbon economy.
Let’s be clear. Facilitating the competitiveness of the fossil fuel industry with subsidies should not be the government’s job in 2020. We must aspire to be far more than the cleanest polluter.
My question is for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Does the minister not see a difference between supporting a transition for existing industries and having those same policies used to expand the oil and gas industry?
Hon. G. Heyman: The member knows that we have worked together on the CleanBC climate plan. We have worked together on the Climate Change Accountability Act. I understand, and it’s been very clear throughout all of the debates, that the members of the Third Party and the member from Oak Bay disagree with this government’s approach to the liquefied natural gas industry. That is a point of disagreement. That does not mean that we don’t have a strong climate plan — in fact, the strongest climate plan in North America. I believe we should all be proud of that.
To the member’s question, we made a conscious decision, which we explained clearly to the members of the Third Party, that we were not going to have one approach for existing industry and a different approach for new industry with respect to how we dealt with the CleanBC industrial incentive. If particular companies and projects approach or are at world-leading carbon intensity standards, we want to encourage that.
We encourage that by making them eligible for the program. We encourage that by giving them rebates of the carbon tax above $30, up to and including 100 percent of that. We encourage that by welcoming applications to the CleanBC technology fund.
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: I would suggest that having a strong climate plan that is being weakened by using policies to subsidize what is increasingly being recognized as a dirty fuel is not something we should be aspiring to in British Columbia. We cannot have it both ways. If we want a low-carbon economy, we have to be laser-focused on how we get there. We cannot have an expanding fossil fuel industry propped up by taxpayer subsidies and believe that, at the same time, we will build an innovative, low-carbon economy that is in line with our greenhouse gas targets.
Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, recently spoke about how governments and industries can reach their goals. “It’s putting money behind those who are solving the problem or are part of the solution, and it’s taking money away from those who aren’t moving fast enough.”
Of course British Columbia should support innovation and transition within its existing industries. This is very different than helping the fossil fuel industry expand in this province with taxpayer-funded subsidies.
My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Why is this government conflating the support of innovation and transition with a subsidization of continued growth of the fossil fuel sector?
Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, there is and has been for many years an existing gas industry in British Columbia, and we are working with that industry to make it cleaner and to lower greenhouse gas emissions, including putting in very strong methane reduction requirements through regulation.
We are diversifying B.C.’s economy by encouraging innovation through the emerging economy task force, the innovation commissioner, through the technology fund, through working with the clean tech sector. We will continue to do that.
We are on a road with CleanBC. We are not on a road that hits a cliff. We are on a road that has to be well thought out, that has to support a smooth transition, that has to encourage technology, innovation, marketing of low-carbon B.C. products. And most importantly, it has to be a road that has the support of British Columbians. We achieve that by ensuring that British Columbians are working.
REBATE FOR RENTERS
J. Johal: The Premier made a clear promise to every renter in B.C. that he would give them an annual rebate of $400. Nearly three years later, the NDP flagship promise is dead, as rents continue to soar. In Metro Vancouver, renters are paying $2,064 more per year under this NDP government. The Minister of Housing promised a rebate but, instead, delivered rent hikes.
To the minister, where is the NDP’s promised renters rebate?
Hon. C. James: Thank you very much to the member for the question. I think that everyone in the…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. C. James: …Legislature and I certainly expect the member across the way knows that we are in a minority parliament. We work with our partners in the Green caucus. The Green caucus has been very clear that they don’t support the renters rebate. But that doesn’t mean that we aren’t working on behalf of tenants. In fact, we’ve taken more action than that government took in 16 years.
We started where the need was greatest. We put in place more support for seniors who are low income to be able to get rent supplements. We put more support in for working people who need rent supplements. And we lowered the rent increase that the other side let skyrocket.
We also made sure that we put more money in people’s pockets so they could manage more. That’s what this budget is about — affordability.
I look forward to another question to talk about more of the successes of this budget.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: So back to question period.
J. Johal: I can’t believe the Finance Minister blamed the Green Party for the $400 renters rebate. There is actually another reason. During the 2019 NDP convention, they voted against the $400 renters rebate — the same rebate that was one of their key campaign promises. Now, maybe the NDP don’t like it, but it’s clearly a broken promise.
That’s not the only problem with this government. Government red tape has meant a slowdown in construction, and that means there’s a serious vacancy issue. Here’s what Ron Rapp of the Vancouver Homebuilders Association had to say about government bureaucracy because of the NDP: “There are literally 4,000 or 5,000 units that are being held up in that jam alone.” That delay by the NDP means even more pain for renters.
To the Minister of Housing once again. Her plan is a failure, and rents are rocketing. Will she at least give the people of British Columbia a $400 renters rebate?
Hon. C. James: The member mentioned rental units in the province, so I think it’s important to put the facts on the table. In fact, more rental units have been registered for construction in the last three years than in the previous decade before. Mr. Speaker, 2019 was at an all-time record for purpose-built rental — 12,289 purpose-built rental units registered in this province last year. I certainly understand why it’s this member and not the Leader of the Opposition…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. C. James: …asking the question, because we know his opinion about renters. We know his opinion about tenants. It’s a wacky time for those people in British Columbia.
Well, we are taking seriously our support for people in British Columbia. We’re doing everything from bringing in a B.C. access grant in this budget to making sure that we support people by eliminating MSP premiums — money back in people’s pockets. Families can look forward to the new B.C. child opportunity benefit, providing up to $3,400 a year directly to support families and children, unlike that side over there.
S. Cadieux: The minister can raise the volume all she wants and talk about all sorts of things that don’t have anything to do with renters. But the fact of the matter is that the minister has not delivered…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
S. Cadieux: …on her promises to people around housing affordability. People looking to buy a home are facing higher prices yet again, and she hasn’t delivered for renters. The NDP have made things worse. The moving penalty means that prospective tenants now face a 20 percent higher than average rent than spent on the same unit last year.
Let’s try again, Minister. Will you keep the promise you made to the voters of British Columbia and institute the renters rebate?
Hon. C. James: I think it’s important to actually take a look at what the other side…. I mentioned the Leader of the Opposition. Let’s take a look at what the member for Vancouver–False Creek suggested.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. C. James: He actually suggested we should get rid of any kind of rent limits on increases altogether. We should just lift it up, just as the other side have proposed.
In fact, we are standing up for renters. The member for Vancouver–West End took a tour around the province to have a task force that brought forward recommendations. We’re acting on those recommendations, with more support for tenant-landlord disputes, with more support for lowering rent increases.
Not only that…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. C. James: …we are continuing to put money back in people’s pockets to be able to support them, lowering taxes for families and individuals in our province and supporting them in a way the other side couldn’t even think about.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.
S. Cadieux: Well, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that, from a Finance Minister that refuses to define the term “affordability,” she parrots increased taxes as a way of improving affordability for people in British Columbia.
Now, let’s look at Surrey. Let’s just look at my community. The vacancy rate in my city is sitting at 0.6 percent, and under this NDP government, renters are now paying $1,500 a year more than they were before the NDP. It’s clear that the promise of 114,000 homes is a hundred-year plan, and there’s no plan for more affordable rental units in Surrey as rents skyrocket.
The people in Surrey expect this government to deliver on the promise it made to them before the election of a $400-a-year renters rebate. Are they going to do it or not?
Hon. C. James: I’m glad the member mentioned Surrey, because I could take a little bit of time to talk about all of the things we’ve done for Surrey in this province. I could talk about getting rid of the tolls on the bridges in Surrey. I could talk about the new hospital that is coming to Surrey. I could talk about the seismic upgrading in the schools that we’re building in Surrey as well.
I also want to, because the member mentioned taxes…. Just because they say it often enough, they think people will believe it. I think it’s important to put the facts on the table.
If we take a look at middle-class families in British Columbia, they are paying less taxes now than they were when that side was in power. Just because I think it is important for the public to have the facts, if a family with two children is making $100,000, they’re seeing a 22 percent net reduction in their taxes.
A family making $80,000 will see a 42 percent reduction in their taxes. For families making $140,000 and less, we have the lowest taxes across the country here in British Columbia. That’s not including all the additional support that we’re putting in people’s pockets — as I mentioned, everything from the access grant to the child opportunity benefit.
I look forward to continuing to talk about the great things in this budget that our Premier and our government are bringing in for British Columbians.
Mr. Speaker: House Leader for the official opposition, is this another question?
M. Polak: A new question.
Mr. Speaker: Yes. I will….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, I will allow the question. There was an extraordinary amount of time spent on the government side.
Go ahead with your question.
PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT INCREASES
M. Polak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, speaking of broken promises, before Christmas, the minister responsible for housing had promised that she was going to provide some relief for those dealing with the challenges of taxation on the air above their buildings.
Eureka Masonic Lodge in Langley has been a fixture in downtown Langley since 1927, and they are looking very much forward to planning their 100-year anniversary festivities in 2027. However, that’s all being put at risk, and it’s being put at risk because of an exorbitant increase in their assessment. They’ve gone from an assessment of $1.3 million in 2018 to now $4.8 million in 2020. This is a not-for-profit organization. They rent their hall out. They engage in all sorts of wonderful community initiatives, yet their future is now at risk.
When will the minister come forward with the promised solutions that have as yet not materialized?
Hon. S. Robinson: I have certainly been hearing from non-profit groups, community groups and small business owners for a number of months. We are doing something. You’ll hear, shortly, about it.
But I want to remind British Columbians and everyone here in this House that we actually received some mail back in July 2019 from the director of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Samantha Howard. She wrote to our government, letting us know about what’s going on around this issue. This is what she had to say, and I think it’s really important to get it on the record.
She said that despite pressure from organizations like CFIB for well over a decade — so this has been coming since 2009 — no municipal or provincial government has made serious efforts to address the issue.
So this issue lays at the feet of the people on the other side. We’re fixing it, and help is coming shortly.
[End of question period.]
PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY PURCHASE OF
TRAINING FROM
ORGANIZE B.C.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yesterday I took a question on notice. Now I’d like to take the opportunity to answer that question.
Yesterday a member of the opposition raised a question in the form of what I would say is a deliberate, partisan, malicious attack on the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: They characterized the question as though the member had engaged…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I suggest you wait until I answer the question.
…in some sort of spurious activity, meeting with all kinds of wrong people and how much of taxpayers’ dollars was involved. They took great umbrage…. In fact, she goes: “It was just a question.” Well, really. Well, yesterday was the day after the budget, and they didn’t ask a single question on the budget, but they chose to make an issue out of this.
So for members on….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: So for members on the….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, order please. We shall hear the response.
Hon. M. Farnworth: They ask a question, and they always complain it’s never answer period. Guess what. They’re getting an answer today.
The answer to the question was that it was a $20 expense for a fee for a panel discussion on issues facing the city of Vancouver, on issues such as sky-high rents, overdose deaths, homelessness and things such as that. In fact, the event never even took place, but of course, the $20 was refunded. It’s unfortunate, though, that they didn’t really choose to….
I wonder if they had the same expressions of concerns when one of their own members decided to go to an event. I’m not going to name the name because I don’t think that’s important, but of course, one of the members on the opposition decides to go attend a forum on God and government and how God and politics mix, an organization whose stated goals are they’re against sexual orientation and gender inclusivity policy — conversion therapy and that God and politics should mix together.
They clearly have a double standard when it comes to what kinds of events people can attend and what kinds of questions they ask. So if they want to throw stones, check their own house first.
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to present the following reports from the Representative for Children and Youth: From Marginalized to Magnified: Youth Homelessness Solutions from Those with Lived Expertise, February 2020; and Raising Young People’s Voices on the Issue of Youth Homelessness, February 2020.
Petitions
D. Clovechok: I have a petition here on behalf of 145 constituents from Wasa, British Columbia to be presented to the Minister of Transportation. The application of seal-coating to their asphalt road has and continues to have a really negative impact on their quality of life. They’re requesting that the road be restored to asphalt.
Hon. D. Donaldson: I rise to present a petition. It has over 8,000 signatures collected in a very short span of time from people living in forest-dependent communities, mainly on Vancouver Island but on the coast as well, expressing general support for forestry in the province and specifically advocating for the protection of the timber-harvesting land base for forestry operations.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued debate on the budget.
[S. Gibson in the chair.]
Budget Debate
(continued)
Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Kelowna-Mission.
S. Thomson: I appreciate the opportunity to rise and join the debate on Budget 2020, which was tabled on Tuesday. Firstly, I want to…. First time I’ve had a chance to speak. While you’re in the chair, Mr. Speaker, welcome to the position.
It is a real honour to rise to continue to represent the residents and the constituents of Kelowna-Mission, at least for the remainder of this term, however long that’s going to continue. The riding and the constituency is one that is a great community to represent, because the people there are entrepreneurial, positive, based in free enterprise. I’ve heard very, very directly from many of them that there was real disappointment in this budget. I’ll try to articulate some of that during my comments.
Firstly, I’d also just like to again take this opportunity to thank my family — my wife, Brenda, and family — for their continued support in doing this job. A big, big thanks again to Nan and Janice at the constituency office for all they do to continue to help support our constituents and the great work they do on so many issues through our constituency office. They really are a key part of the team in the Central Okanagan and do exemplary work on behalf of all of our constituents.
I also want to take this quick opportunity, as well, to thank the staff and everybody here in the Legislature for all their patience and their diligence and their professional approach through the events of the first week here in the Legislature. It really was unprecedented. I think we all experienced that, but the staff that work here probably more so than many of us. I just want to thank them for all of their diligent work. We are very, very well served in this building by all who support us here in the buildings and in our offices.
British Columbia, right now, is going through some very serious challenges, as you all know and as members have articulated in their comments in response to this budget. The thing we need to ask ourselves and can’t help but ask is: is this government really listening to the communities, to the revenue-generating sectors in this province, to the workers? Is the government using all of the available resources to help communities in need? I think when we look into and dig down into the budget, that’s not the case.
The members opposite want us to believe that they’re making life more affordable in British Columbia. But since the NDP took office and, as has been pointed out clearly, introduced 24 new or increased taxes…. Every time we look into the budget, we find another one. It’s 24 now. Maybe by the time we’re through this process, there might be a couple more in there that appear or manifest themselves. By 2022, total taxation in B.C. will have increased by almost $4,700 per household. That’s hardly making things more affordable. It’s really just another tax-and-spend budget that won’t help British Columbians succeed.
Let’s look at what’s not there — the promised $10-a-day child care, universal child care. That pledge has essentially disappeared. It is not there and has walked back significantly the commitment around universal daycare.
Help for renters facing increases, through the promised $400 rebate, does not exist. Gone in all of the budget commentary and documents.
Housing prices on the rise. Housing starts have dropped 22 percent, and it will take 98 years, the 100-year plan, for the NDP to deliver on their promise of 114,000 new homes.
No help for small businesses that are being staggered by high taxes in so many ways, the employer health tax and other taxes on the split assessment. All of those impacts on small businesses.
Strata owners are getting nothing to help with the insurance crisis they face.
There’s no plan for growing the economy and the jobs plan in the budget. Economic growth is slowing more rapidly than expected.
Housing starts, as we said, will decline 22 percent in 2020, 8.5 percent in 2021 and 4.8 percent in 2022. Hardly the right economic indicators and the right direction.
Last November we saw the lowest small business confidence level since the financial crisis. Business investment growth has slowed to 4.1 percent from 10.5 percent.
How is the labour market doing? In the past eight months, B.C.’s private sector lost a total of 32,800 jobs. The unemployment rate in B.C. went up to 4.8 percent from 4.4 percent a year ago.
These are numbers, but they’re not just numbers. They represent individuals and families whose lives have been impacted, and they represent lost opportunities. Unemployment creates that cascading effect, which ripples through our economy.
Now we know of the additional taxes that the NDP has brought in, in this budget — essentially, a number of taxes in order to ensure that they could bring in a balanced budget. When you look at the revenue created, essentially, it’s the revenue required in order to be able to deliver a balanced budget.
One of the ones that I want to talk about — it continues to be a very, very sore point and a very, very critical issue for our residents and our constituents in the Central Okanagan — is the continuing concerns around the speculation and vacancy tax. I had a faint hope — I know it was a really faint hope — that there might have been something in this budget to provide some relief or adjustments around the speculation and vacancy tax.
We argued, in the process, that it was ill-advised, ill-informed. It was not going to have the intended objectives in the Central Okanagan. I would have thought it might have been reconsidered or some adjustments made. Instead, we have the continued negative impacts on investment, both in the housing and construction sectors and related sectors, and on services and tourism. It really is having that continued negative impact on our community and on the economy in the Central Okanagan.
Putting that aside…. I know those arguments have been made and have not been accepted or acknowledged, even in the joint meeting that our mayors brought forward when they had the meeting with the Minister of Finance.
One thing I want to question or to look at in the budget…. I’m sure it’s something that we’ll pursue in estimates. There was an agreement that the funds collected, which were extracted from our community, would be provided back to the local governments from which they were collected.
That was an agreement that was reached when the NDP made the agreement with the Green Party in order to gain support for the speculation and vacancy tax. They had many of the same concerns that we had about the tax itself. The agreement was made with a number of amendments. The mayors’ meeting, the annual consultation and a commitment that those dollars would go back to the communities….
When you look into the budget, what we continue to see is the line item for the revenue for the speculation tax — $185 million in the fiscal plan for the speculation and vacancy tax collection. Nowhere — and I’ve looked through the documents — is there the offsetting or corresponding amount for those funds to go back to the local governments from which they were generated.
This is very, very surprising, as this was a key commitment for the agreement with the Green Party to secure their support in the passage of the legislation that implemented the tax. So I wonder just how long the Green Party, again, is going to continue to accept broken commitments — one that was a key piece of the acceptance of the tax — as an exchange for something that I know they had serious reservations about.
Provincially it’s about a $185 million revenue line. No offset for the transfers to the local communities. As we speculated, and as we expressed cynicism during the debate on this in the estimates…. We made the assertions that this would likely be…. They’d try to find some way to offset that amount through regular programming and programming dollars within ministries, which would be used to account for making that commitment. But no new incremental funding for those communities, directly related to the speculation tax, has been collected.
We’ve heard from our local governments and talked to our local governments. You know, at a minimum, we thought they would have had clarity by this point about how that was going to be done. That’s not the case. There has been no clarity provided to them on how those dollars and funds are going to flow directly to those local governments. That was the commitment for investment in those communities, and this is months and months after the extraction of those dollars from our communities.
Our local governments continue to look for the option to be able to opt out when it’s clearly not meeting the objectives of the tax that was put in for our communities. We don’t see that commitment. If that commitment was made, and if there was a line item in the budget around the transfer of those dollars to the local governments that offset that collection, we would not be sitting here talking about it, or the NDP would not be sitting there talking about being able to deliver a balanced budget. That’s $185 million that should be flowing to the local governments, from which that vacancy and speculation tax was collected.
We just need to look at what’s happening in our community. We just had the Central Okanagan economic council division release their economic indicators for the Central Okanagan. Median new home prices have risen by 5.6 percent; average rent has gone up by 9 percent. Clearly, the speculation tax is not meeting the objectives for which it was intended, or we would see a different outcome there.
Money is being extracted and collected from our community — money that is supposed to come back to the community but which hasn’t. All the while it is not meeting the objectives.
You can’t spec-tax and vacancy-tax your way out of this issue. What we really need to address is the issue of supply in our communities. Government should be focusing their efforts on addressing the constraints and the challenges on the supply side of things, in order to be able to address this issue. You’re not going to address it by a speculation and vacancy tax being extracted, by disrupting people’s retirement plans, by disrupting their succession plans.
The majority of the money that’s collected out of our community comes from British Columbia residents and from Canadian residents, and it continues to have that negative impact. It’s not meeting the objectives, and we don’t see the dollars being transferred to the local governments. It’s months and months after it was collected, and they’re not receiving any clarity.
That’s something that we’ll be pursuing in the estimates process in detail, because that was a very clear commitment that was made — part of the agreement that allowed the speculation and vacancy tax to be put into place. I think the Green Party partners with this government should be raising that issue as well, because again, it is a broken commitment that was made.
Now, the budget needs to be built on a number of things. The other members have talked about the important contributions of the Business Council of British Columbia in terms of providing advice to government, providing the economic forecast on which much of the budget is built. But along with that, the Business Council also provides some very important policy considerations and advice to government, as well, which really don’t appear to be in the foundation of this budget.
What they and many are calling for is a comprehensive review and modernization of our tax system. They say it’s long overdue. What do we see in the budget? Well, 24 new taxes. Three new taxes this year. Taxes designed primarily to make sure that they have some additional revenue for the general revenue stream to be able to deliver a balanced budget. So again, a key piece that is not being addressed.
Streamlining, simplifying and reducing the cost of regulations. We don’t see any clear direction on that in the budget. In fact, many of the ministries that manage the regulatory processes in government have had their budgets cut or not increased in order to address many of the regulatory backlogs and burdens that are….
Promoting product market competition and global market development is another key recommendation they make. Again, we don’t see that in the budget. In fact, what they have done is reduced the emphasis on trade, closed offices and reduced the budget in the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness. They’ve even taken “trade” out of the name, so where is the emphasis on meeting that important policy direction?
Developing, attracting and retaining talent and skills, another key recommendation that they’ve made. We don’t see that being addressed fully in the budget. In fact, when you look at the additional income tax provisions that are in the budget, I think it provides a significant risk to recruiting and securing top talent for many of our sectors here in British Columbia, particularly in the technology sectors and others that are important areas to address.
Supporting R and D, research and development; commercialization of advanced technology; and business scaling — no clear plan in the budget to address all of those key issues.
So what do we see in the budget? We see 24…. We see the tax-and-spend process continue. We see the three new taxes. The Netflix and the streaming taxes — government moving into the living rooms and dens in our homes, taxing that service. The pop tax on carbonated, sugary drinks and the income tax provisions.
I just wanted to comment a little bit about the tax on carbonated sugary drinks. This is an initiative that has been advocated for quite some time, and advocated by a key constituent of mine, Dr. Tom Warshawski, who is the head of the Childhood Obesity Foundation. You know, it is a critical issue facing British Columbia. It is one that needs to be addressed. I’m not going to argue, at this point, on the merits of the science behind all of that. But I think the questions that need to be asked around this are: will the imposition of the tax meet the objectives? And: how will it be implemented?
It’s important to note that in all of the submissions that were made by the advocates for this and by the foundation, there was a two-piece part to the request. The first part of it was the tax to be applied. The second part of it was that those funds that were collected through this process should be dedicated to programs and initiatives that help reduce childhood obesity — education, fitness programs, all of those kinds of things. They were looking for additional support and resources to address those issues. The recommendations were directly linked.
What we see in this submission, or in this initiative, by government is simply the tax side of it. Again, as we pointed out, and many have pointed out, in order to gain the revenue, in order to be able to bring forward a balanced budget — had to look for some revenue items. So the tax collected here is going into general revenue, not being dedicated or specifically addressed towards reducing childhood obesity.
I would have thought that with the interests of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education in this issue, that linkage would have been provided for and that the recommendations that they have made to the Select Standing Committee on Finance over the years would have had that two-part response.
Also, another critical issue in the budget is the lack of a jobs plan, a lack of support for the revenue-generating ministries, the economic-generating ministries that we have in the government. For example, if we look into the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, resources are down in just about every component of the ministry operations.
I think that is a very troubling, worrisome situation, because we know that we need to have the support in those ministries to be able to address the need for all of those sectors to be able to generate the important revenues. When we look into the budget documents, it’s clear that the revenue components from those sectors are all projected to be down. I would have thought, and we would have thought, that more resources would have been applied, a clearer plan for those sectors, in order to reverse those trends, instead of seeing those ministry budgets curtailed and decreased.
We’ve talked about a litany or a list of broken commitments from the NDP in all of the decisions and the approach that they’re taking. There’s another one here that hasn’t really been listed yet, but it manifests itself in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations budget. We don’t see this provision in the budget at all. In fact, with the reduced resources across those critical divisions, operating divisions within the ministry, we’re going to see more and more challenges in this sector.
The one that I’m referring to specifically is the funding and resources committed to fish and wildlife management in British Columbia. The platform commitment, what the current provincial government said during the election and a key piece of their platform was that “British Columbia’s biodiversity, fish and wildlife population and habitat upon which they depend are under threat due to lack of government funding, cuts to staff and ineffective policies” of the NDP.
The B.C. government commitment at the time: “We will ensure dedicated funding for wildlife and habitat conservation, give wildlife and habitat a priority…. We will put all the funds from hunting licences and tags into a dedicated fund for wildlife and habitat conservation.”
Well, that is another broken commitment of the government. There’s currently no plan to dedicate the funds from the hunting licences. There’s no commitment apparent or even suggested in the documents, in any of the budget documents.
In fact, what we do see is cuts in the funding to the core operation in the divisions of the ministry that will do nothing to address this. I know this will be a major disappointment to the hunting sector, to the trapping and guide-outfitting sector, as they look into the detailed parts of the budget — a clear commitment that has not been delivered on and will continue to not have the appropriate resources dedicated to the wildlife and habitat sections of the ministry.
It was a clear commitment that was made. It was also a commitment that we made in our platform as well. The members opposite, the government, clearly, it appears, have no intentions on moving forward with that commitment, because as I said, what we don’t see is the transfer into that dedicated fund. We don’t see even the commitments in the ministry with reductions in the core operating divisions of the ministry in that area.
It’s also, in those key areas, the cuts to those operating divisions are really going to do nothing and put increased pressure on the ministry’s ability to manage the permitting authorizations process that they are responsible for. We are hearing example after example and concerns all across the sectors about the timelines and the growing backlogs in the permitting and authorization side of government. I would have thought that in order to help and reverse the trend and to see the revenue generation from those important sectors reverse and improve, that resources would have been put in place to address those specific concerns.
We also have noted in the budget…. On the trade side of it, I’ve made comments on that already around the apparent lack of priority in the budgets for those critical industries that help generate that revenue and the very, very clear importance of global markets and trade for our economy.
Let’s just look at, really, what’s happening. In the last year, a 6.4 percent decline in the value of B.C.-origin exports, reductions in shipments to most major destinations. Exports fell to the U.S. by close to 3 percent, to mainland China by close to 4 percent, 13 percent into Japan, 12 percent into Korea, 13 percent into the European Union. Taiwan down almost 14 percent. Forestry exports of solid wood products slumped by 20 percent in 2019.
All of these sectors are facing significant challenges, and what we don’t see in the budget is a plan to help reverse those. In fact, what we see with the response from the government is the closure of stand-alone provincial offices in our key markets. An announcement that was quietly released on New Year’s Eve: the word “trade” taken out of the name of the ministry. I think it means much more than the word change. It really shows and reveals a lot about the government’s priority. Now is not the time to reduce support; now is the time where we should be doubling down on B.C.’s efforts. This budget does the opposite.
We should be focusing much more resources into those initiatives. Co-locating and moving the trade offices, really, has the consequence of diminishing those efforts and the priority on that key initiative.
I just want to comment briefly as well about the Citizens’ Services Ministry. I attended, along with the member for Kelowna West, the recent security and privacy conference. The major theme coming through that conference was the increasing threats and risks to the protection of people’s privacy through increasing sophistication and efforts in the cybersecurity world.
This was a conference coordinated by the ministry, with lots of participants from the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. Expert after expert said increasing threats, and government is not keeping pace and starting to fall behind the protection that’s needed. What do we see in the Ministry of Citizens’ Services? A $7 million cut in the budget — hardly the right thing to be doing, as we need to make sure that we have the resources and both staffing and expertise to be able to address that in Citizens’ Services going forward. That’s another area that we’ll be pursuing in the estimates process.
This budget…. It’s disappointing. It’s clearly creating uncertainty for people’s lives and for businesses. Taxation is up $5.7 billion under the NDP. The number will go up to $8.8 billion in 2021.
I see my time is ending, so I’ll just close by saying that this is a missed opportunity. It’s a tax-and-spend budget. No plan for economic growth and revenue generation, except by taxing hard-working British Columbians.
I won’t be supporting the budget as it currently stands.
J. Sims: It is my pleasure today to rise and speak in support of what I know is very balanced, thoughtful, looking-forward and building on the agenda that our government started when we got elected. I also want to acknowledge the amazing work done by our Finance Minister, who has been prudent, who has been focused like a laser to make sure that our investments are in people and providing services that people need, while at the same time growing good-paying jobs right across this province. I am so proud to be part of a government that is so focused on the economy but not forgetting the people who actually build that economy.
I also, before I actually get into the budget, do want to talk about the kind of a shift we’ve seen in the province. As I’ve said many times in here, I’m a mother, I’m a grandmother and now I’m a great-grandmother. It’s endless joy that Alliya has brought into my life.
The unfortunate thing for me was that when my grandchildren went to school…. Because they went to school through the 16 years of cuts, they were the victims of the cuts to public education. They did not enjoy the diversity or depth of public education that my daughter had enjoyed previous to the opposition being elected. They were there, my grandchildren — this is going to school — during the time that the collective agreement was stripped and students’ working and learning conditions were just ignored and taken out of collective agreements.
For me, it is very satisfying to know that my great-granddaughter will be going back into a society and into a system where a government that is more caring, that is more focused on people, is actually at the helm. It is my great-granddaughter and my granddaughter who will have benefited from the elimination of the MSP premiums, the largest tax cut in B.C. history. It is my great-granddaughter and my granddaughter who are benefiting from the child care subsidies. It’s because of that that my granddaughter is able to hold down a full-time job, because she can get child care that is reasonable and that is affordable.
It is because of the changes we are making in the area of education, the investments into health care, that they will be able to participate and be members in a society where they will not feel they’re forgotten. They will be the ones who are at the centre when a government makes decisions.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
It is with a great deal of pleasure and a kind of satisfaction that I look at the things this government has done in a very, very short time. Some days it seems like a nanosecond. Some days it does seem like a nanosecond.
I’m talking about the differences to children who are living in care. I know this was in the previous budget, but I want to remind us of that — that they no longer have to pay for post-secondary education because we are taking that responsibility on because it’s the right thing to do.
Talking about ESL and talking about grade 12 education being available for those who come into the country or those who were here and did not graduate — that is now available at no cost. The amount of money that has been invested into post-secondary education, even before this budget, to create spaces for nurses, doctors, people who are working on the trades, on their red seal….
Let me not forget getting rid of student loan interest rates. As a teacher, I can remember many a student who could not afford to go to post-secondary. Even those who could stretch themselves and thought they could get a loan, the thought of being burdened under those loans that accumulated was more and more becoming a barrier. So it is so, so delightful for me that these changes have taken place.
Today I had goosebumps as I listened to the Minister of Housing, as I listened to her talk about how we have built affordable housing, how people are off the streets and people, for the first time, over 4,000 of them — not a small number — are already in safe, secure housing where they are receiving the supports they need. That is the government I am proud of. That is the government I know I want for my children and grandchildren. It’s when you get….
Different governments come and go, but Mr. Speaker, as you know, it’s always about making choices. This government has focused on making sure life is more affordable for the people who live in British Columbia, making sure that governance is for those who live here. We have made sure that while we’re providing services that had been wrenched from them summarily — whether it was education, health care, workers’ rights, children’s rights, all those that were wrenched from them — it’s addressing those in a very slow, methodical and systematic way. I’m so proud of a government that has achieved so much in such a short time.
Noting the time, I do reserve my right to come back and finish my speech on the budget because I have so much to say about what is actually in the budget. I’m so excited that British Columbians, my grandchildren, my great-granddaughter, have a government that puts them at the centre of the decisions that are made.
J. Sims moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.
Copyright © 2020: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada