Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. Sims: As I was saying earlier, it is a privilege to be here representing the constituents of Surrey-Panorama, to stand up here and speak in support of a very prudent and well-thought-out budget that keeps the people at its centre.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This is in the context of B.C. having a triple-A credit rating. We’ve got the highest growth rate, the lowest unemployment rate and, for the first time in over a decade, I would say, people receiving the much-needed relief they need in areas like child care and other supports. The Finance Minister, as I said previously, is also focused like a laser to make sure that people are at the centre of this budget and that the budget is also about growing jobs.

As I look at this budget that was presented just a few days ago, I see in it just so much that is good for the economy now that we do have a government that is actually putting people first and is investing in people. I look at the economic boost for the province as we look at the investments that are taking place in infrastructure.

[1:35 p.m.]

This infrastructure is right around the province in every corner. It is creating jobs. Budget 2020 does see the largest investment in B.C. history in the infrastructure we need to keep moving forward, whether it’s schools, hospitals, highways or housing.

This is the much-needed infrastructure that was neglected. I can say that coming from Surrey, B.C. and having over 7,000 students sitting in portables before this last election. I’m proud to say that over 7,000 seats have now either been built or are in the process of being built and in the pipeline.

When I take a look at the infrastructure spending in health…. You know, I’ve heard people say across the way that this budget has nothing in there about jobs. Well, when you build schools, when you build hospitals, when you build child care centres and when you build roads and highways, guess what? It’s people who are building those. It’s jobs. It’s jobs that are decent-paying and that help to grow our economy.

We’re not going to take any lessons from the previous government that neglected the infrastructure and neglected British Columbians while they focused on the top 1 or 2 percent.

When I look at the health care investments in infrastructure alone…. I’m not talking about all the other amazing things that have been happening in health care. From the capital fund, health care is going to be spending — in the 2020 budget, it’s right in there — $6.4 billion to build and expand hospitals and health facilities and for medical equipment. That is a lot of money. Those hospitals are not just in the Lower Mainland, as some people will say. These are new or upgraded hospitals in Williams Lake, Quesnel, Trail, Nanaimo, Cowichan Valley, Fort St. James, Terrace, Surrey, Dawson Creek, Richmond, Burnaby, Vancouver and North Vancouver.

As these hospitals and the expansions are occurring, guess what. That brings work into those communities. At the same time, it builds the much-needed infrastructure that we do need for our population — infrastructure, as I said, that was grossly, grossly neglected by the previous government.

Now let me talk a little bit about transportation: $7.4 billion for priority projects, including bridge replacements. Once again, I’m very happy that Pattullo Bridge, linking South Fraser with North, is right there, and it’s part of these highway expansions and corridor improvements.

Once again, these projects are not just in the Lower Mainland. The highways are being improved right around this province. The infrastructure creates jobs, and that helps to support families.

For infrastructure — this is from the capital funding alone, and I think it’s really good that the Minister of Education should just happen to walk in — we are building schools and doing seismic upgrading at a pace that is unheard of. I’ve heard that from trustees in Surrey, who are so happy with the rate of schools being built in Surrey.

In education, $2.8 billion — not million but billion — is being spent to replace, renovate or expand the K-to-12 schools. Some of these — many, we hope — are going to include child care spaces and neighbourhood learning centres.

Once again, as schools are being built, what is that about? That is about jobs. That is about people working to build schools, bringing a decent paycheque home and helping to support families in those communities.

[1:40 p.m.]

You know, it’s not just the K-to-12 sector that is getting a great big focus in capital spending. It’s also post-secondary education — $3.1 billion to expand institutions, help meet workforce needs and build student housing.

When you build infrastructure, whether it’s at post-secondary, K to 12, transportation or health, it creates jobs, good-paying jobs that are occurring right around this province. The Minister of Housing earlier really pointed out the great work that’s being done in that area. But in this budget in this year, 2020, there is $1 billion for affordable housing for seniors, Indigenous peoples, individuals and families.

When you’re taking a look at the amount of money that is being spent on infrastructure, this is not about bridges or roads or hospitals. Of course, we need all of those. This is also one of the best economic investments any government can make and that is to replace the crumbling architecture, infrastructure that exists. You know, we’ve heard a lot of rhetoric here — and I suppose it is the place for rhetoric — and we’ve heard a lot of comments that, I think, deserve a prize for chutzpah. I’m beginning to think of those.

We’ve got the Leader of the Opposition who did say that there is going to be no hospital for Surrey. I was thinking that it takes real audacity to say that in this House, when as the Minister of Citizens’ Services, it was that minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, who sold the land in Surrey-Panorama where a hospital was going to be built, despite the fact that the Premier from the other side had had a couple of press conferences right on that site.

We’ve done a capital plan, announced straight away. Everything is being expedited. A business plan is in process. When that is done, it will go to procurement. But in the meantime, we bought land where the hospital is going to be built. The reason I say it takes real chutzpah is, first, you sell the land where a hospital can be built, and then you say there’s going to be no hospital, and you go down that road. It just seems absolutely bizarre.

Also, having read some of the things — that nothing is happening in Surrey, and the Surrey MLAs are kind of…. What are they doing? I dug up capital investments that are happening in Surrey. This is just a few. This is in the 2020 budget. B.C. Housing is providing $29 million in capital funding through the Supportive Housing Fund program to RainCity Housing and Support Society’s 130-unit transitional housing project located at 9810 Foxglove Drive. That’s very specific, and it’s in the budget.

George Greenaway Elementary seismic upgrade, $11.8 million. That’s in the budget. Holly Elementary seismic upgrade, $9.6 million. That’s in the budget. Sullivan Elementary School’s addition to provide up to 200 new much-needed student spaces, $13.5 million.

Grandview Heights Secondary School, a new secondary school to provide 1,500 student spaces, $82 million in total with $63 million coming from the province. Maddaugh Road Elementary School, a new elementary school to provide 605 student spaces, with a neighbourhood learning centre, $31.2 million. Regent Road Elementary School. I could go on with the schools, but the list is quite long. I do know that there are other people who want to speak.

I also want to talk about Pattullo Bridge. I had the pleasure of being with the Premier and the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure as they announced the procurement process has been completed. What comes next? It’s shovels in the ground. That’s over a billion-dollar project that is going to create good-paying jobs and be a boost for the economy for the Lower Mainland.

[1:45 p.m.]

I mentioned the hospitals earlier. Of course, we’ve had so many other improvements in Surrey when it comes to child care. I read those into Hansard last week. But let me tell you. Every time I go out, I have a parent or a grandparent who approaches me and says: “You are doing an amazing job with child care.”

I’m also reminded…. I’ve got the Minister of Agriculture. I was talking with her today and saying what an amazing job she has done with this file, because she listened. She listened to the concerns from the farmers about additional needs for accommodation, and she accommodated. That’s what this side of the House does. That’s what this government does. We listen to people, and then we make sure that we are responsive.

As I look at the budget, one of the things that really warmed my heart this time…. Never mind the MSP premiums gone, being the largest, largest tax break in B.C. history. For me, one of the most touching ones was the special grant for students. Instead of waiting until they finish their courses, these grants will make it so much easier for students to access post-secondary education, whether it’s for two years or whether it’s a longer diploma program or whether it’s a degree or whether they’re working towards their red seal.

You combine that with the B.C. child opportunity benefit and combine that with child care, and you know that families are saying: “Yes, this government cares about the people of British Columbia. Yes, this government is looking at affordability.”

It’s not in a definition, by the way. It’s about the real difference it makes to people’s lives when they don’t have to pay MSP premiums, when they can get $10-a-day child care, when they can get affordable housing, when they are going to now be getting a B.C. child opportunity benefit that goes to the age of 18. It doesn’t stop at six. It goes to the age of 18.

All those things…. Let me mention some of the things we had done previously, like the tolls having been gone. Also, let me say, as a closing comment, it is an absolute pleasure and a delight to stand in this House and speak in support of a budget that puts people at the centre of the budget and makes decisions that are good for British Columbians.

S. Sullivan: I’m pleased to speak to the throne speech and the budget. I’d, first of all, like to thank the constituents of Vancouver–False Creek for their trust in electing me as their representative. We have a very remarkable riding.

I call Vancouver–False Creek downtown British Columbia. It has got so many major businesses, major cultural institutions and wonderful tourism facilities. We have, basically, Science World for so many children, which helps to show them the wonders of science and technology; Granville Island, one of the most important tourism destinations; the art gallery; B.C. Place; Rogers Arena.

[1:50 p.m.]

We are actually the largest mining area, mining riding constituency, in British Columbia. I have about 1,000 mining companies right in Vancouver–False Creek. Many downtown people who live and work downtown don’t always understand that we are very dependent on the resource sector of British Columbia.

We also have a lot of technology companies. Amazon is moving in very shortly just down the street from where I live and where I work. They are going to bring in many thousands of workers.

We have a very interesting demographic profile as well. More and more, we’re getting young children and school-aged children. We are also very heavily weighted in young people, who are attracted to the opportunities of downtown, both working and recreation.

I’d like to acknowledge and thank some people who have made it possible for me to be here. First of all, my wife, Lynn, who is incredible. She does so much to enable me to do what I do. I couldn’t do it without her. I’d also like to acknowledge Cris Garvey, my constituency assistant, and her team for the great work they do in representing me and representing the citizens to Victoria. I’d also like to acknowledge my riding association. They do a tremendous job of supporting me.

First of all, before I go too far into the budget, I’d like to just acknowledge that the throne speech spoke of some people that we lost last year. Some good friends and people that I have great memories of, and I will cherish those memories always. B.C. Lee, Paul Fraser, Wayson Choy, May Brown, Gordon Smith — all of these great British Columbians that we will truly miss.

My concern about this budget is that I believe that it is actually harmful to our economy. It does threaten the well-being of many of our future citizens. First of all, I’d like to just point out one deficiency that I’m disappointed in. We have a lot of school children in Vancouver–False Creek who are not able to go to school in their own neighbourhood. Actually, if you look at the map of Vancouver, it is all of the schools around the downtown, in and around, that are the ones that cannot find enough space and are having to transfer students to different schools.

The great hope that we had was for the Olympic Village school. I know the minister has made some efforts on that file, but the reality is we have a lot of parents who have moved into a high-density urban area thinking they were going to live the urban life in a very environmentally responsible way. Now what they do is they drive their children to school and then drive back home and then walk to work. It’s very unfortunate.

I note just in a tweet this morning that Brent Toderian, the planner who actually set up many of the urban areas that we enjoy today, moved in right beside Crosstown School and has just been informed his child will not be able to attend the school. A great disappointment for him, who has worked so hard to create an urban environment where families can thrive.

To explain some of my concerns about the budget, I’m going to use a couple of different metaphors. The first is a rocket. Now, our last term of government left about a $2 billion surplus, and clearly the economy was booming.

[1:55 p.m.]

What I like to explain is that when a rocket is going up, the engines are full blast. When you turn the engine off, the rocket still goes up. It goes up for a while. Then it starts to go slower and slower, and it starts to sputter and turn down.

Now, we do still have surpluses, which I am very pleased about, but we have to remember how those surpluses came about. They came about with great spending increases but also great tax increases. So we saw about a $5.7 billion increase in taxes. Next year will be $8.8 billion. When I got here, we were under $50 billion total budget. Now we’re looking at $60 billion.

The incredible, breathtaking increase in spending and taxes is a great concern to me. We see 23 new or increased taxes.

The second metaphor I’d like to describe is that of a garden. You can really think of an economy as a garden. It’s something that you cultivate, that you cherish and that you look after.

When we talk about making a budget, we’re not just talking about government revenues and expenses. We’re talking about how we tend to this garden. What we do when we do a budget is we think about what we are going to take out of the garden. How are we going to nurture it? How are we going to look after it? What are we going to put back in? So I think of the economy as a garden.

What we’re doing right now, I think, has some long-term implications. When I want to have a good garden, I want to ask a gardener. When I want to produce a good economy, I like to ask an economist. I believe that this is one of the serious problems of this budget. It does not conform to good economic thinking.

One of the problems with this budget is it represents a philosophy that believes that you can just legislate a good garden; you can legislate the market. It may be good politics, in some ways, short term, but it’s not good economics.

What we need to realize is that the economy and the market has certain ways that it will respond and not respond, just like a garden. We cannot just will more produce. You can’t take more than is sustainable. If you start to do that, it may be good in the short term. It may give you what you want to extract every organic thing that you can get, but it doesn’t result in long-term sustainability.

Now, there was a couple of comments in the budget that I found very troubling. One was the comment: “The old practice of hoarding surpluses at the expense of citizens is over.” I find that very troubling. What do we do with surpluses? Hoard it? What does that mean? Do we just keep it?

What we have is an economy where we have $66 billion in debt. What you do with a surplus is you pay down your debt. Now, we know what deficits are and debts are. What they are, are deferred taxes. So when people are talking about how this is such a great budget for the future, for the future citizens, what it is, is deferred taxes. Young people are going to have to pay these taxes.

When we have the opportunity to have a surplus, that’s when we use that surplus to put back into the garden so that it can produce for future generations.

[2:00 p.m.]

Now this government is very vulnerable right now. Right now the interest rates are record low, and it’s been that way for a long time. But eventually, those rates are going up. At that point, we are going to be very vulnerable, because we’re going to now have to pay much more to service the $66 billion. I think this is very shortsighted.

A couple of other comments that were made. Rent controls. They’re going to double down on the rent controls. If you look at the supply of rental housing over the past — well, the current supply of housing…. Most, possibly 80 percent to 90 percent, of all the rental housing was built before 1973. Our rental housing is getting old. It’s getting decrepit, and it needs to be renewed. Now, why was it that rental housing stopped being built in 1973? That’s when a former NDP government brought in rent controls. It just stopped rental housing cold.

We need more rental housing. We are getting some more rental housing now that there have been more incentives offered. There are programs, especially municipal programs, where they’ve offered a lot of incentives, and that has brought some rental housing providers back to the table. But what we’ve found in Vancouver…. I know, just in the last year or two, several rental housing proposals were actually withdrawn. It was so uneconomic to do it that they have withdrawn it. So I’m feeling very vulnerable now in the downtown, with all of my neighbours.

We’ve got a booming economy in the high-tech sector — many people moving in. As I say, Amazon will be arriving and Shopify. A number of companies have announced that they will be setting up shop in Vancouver, without the additional rental housing that will be available. That’s a recipe for disaster. We are going to have increased house-rental rent prices.

We see efforts that have been made to help the housing supply problem. I notice the housing plan that was announced previously. Almost all…. Well, the first 15 points are all about demand suppression to try to address housing affordability by depressing demand. A number of other points were on special housing, providing housing for special, vulnerable groups, but nowhere can I find anything about housing for regular folks, people in the market who are buying market housing.

There has been a theory that this government seems to have endorsed that our house prices, our high house prices, are caused by foreigners. Now, anybody who reads history…. You know, the Romans used to blame the Carthaginians for their high house prices. Right throughout history, they’re always blaming foreigners for what was really a locally instigated problem.

[2:05 p.m.]

We are fortunate that the federal government decided to get to the bottom of why we have our high house prices. They authorized the CMHC — gave them $1.5 million and did a landmark study just a few years ago, three years ago, on what was behind the high house prices. They had 30 master’s and PhD economists and access to all of the Statistics Canada data. They concluded that 75 percent of the rise in house prices could be attributed to increasing population, increasing income and low mortgage rates. That was 75 percent.

They went to look for the other 25 percent, and they found it, basically, in the supply elasticity of the housing market. Basically, what they concluded was that Vancouver has a 0.25 elasticity, meaning that basically for every rise in prices, where a normal market would create, say, ten houses, Vancouver supplies 2½ houses. So basically, we’re saying that Vancouver has a real supply problem, a supply elasticity problem.

Two parts to that. One is geography. We do have a constrained geography. The other is government policy. So government policy, according to the C.D. Howe Institute in a report called Through the Roof…. They concluded that government policies are basically doubling the price of housing. So our housing is twice as much as it should be, just because of government policy.

We have seen this caricature of the fentanyl-pushing, casino-gambling, money launderer that is causing our house prices to rise. Now, the government did do a report on money laundering, especially through casinos, and identified $100 million, they believe, in ten years. That’s $10 million a year. That was the first report.

Now, remember that $10 million would buy one starter mansion per year. Highly unlikely that such an impact would cause house prices to rise. Even 100 times that much would not even make a dent on house prices.

The government did a follow-up report on money laundering and found that the No. 1 area of money laundering was Alberta. The second most dense and critical area of money laundering was Ontario. The third and fourth were Saskatchewan and Manitoba. This is from the government report. British Columbia is No. 5 in the country.

It’s interesting that it’s only in British Columbia that people are claiming that money laundering is affecting prices. We don’t hear that from Saskatchewan and Manitoba, even though they have more money laundering, apparently, according to the government report.

The government report also identified that 7.5 percent of money laundering comes from East Asia. That includes Japan, Korea, China — 7.5 percent. So 90 percent of money laundering came from the United States and Europe.

The caricature that the Asian, specifically Chinese — foreigner, so-called — participation in the housing market is causing house prices to rise is very questionable and very damaging to the community. This kind of talk….

Statistics Canada recently tried to get more knowledge on what was going on behind the house price problem, especially the foreign buyer problem. They studied Ontario, British Columbia and, just to have another balance, they chose another province and decided it would be Nova Scotia. It’s interesting to go on to the Statistics Canada website and take a look.

[2:10 p.m.]

The first thing you’ll note is that British Columbia has…. Of all of its residential property, 3.7 percent of all British Columbia properties are owned by foreigners or non-residents. In Nova Scotia, it’s 3.8 percent. I was shocked. Excuse me? Nova Scotia has more foreign ownership of property than British Columbia? Indeed, that’s what the numbers say.

Now, there are three areas of British Columbia where non-resident buyers are higher than normal. One of them is in Richmond, one of them is at UBC, and the other is downtown Vancouver. Now, even though those are very high, they balance off the rest to actually make foreign ownership less than Nova Scotia.

What about UBC? Why is it that we have such high non-resident ownership there? Well, it turns out that almost 30 percent of the students at UBC are from other countries. It is common for parents or the students to purchase a home throughout their tenure. The stats don’t say how many non-residents sold their property, because it’s also common that once they finish their university, they sell it. But it does make sense that because non-residents are basically funding a lot of the university, it would be normal to expect that they would have a high level of non-resident ownership.

Richmond, of course, beside the airport, and downtown Vancouver…. We are, actually, a world city. We are a global city. Now, we notice that, in Vancouver, they have published the data on the vacant home tax. There are 780 vacant homes that have to pay the vacant home tax. We’re looking at…. I believe it’s about 300-some-odd homes in Vancouver. Less than 1,000 are vacant. We used to hear about 25,000 empty homes. The number is 780. We’ve seen that, in fact, most of those so-called empty homes are empty condos — 500 of them. The majority are empty condos.

Now, we have situations — and I know them, personally — where people invest, build a company in Vancouver. They don’t live here. They live in Silicon Valley, and they fly up to Vancouver regularly to look out for their investment, their company. They are now being penalized because they’re so-called speculators. They bought a condo near their business. They’re providing jobs, and they’re called speculators.

One particular person has left. He was building a home, a very nice home, on the west side of Vancouver. I was approached by an entrepreneur who was distraught that he was losing his mentor and his investor, who had decided to leave Vancouver and British Columbia because of the way he was being treated — called a speculator and keeping an empty home.

All over the world in major cities…. For example, I have a neighbour in my building. He lives in Abbotsford, but he has a condo in downtown Vancouver. He has a company that is in air-conditioning — constantly in Vancouver doing work, supporting the people who live there. He’s called a speculator, having an empty home. This kind of disgusting treatment of people who are valuable and important parts of our community….

[2:15 p.m.]

I have a neighbour who is very distraught as well. She has grown up — born and lived — in Vancouver. She’s on the condo board. She’s a member of her church. But she lives in Philadelphia with her husband while they’re waiting until their retirement, when they’re going to come back. She’s being threatened with this empty homes tax. She’s being called a speculator. She looks forward to moving back to Vancouver full-time. She’s still a member of the board, a member of the church and is treated in this way.

A university professor on a three-year term in Australia, speculator. And a person that I used to meet in the bank…. Down at my bank, somehow we’d always end up in the lineup together. He’s from San Francisco and loves Vancouver, loves British Columbia, loves the values. He said: “You guys come down to Palm Springs. I go to Vancouver.” Now he’s being charged as a speculator, the empty homes tax. He said: “I thought I left this in the U.S., this anti-foreigner sentiment. I come here. I thought I got away from it.”

The reputational damage that this kind of behaviour, this fiscal behaviour…. It’s incalculable. What it does…. We’ve had many situations in our condos downtown where the U.S. citizens are leaving. They don’t want to pay this tax. They have been really important members of our community. I was with a group of people who all had second homes. Some of them had purchased. They’re in British Columbia. Some of them live in rural areas. When you live in an urban area, you have a second home often in a rural area. But you know what? People in rural areas will have their second homes in urban areas. They look at this as their summer home. And they are being charged as speculators.

A lot of damage has been done to many people. A lot of Americans have left. I think some of the people who put these taxes together assumed they were going to be targeted at other people, but it turns out that the people who have been hurt…. Many of them are U.S. citizens who love Vancouver, have looked at Vancouver and British Columbia as a real haven away from this kind of anti-foreign attitude, and here we have it right here in our province.

The budget also took aim at high-income earners. Certainly, it’s taken aim at people who have expensive houses, very punitive taxes. This looks and certainly feels to some people like a type of class war. And what it is doing…. It’s not just getting money out of wealthy people. It’s actually chasing money away, chasing some of the people who are the investors and who put their money into our economy.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

S. Sullivan: I have many more things to say, but I hope I got my point across.

Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to join in debate around Budget 2020. I do want to start by saying thank you, certainly, to the people of Vancouver-Hastings for allowing me to be here. It’s a great privilege. I was thinking about this a little bit as I was preparing my thoughts for this speech. As we come to the completion of this session, I know for myself and a number of my colleagues who came in 2005, we will be completing about 15 years in this place by the end of this session. It’s been a remarkable privilege to serve the people of Vancouver-Hastings.

[2:20 p.m.]

As the member previous and other members have said, the reality is that there are always a lot of people for us to thank as we get to come here and do the work that we do.

I certainly want to thank the staff who work for me, my staff in my constituency office, who do a great job. I certainly know that with my responsibilities as a member of executive council, I don’t get to be in my constituency as much as I might have been before. I’m very, very fortunate to have staff there who are focused on making sure the needs of the people of Vancouver-Hastings are met and that when they come through my doors, they are received by knowledgable, compassionate staff who are committed to doing the work to resolve their problems or ensure that they know the issues.

It’s also very true…. I talk about my time on executive council — a huge thank-you to my staff in my office here, my ministerial office, who keep my life very much in order. For those who have been in a cabinet position, you all, I’m sure, very much appreciate the demands and the pushes and the pulls on your time that we need to address. It is the people around you who do such a remarkable job of helping to address that, moving forward.

Finally, to my family. To Cate, who is just such a wonderful partner and a support, somebody who has consistently, over the years, just been a real rock, moving forward. And to my daughter Shayla, who now lives over on this side of the water from Vancouver but has always been a great support and helps to keep me focused at times when we get to talk about things.

I did mention my constituency of Vancouver-Hastings. It’s great constituency. I’m sure that there are 87 people in this room who would all talk about how great their constituency is, and that’s a good thing. But I know in my constituency, which is largely the one that I grew up in…. It’s a constituency, a community, that I’ve watched evolve over the years and the decades.

It’s changed, but throughout all of those changes that have come with an inner-city community in Vancouver, it’s always continued to have a foundation that I don’t think has wavered a lot. It’s been a foundation of families, of people who work hard, of people who believe in their community, of people who are supportive of their communities, of people who are generous with each other and of people who are concerned about each other. That’s something that I’ve found has always been an inspiration to me as the MLA — to make sure that that’s what I reflect in the work that I do for my constituents.

It’s a constituency that’s diverse in a whole array of areas. About 40 percent of my constituents, their original languages…. They’re Chinese speaking in their original languages. It’s a community that has a lot of people who have challenges and struggles, but it also has significant affluence as well. It’s a mixed bag, yet it continues to be a community, as I said, of people who are generous with each other, people who have grace and people who care about their community, care about their neighbours and care about how they interact with each other.

My ministry. I’m going to talk about that a fair amount in terms of my comments today. I think, first, I want to just talk a little bit in general terms about the budget and about where the budget takes us, to my ministry.

I know that it’s a budget that…. We have continued to have a balanced budget. We’ve continued to have an economy that has been at the top or right near the top of the economies across this country. We have an economy that continues to show good, solid economic growth, even in times of economic uncertainty.

[2:25 p.m.]

There’s no doubt that we are seeing, globally and nationally, increasing levels of uncertainty around our economy. Some of it, much of it, influenced from external circumstances, some of it from Canadian circumstances.

We continue to have a strong economy. We continue to have an economy that allows this government to move forward on an agenda of affordability, of delivering services while continuing to maintain a solid economy. We have an economy that we have seen continues to show solid growth in wage and income. That’s really important.

When we look back and I reflect over the time that I’ve been in this place, part of the challenge, part of what I think created the affordability challenge that we have seen in British Columbia, the affordability challenge that our government has been focused on for the last couple of years…. Much of that, I think, was driven by what was low wage growth. It was family incomes and incomes of individuals that just were not keeping up.

We’ve been doing a lot of work to try to support that and to ensure that we’re, in fact, enhancing that income growth. It’s more money into people’s pockets so that they have the opportunity to go and largely spend those dollars in their local communities, in communities like mine in Vancouver-Hastings and other communities across the province as we move forward.

We’ve seen an economy that, as was pointed out here, continues — and we will have balanced budgets for the next three years — moving forward. I heard the member previously. The member from False Creek talked about the large surpluses that were in some of the budgets of the previous government. That’s true. There were large surpluses. But you know, government budgeting is different than corporate budgeting. Corporate budgeting says you want to get that bottom number to be as big as it can be. With government, you have to balance.

I believe smart government budgeting is about ensuring you have fiscal responsibility — that you’re maintaining a good fiscal outlook, including balancing budgets — and ensuring that you’re investing, though, in people, in services, in infrastructure and in those things that the people of British Columbia, in this case, want to see.

That has been the trick that our government has been engaged in for the last few years. There have been significant increases in investments that have been aimed at people, aimed at communities, aimed at supporting people who are vulnerable; significant investments that ease affordability pressures for people; and significant investments that create employment and jobs and opportunity, much of that on the capital and infrastructure side.

I think that the budget has found a good balance there, to be able to say we have surpluses, we have room, we have capacity there, but we’ve invested these dollars in the interests of the people of British Columbia and ensuring that the people of British Columbia are the beneficiaries of the investments that we’re making moving forward.

I want to take a good portion of my time to talk a little bit about my ministry, the work of my ministry and the work that we’re doing and how that work is supported by the initiatives in this budget and by this budget as a continuing story, the continuing story of the efforts and work of our government.

You’ll know that one of the significant things that we advanced through my ministry was the poverty reduction strategy, which was put in place a year or so ago with TogetherBC. It was a strategy that committed our government, over the period of five years, to reduce overall poverty by 25 percent and child poverty by 50 percent. It’s a measure that….

We talked, at that time, of it being an all-of-government initiative, about it being about collaboration, about how no one ministry was going to make significant progress in achieving those objectives. It would be a responsibility of all of government and not just this government, not just the provincial government. But it would require local governments. It would require the federal government to play a role. It would require community to play a role. It would require business to play a role. I’m really pleased that we have seen levels of collaboration and support that moved that philosophy forward. So it’s very positive.

[2:30 p.m.]

Here we’re seeing initiatives in this budget that add to the work that has already gone on. We see it in continuing to invest in child care. We know that child care is a cornerstone of the success of poverty reduction.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

It’s a cornerstone in terms of how it creates opportunities, particularly for single moms who are, oftentimes, escaping violent situations, where they’re looking to rebuild their lives and their family’s lives and their opportunity for themselves and for their children. Child care provides a cornerstone for that, whether it’s for people to go back to school or whether it’s for people to go to employment.

We also know that child care is foundational in terms of supporting young people and supporting children to have the opportunity to build the foundations that they need to go on and be successful in their lives. I think about my daughter, who went through child care before heading off to kindergarten. There’s no doubt in my mind that much of the skill set that she’s developed and her interaction and social skills and problem-solving skills and that…. She started to learn those things in child care, and it was a very positive thing for her.

We’ve also seen in this budget…. We’re going to realize this year one of the cornerstone pieces of the poverty reduction strategy. We’re looking for a 50 percent reduction in child poverty. The child opportunity benefit that will kick in this year is critical to that. So 300,000 families across British Columbia are going to be supported by this. Many of those are families that are in poverty, or they’re families that are right on the bubble. They’re going to see benefits that will ensure that they will see $1,600 for their first child, $2,600 for two children and $3,400 for three children. All that money that will be critical to their being able to make ends meet.

It’s complementary to what the federal government has done and federal initiatives. It’s complementary to a number of initiatives that we’ve put forward. But the child opportunity benefit is a cornerstone of addressing the issue of child poverty in this province, and I’m very excited that this year we’re going to see that money going into the pockets of families, moving forward.

Another thing that we’re very keen about in the strategy…. We built the strategy on four foundations. Certainly, one of those was opportunity, an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. Part of that is giving people the chance to work. I had the opportunity, through the consultations we did around poverty reduction, the consultations we’ve just completed recently around access and inclusion and around disability issues…. It’s for people living with disabilities, saying: “I want a job. I want to go to work. I want to have the opportunity to have a better standard of living, but I want to also have the opportunity to make a contribution.”

We’ve enhanced the earning exemptions in this budget. For a person with disabilities who was able to earn $12,000 a year before they saw any clawback on their assistance, that’s increased now to $15,000 a year. That creates incentive for people who are living with disability and people who are living with income assistance, who also are seeing significant increases in their earning exemptions, to have the opportunity to do some work, to earn some money and to enhance their lifestyle. It becomes a good transition tool, I believe, to move us forward in the directions that we want to go around creating opportunities for people who want to break that cycle of poverty and move forward.

Now, to do that requires support, particularly on the employment side, around creating work. That was part of the reason that we made the significant transitions and restructure of the WorkBC and the employment programs in British Columbia. That was about creating greater opportunities for people who need more support — or need a little bit more help in terms of being able to get into the workforce and be successful getting into the workforce — and creating this new model that allows us to case-manage people for up to a year and to support both an employer and an employee to be successful.

[2:35 p.m.]

We know if we can do that — if we can keep people in place for up to a year — the chances of them being successful in maintaining and keeping that job after they’ve been there for a year becomes much greater. That’s a real positive. It’s a positive that we should all be excited about, moving forward.

As part of that, of course, we’ve looked at wages. We’ve looked at the work that’s been done in the Ministry of Labour to continue to increase the minimum wage — a minimum wage that will, in the next year, go to $15.20 an hour, a minimum wage that will lift, again, a significant amount of people out of poverty.

When we look at poverty in the province, there are about half a million people living in poverty in British Columbia, and about 40 percent of those are working poor. They go to work; they get a paycheque. The paycheque doesn’t pay the bills; it doesn’t cover the costs. This is going to help make a difference there as we see this transition up to a full $15.20 an hour, moving forward.

We also know that education is such a big piece of that. I think there are people who have said that the big equalizer is education. It is the opportunity to give young people education, to provide training and retraining and education for people who are transitioning, maybe, from one opportunity, one employment and field of employment, to another because of economic changes and economic circumstances.

We’ve seen continued investments in education, ongoing investments. Those investments went from…. We saw the tuition waivers, which, for kids aging out of care, provided opportunities for those young people to be able to go and get a post-secondary degree and to have that degree paid for by the state. That’s just such a valuable tool in terms of creating opportunity for young people to move ahead and to succeed.

In this budget, we have taken the step that opens the door, through education access grants, to provide opportunities for tens of thousands of students to be able to receive $4,000 of support to help pay for their education. We have all heard, time and time again for years and years, about the struggles of student debt, about how student debt hampers young people and how when you get out of school, it puts you right in the box from day one if you’re sitting on a huge student debt. You’re going into the workforce to start your career, and you start it with huge debt.

This is another significant step in improving the circumstance for young people looking to be able to get their education, to be able to be successful in their education — an education that takes them to the career and the opportunity that they want — and to do that without having crippling debt along the way.

I talked about how, as we’ve done this work, we’ve also looked to partner with others. That’s really important. What I know about poverty reduction, about homelessness, which is so interconnected with issues of poverty, is that big provincial solutions probably aren’t going to work. Solutions need to be a combination of provincial initiatives with local strategies, local supports and local infrastructure, whether it’s local governments, service providers or others in the community who come together to provide support.

That’s part of the reason that we invested in and created the grants for the Union of B.C. Municipalities to be able to deliver grants to their member municipalities, to be able to set up poverty reduction committees within their communities that can look at how initiatives that are targeted in their communities might work. We’re seeing progress on that now, and the province is able to work closely around those issues.

In a very similar vein, we’ve provided dollars to the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C. to be able to develop homelessness initiatives that are locally based. We know that local strategies are the cornerstone of addressing homelessness, particularly if you look not just at the kind of housing-first approach, which is very important to homelessness, but at the prevention approach.

We know that the reality of what happens in Cranbrook or in Castlegar versus in Vancouver is quite different. We know that in smaller communities, often the service providers and others in those communities will know full well who the people in those communities are who are struggling and how they can be supported. We can work with them on those initiatives. In my ministry now, the homelessness coordination branch works closely to advance those issues.

[2:40 p.m.]

Also, we passed legislation in the last sitting that changed a whole array of policies in the ministry — policies that, I would say, were punitive to people who are on income and disability assistance. Taking that away — having people live with more respect and more dignity — has been a big part of the work that we’ve done: to change the culture of this ministry, to have it be a ministry that talks about respect, talks about dignity, talks about supporting opportunity and the creation of opportunity for people.

We continue to do work around reimagining community inclusion for persons with developmental and intellectual disabilities. The other piece that we’re working on and that I’m very keen about is that we have the social services sector roundtable, which has been going for a while now.

It really is bringing all of those critical non-profit and social service sector organizations together — who play such a critical role in the delivery of public services — and working more closely with them about what the relationship looks like between us on the contractual side and, maybe even more importantly, what the relationship looks like in how we engage as we address policy issues and how we move forward and look at what the vision around the delivery of social services is in British Columbia.

All of these are issues that this budget, in so many different ways, supports. It puts more pieces in to build that foundation, a foundation that started in 2017 and that we have been building consistently on since that time. The Minister of Finance has added many more significant pieces to that in this budget.

As we look at how we move forward, to give you a sense, it’s about a $400 million commitment to support these initiatives that are advanced in this budget — about 400 million new dollars of initiatives to help us to get through and support those areas, moving forward. Obviously, it’s not just my ministry that is impacted by this budget. We’ve seen remarkable work in the area of CleanBC. We know the challenge: to make sure that we are advancing the economy and advancing this province in a sustainable way.

CleanBC provides to us the vehicle and the tool to be able to do that. It’s a tool that’s thoughtful. It was developed in collaboration with stakeholders, in collaboration with the Green Party caucus members and developed in a way that, I believe, allows us to continue to build and grow the economy, including in the resource sectors, but to do it in ways that make sense and begin to achieve our very bold objectives around climate and around the reduction of emissions, as we move forward.

It becomes very, very important, I think, that we wed all of these things. As with most areas of government, not much gets isolated. There are those who would say part of the biggest challenge that you have in government is breaking down the silos between ministries about how government works. I think we’re doing a good job. We have more work to do, but we’re doing a good job when we connect all of these issues — issues around child care, issues around housing and homelessness, issues around people who are vulnerable, issues around climate and environment, issues around community development and rural community development.

All of these become essential pieces in building a society in British Columbia that is more affordable, building a society in British Columbia that is people-focused and people-based and that looks at how we support people, particularly those people who are more vulnerable and particularly those people who need a little bit more support.

I know the other side has talked a little bit about the tax issue, particularly the increased taxes on the top 1 percent of earners. Now, I know that nobody probably likes to pay more taxes, but I also know a number of people who would fall into that category and who would tell you that they are prepared to pay a little bit more if that money is going to go and be invested in addressing the issues that all of us as a society face together.

[2:45 p.m.]

I believe that those people for whom British Columbia is their home, those people in that 1 percent who raised their families here, set down their roots here and have helped to build British Columbia…. The vast majority of those folks would say: “Yes, I can afford this. And no, it doesn’t take away from my standard of living if I’m enhancing my investment into British Columbia to support people who need support or to advance those issues like CleanBC that make this a more sustainable place.” I believe that they would say yes to that. I believe that they would find that to be a beneficial thing, as we see our economy grow and move forward.

The last thing I wanted to talk a little bit about is the issue of reconciliation. It’s an area where we have invested significantly in our commitment, in partnership with First Nations, to make British Columbia a more just place. We have seen it in the passing of the legislation of Bill 41, which adopted the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people. We have seen it in the sharing of revenue in gaming grants: $3 billion over 25 years going to nations, no strings attached, to allow them to invest in building their communities; amounts between $250,000 and $2 million, with no strings attached, to support those communities and allow them to make choices for themselves that they choose to make.

It’s about the over-half-a-billion-dollar investment in housing. It’s about the $50 million investment in languages. All of this is important. We all know there are challenges we’re facing today, challenges that need to be addressed and that the government is very focused on — as are other governments across this country — to find resolution to. When all of that’s said and done, the foundational pieces around reconciliation that we have put in place will serve all British Columbians well. We need to continue our commitment to that and continue to build on that commitment to reconciliation moving forward.

I see my time is coming to a close. I just want to say: I’m very pleased. I’m very proud of this budget. It’s a budget that advances our issues in so many areas. There is so much more work to do. I do look forward to this government, over many, many years to come, being able to do that work that will take British Columbians to the place that people want, where life is more affordable, where people who need supports and services are receiving them and where our economy continues to be strong and continues to be bold.

With that, I’ll take my place, and I look forward to hearing debate from the other side.

T. Wat: It is always a privilege to rise in this House to debate another budget.

First, I would like to thank all my constituents who continue to put their faith in me to represent the riding of Richmond North Centre and to bring our local issues to the provincial stage here in Victoria.

I would also like to thank my legislative assistant, Hannah; my communication officer, Sam; my research officers, Karen and Ryan; and my constituency assistants, David and Trix. Every member of this House knows very well that none of the work we do, either here or at home in our ridings, would be possible without the fabulous support network of staff to assist us and our constituents.

Of course, I would like to thank my family for continuing to support my role here. They were even kind enough to join me at the Legislature this week. Elected officials, like our MLAs, spend a lot of time away from their homes and families, but it is our loved ones who truly inspire us to serve our communities and this province the best we can.

[2:50 p.m.]

Since being elected in 2013, I’ve had the privilege of serving on both sides of this House and have witnessed many budgets introduced in February every year. Like the throne speech, the budget gives British Columbians a key foresight into what we can expect in the coming year. But unlike the throne speech, the budget cannot hide behind rosy lenses and applause. Eventually, it comes down to the facts and the numbers.

I have several issues with these numbers, both as a representative of my riding of Richmond North Centre and as a critic for multiculturalism. What I see in this budget is what I, unfortunately, anticipate for this coming year. What I see are more taxes, more reckless spending and more empty promises. Under this administration, taxes have increased by $5.7 billion, and spending has increased by twice that much.

Where is this money going? It is certainly not coming in the form of relief for homeowners, commuters, small business owners or those in need of social assistance. With a budget that acts dangerously close to putting our province in deficit, there’s nothing in it that addresses the wage gap or pay equity. My colleague from Surrey South has introduced two bills on this issue, yet the government has taken no action.

This government has shaped an economic landscape that is making it impossible for British Columbians to get ahead. Gas prices are up, ICBC rates are skyrocketing, and employment and job losses are up. Housing starts are down, and retail sales are stagnant. Vancouver is now home to the second most unaffordable housing market in the world. Housing prices are on the rise, and housing starts are down by more than 20 percent.

Renters in Richmond have seen a rise in rental rates of almost 10 percent and are paying, on average, an extra $1,800 a year since the NDP took office and continue to pay some of the highest rates in the world. The only thing greater than the rising cost of living under this government is its sense of irony.

The previous speaker, the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, said in his remarks just now that this government is investing in people. To claim that this budget is all about family and people is laughable. This administration claims to be committed to supporting families, while it makes life harder for them with each passing year. To say that they are building further upon the foundation they have created over the last 2½ years is a strong indication of things to come.

Let’s look at the foundation, a foundation that has seen total taxation for households rise by over $3,000. A foundation that has seen over $1 billion in infrastructure projects delayed in 2019. A foundation that has failed to meet its affordable housing targets by an abysmal margin. A foundation that has been forced to pile on more and more taxes to accommodate for its reckless spending. It is not only a foundation of greater financial burdens for families but of broken promises too.

The $10-a-day child care is dead. The $400 annual renters rebate is dead. The promise of a business plan for the new Richmond acute care tower seems to be gone too, as there is no mention of it in this budget nor the ministry service plan.

When I return to my riding, I meet with various constituents and organizations. They’re deeply saddened to hear how they are struggling more and more each day from these broken promises. My riding is home to one of the most vibrant multicultural communities in Canada. The foundation of our community lies in our many small and independent businesses.

[2:55 p.m.]

I have spoken in this House previously about the impact that recent global events have had on my community — most notably, the coronavirus. Owners are doing everything to keep themselves from laying off workers, from personally delivering meals to people’s homes to even closing their doors for an indefinite period of time.

I’m asking this government the same question. Families from all across my province have asked me: “What is this government doing to save my business?” Many in my riding are losing confidence and saying that a recession is on its way and are now fearing that the coronavirus is further damaging their business.

Parklane, a restaurant that has been in business for decades, has given notice that it will suspend its operation on February 17 and lay off its employees due to a slowdown caused by the coronavirus. Its business went down 50 percent. Today Parklane has already suspended its operation.

Business at Marine Bay Restaurant on Alexandra Road have gone down 80 percent. Mr. Liu, owner of the restaurant, told Sing-Tao Daily news that customers are afraid to eat out because of what they heard or read from the media.

Many other restaurants and food courts have suffered, as people are afraid to go into crowds. David Chung, the president of the B.C. Asian Restaurant Café Owners Association and the owner of Jade Restaurant, told Sing-Tao Daily news that their restaurant sales also dipped 25 percent. If the situation gets worse, his restaurant will lose money. Chung mentioned that two restaurants have lost orders of 300 tables in just half a month. Lunar new year celebrations and dinners were either cancelled or postponed.

Flying Fresh Air Freight, a cargo logistics company also in my riding, said seafood exports to Asia, China in particular, are zero now, because no one is out. He’s very worried that this may go on for months. He believes that seafood companies and exporters are in an even worse situation, and he thinks that while industry has also been impacted, these businesses are hoping our government can help them.

My riding of Richmond North Centre has the highest concentration of restaurants in the province. It has been named the Golden Village, a foodie’s dream. It is also our city’s main commercial district. But now we are seeing both consumer and business confidence slipping. Some even fear that a recession is approaching. Yet this government has done little to boost our economy or offer any kind of incentives or relief.

Is there something our government can do to help our constituents and businesses? Is government prepared to offer these businesses some sort of a lifeline?

The business owners of Richmond are resilient. With proper government assistance, our businesses would persevere, but they are instead forced to bear the financial burdens that this government has forced upon them in the form of the employer health tax. Small businesses throughout B.C., especially those in my riding and across the Lower Mainland, are facing huge tax spikes for the air space above their heads as their properties are assessed for the best use related to the undeveloped air space above them.

Some organizations have seen property tax bills spike as high as 200 to 300 percent. My colleague the MLA for Kamloops–South Thompson tried to throw business owners a lifeline when he introduced his private members bill in the fall session — the Assessment (Split Assessment Classification) Amendment Act, 2019 — to speak to zoning and provide tax relief to individuals overwhelmed by these massive property tax hikes. But this government stonewalled us and continues to do nothing to provide relief.

My colleague reintroduced the bill this morning, as we continue to hear from a broad coalition of stakeholders desperate for split zoning to protect them from these overwhelming tax hikes.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’m hoping that this government will support this bill and prioritize aid to small business owners over party politics.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the Minister of Education would like to introduce some guests.

What is the pleasure of this House?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed, Minister.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for Richmond North Centre — for interrupting the flow of her budget response. I appreciate that.

We’re joined here in the Legislature this afternoon by a group of 25 English-language-program students from the University of Victoria’s department of continuing studies. I see them in the gallery here, and I’d ask every member in the House to make them most welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

I’ll ask the member to continue her presentation.

Debate Continued

T. Wat: It is not only business owners that continue to suffer from this government’s lack of action. This weekend I am meeting with several strata councils from my riding who tell me that the skyrocketing insurance premiums are beyond what local strata owners can afford. We are hearing stories of insurance premiums soaring as high as 500 percent, and deductibles have increased between $100,000 and $500,000.

Frankly, I’m concerned about what I’m going to tell them, because it is that side of the House that is responsible for addressing these concerns. If they continue the trend we have seen over the last three years, things are going to get far worse before they get even better.

How can a government that is slashing its own ministry budgets and taxing things like Netflix to stay afloat ever hope to provide relief?

I was deeply disappointed to see that the profile on multiculturalism is subject to budget cuts in this day and age when we continue to see a rise in xenophobia, social division and racial discrimination. I have spoken in this House before about how the coronavirus has impacted business confidence in my riding of Richmond North Centre. But the impact goes beyond economical. There is a social impact as well.

Members on both sides of this House have reason to talk about how we must avoid racial stereotypes and the spread of false information when it comes to health scares like the coronavirus. But I continue to hear stories about stigmatization and racial stereotypes against Chinese Canadians both in person and on social media. This interaction proves why our government must continue to invest in resources that help fight against racial stereotypes and fearmongering, now more than ever.

Last fall the NDP changed the name of our previous anti-racism program and made a big show of it. Even the Premier was present at a ceremony that happened at the Legislature, and he, himself, announced this renamed program which was introduced by our B.C. Liberal government many years ago. Now there’s no mention of racism in this budget. How is this not a priority for this government? Once again, honouring British Columbia’s multicultural heritage and defending the rights of our citizens has been put on the back burner.

Although this government may skip out on legitimate action, they never seem to fail to miss out on a PR opportunity. Last year they made a big show of preserving our multicultural heritage through the Chinese-Canadian heritage museum. This project is a cornerstone in claiming Vancouver’s Chinatown as a world heritage site.

I have pressed this government to get this project off the ground, and they have taken every opportunity to pat themselves on the back for their commitment to it. But we have yet to see shovels break ground. This ministry cannot continue to slow-walk this project. I’m truly hoping that we will see them follow through so that we can show British Columbians that honouring our multicultural heritage is still a top priority for the B.C. government.

[3:05 p.m.]

Over the coming weeks, I will have many questions for this government, for I am genuinely curious to see how this administration plans to answer a few questions that this budget has left unanswered. How can they continue to claim that they are making life more affordable for British Columbians while the numbers continue to tell an entirely different truth?

Deputy Speaker: I now call on the House Leader of the Third Party. [Applause.]

S. Furstenau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you to my colleagues for the warm welcome as I rise to take my place in the debate on Budget 2020.

One of the things I actually enjoy about being part of the Green caucus is that we neither need to provide a wholesale endorsement of this budget, nor do we need to provide a sweeping condemnation. Instead, we can occupy the middle ground, recognizing that budgets are about priorities and trade-offs and also recognizing that while we are proud to support much of what is in this budget, there is also much that we would do differently.

I am fully supportive of many of the programs and policies in this budget, but as a whole, it takes an incremental approach that is far too rooted in looking backwards. What we need today is for governments to make courageous choices, choices that recognize the necessary transformation upon us and that commit to making the most out of the shift that is coming, whether we prepare for it or not.

One core goal that all of us in this place should be pursuing is: how do we build and support resilient communities? Where does this budget deliver on this goal, and where does it fall short or take us in the wrong direction?

The first pillar of a resilient community is economic security. In a time of significant global uncertainty, we should be making choices that make us less vulnerable to things that we can’t control. We need to become less reliant on global commodity prices and the boom-and-bust swings that come with them, instead supporting manufacturing and prioritizing adding value right here in British Columbia.

We need to be investing in technologies and companies that are part of the solution to climate change. But in pursuing the expansion of LNG, the government is taking us in the opposite direction and tethering us to a high-risk sector that is largely beyond our control. The B.C. Liberals have also been cheerleaders for exactly this type of old-school development.

We only need look to our provincial neighbour next door to see what hitching our economy to fossil fuel commodity prices will do. Predicting what the price for LNG will be, or any fossil fuel, for that matter, is a fool’s game. The world is transitioning. The smart money is on leading that change, not clinging to a 20th-century economy.

What’s at risk if we continue to pursue LNG? We can already see that the B.C. Business Council is advocating for even more subsidies than what have already been provided, all in the name of competitiveness. In 2020, government should not be putting money behind fossil fuel companies to make them competitive, especially with the growing risk that these become stranded assets, massive projects with huge public dollars behind them that fail to deliver a fraction of the promised revenue. Even worse, there is growing evidence that natural gas is simply not cleaner than coal or any other type of fossil fuel.

Mark Carney, the current governor of the Bank of England and the next UN special envoy for climate change, has repeatedly stressed the need for financial systems and governments to have a concrete plan today that gets us to net zero by 2050. We need to be putting money behind those who are solving the problem or are part of the solution and taking money away from those who aren’t moving fast enough.

BlackRock, pension plans, universities, even entire countries are divesting from fossil fuels. Sweden recently sold off Canadian bonds because it felt that our greenhouse gas emissions were too high.

[3:10 p.m.]

We are not the outliers in making the point that continuing down the path of fossil fuel development is no longer a viable economic strategy. It’s not only environmentally disastrous to continue to expand fossil fuels at this moment in our history; it is no longer a financially sound strategy. Instead, our economic opportunity is in building a clean economy and, in doing so, deliberately spurring local innovation and ensuring that B.C. businesses have opportunities to flourish in the transition to a clean economy, because economic security relies on thriving local businesses.

I was struck by the comments I read recently by Catherine Holt, the CEO of the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce. She articulated the critical role that government plays in supporting thriving local business. It goes far beyond the oversimplified message that we often hear — that business owners are concerned, first and foremost, with low taxes. Of course a competitive taxation environment is important, but the needs of business are far broader and more nuanced. In many ways, the concerns of individuals and the concerns of business align.

I hear similar scenes from the many business owners in my riding and across B.C. that I’ve met with over the years. Businesses need workers who can afford to live in cities where they work. They want to see better public transportation and child care to support their working lives. They want fair taxation and regulations. They want to contribute to climate solutions and be rewarded for doing so, and they want a government that is efficient and effective.

Government plays a central role in all of these areas, contributing to the social fabric that supports people at home and at work and that builds communities that can become destinations of choice for both businesses and workers.

Catherine asks: “What if we had housing that didn’t require you to mortgage your children’s future, or if child care was available at a reasonable cost rather than relying on your worn-out parents or your neighbour? What if you didn’t need a car because the bus goes by your stop every eight minutes, as do the new rapid bus routes in Vancouver and in many cities in Europe and Asia? What if health care didn’t require taking hours off…to sit in a germ-ridden clinic to have five minutes with an overworked GP you’ve never laid eyes on before? Or what if university tuition was only $250 per year, as in France?” Catherine has articulated a vision that I can get behind.

Some items in this budget take incremental steps in this direction. The B.C. access grant, for example, will help make post-secondary studies more affordable and accessible for lower- and middle-income students. This is a needs-based upfront grant to students starting post-secondary studies.

Through this program, government will provide up to $4,000 per year for students in short programs up to two years and up to $1,000 per year for students in programs over two years. There is also a federal grant for students in these longer programs of up to $3,000 per year. Upfront grants like this not only improve access to education but also encourage completion by providing students support when they need it.

This budget also continues investments in implementing early childhood education for families across B.C. However, as a number of advocates have cautioned, the investment timeline stalls on the needed investments to truly deliver a high-quality, affordable early childhood education system. We have made progress on reducing the burden of child care on young families, but we must maintain an ambitious plan to make this real for all families. Young families need to be able to rely on a high-quality and affordable early childhood education system.

It’s also critical to remember that we cannot build a high-quality ECE system without educators, early childhood educators. They are the ones who will first instill the joy of learning in our children. They are a vital part of the education system, just like our teachers, and should be treated as such. We also cannot forget that this is about early learning as well as care. It must be high quality as well as affordable and have education as a central focus.

We will continue to urge the government to move the Ministry of State for Child Care from the Ministry of Children and Family Development to the Ministry of Education, because the Ministry of Education is best suited to fostering an educational continuum.

[3:15 p.m.]

This budget also makes investments in infrastructure on health, transportation, education, post-secondary education and housing. Having high-quality infrastructure is an essential part of building healthy communities, and I welcome these investments. However, there is another example of where government’s choices should be driven by an overarching goal to support community resilience. The significant amount of money spent on the procurement and building of these projects can be leveraged to serve a larger purpose.

For example, government is investing billions in building new health facilities. One of these is the St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver. There is an opportunity here to build an innovation hub around the new St. Paul’s site that could serve as a major R-and-D precinct for health and life sciences research and innovation. The payoff from this would exceed any incremental investment needed from the province at this stage. It would support the growth of B.C. companies and result in better health outcomes for British Columbians.

Similarly with transportation investments. Government has committed $7.4 billion to priority transportation projects, yet we are still prioritizing expanding highway infrastructure while there are major transit gaps that exist in communities big and small across this province. We need a more deliberate focus driving what we are trying to achieve with infrastructure. All major infrastructure project decisions should be assessed through the lens of our climate goals and community resilience. This should determine where we prioritize investment and how the money gets spent.

One question I will be asking is regarding the reduction of B.C. Transit funding in this year’s budget. Public transit needs to be an absolute priority, and I have trouble reconciling the government’s stated commitments to investing in transit with a drop in funding this year.

Another aspect of this budget that I have significant concerns and further questions about is MCFD funding. We are still missing the shift that is so necessary in the ministry towards emphasizing prevention of apprehensions of children and, instead, working to keep families together.

The child safety, family support and children in care services line item in MCFD estimates has seen an increase in this budget from $682 million to an estimated $731 million. It is impossible to see from this line item whether the increase is directed towards supporting families and preventing apprehensions or whether it’s continuing to go towards children in care. There needs to be far greater transparency in how the budget in this ministry is allocated so that we can actually see where the government is choosing to invest its dollars.

I will be asking more questions about this and holding the government to account on this issue over the session, because if we’re not investing in prevention and realigning the priorities of this ministry, we’re continuing to replicate the same patterns.

The problem is how we have chosen to fund this system and how the act that governs this area is interpreted and applied. In 2½ years in my constituency office, we have seen the structural problems in how the Ministry of Children and Family Development deals with families and children. There is often little willingness to consider evidence-based and proven options in finding the least disruptive measures when considering the removal of a child.

Perhaps most detrimental to the well-being of children are the stories I’ve heard about how service providers communicate with the child’s parents, grandparents and extended family members. This is especially acute for Indigenous families, and I think all of us who are parents and grandparents in this chamber can recognize that there could be nothing more stressful than the threat of having our children removed from us.

My staff will work with families to advocate for a mother to see her babies more than one hour per week, only to be denied. Or we hear that a mother and a newborn’s visit took place in a service provider’s car outside a coffee shop. There appears to be a double standard. In court, you are innocent until proven otherwise. With the Ministry of Children and Families, you are guilty until proven otherwise. How do you prove a negative?

Nothing has substantially changed in the MCFD service provision in our community. Community members remain distrusting and afraid of MCFD, and our caseload remains the same year over year in our constituency office.

[3:20 p.m.]

Most of the parents we do see quietly accept these circumstances. They’re smart and determined. Early on we began to notice a trend with each set of parents who would come into our office. Most of the families are Indigenous. Without fail, even faced with the reality that it’s unlikely that they will be reunited with their children, at some point, the parents will say: “I don’t want this to happen to another family.”

Often all they need to be able to parent in the way that MCFD expects is money and support. In most cases, their children were removed because they’re living in poverty and/or don’t have enough support to manage their home. That is why funding is such a crucial issue. Unless we change the funding structure as well as the culture, we will continue to see the same outcomes.

Children in care perform worse on every health determinant and add a significant cost to our health and education systems. We can’t let the status quo remain. As one Cowichan man said: “It’s easier for me to tell you who in my family hasn’t been in government care than for me to tell you who has.”

The act itself is not the problem. We need to change how we fund, interpret, and apply it so that we support families, so that parents trust MCFD service providers to serve their needs. We need a shift that puts the health and well-being of individuals and families at the centre of how government approaches child welfare.

Turning again to another aspect of the budget, one policy shift that has the potential to improve health outcomes is a change in how sugary drinks are taxed. In this budget, the government has eliminated the PST exemption that currently exists for soft drinks that are sweetened with sugar or natural or artificial sweeteners. At its best, this type of policy can signal a shift to emphasizing preventative health measures, with the potential for significant positive health outcomes.

It should not be seen as a revenue-generating tool but a preventative health measure. We spend the vast majority of our resources in the Ministry of Health and a substantial portion of the provincial budget in helping people to recover when they are sick. Of course, an excellent health care system that supports recovery should be a priority of every government. But we also need a proactive approach to wellness that helps people lead healthy lives.

I support this elimination of the PST exemption on sugary drinks, but for it to be an effective tool that really has an impact on health outcomes, I’d like to see it embedded in a broader set of measures to encourage healthy food consumption.

A few years ago Chile introduced a set of health measures to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks and other unhealthy foods. These policies included not only a tax on sugary drinks but warning labels and a restriction on junk food in schools. These policies worked together and have together resulted in an impressive outcome. The result is a 25 percent drop in sugary drink consumption in just 18 months.

In addition to measures to disincentivize unhealthy food consumption, we need a positive, holistic approach that helps people have access to healthy food choices. We need to build healthy foods into the fabric of our schools and work with partners to ensure that lower-income families have access to fresh, healthy foods so that they have real choice.

An interesting aspect of this policy is that it is the first time that the government has applied a gender-based analysis plus analysis to the policy. The analysis found that this policy will primarily affect young males, as males consume more soft drinks than females, and that consumption is highest among individuals aged 14 to 18.

This brings me to an area of partnership with this government that I’m excited about — the work that we are undertaking to develop a set of genuine progress indicators for British Columbia. Putting all of this together, we need to realize that for most people, GDP growth isn’t felt. We need to be measuring what actually matters to people. GDP does not provide an adequate measure of progress or well-being. It doesn’t measure what really matters for British Columbians. And it doesn’t give us a true picture of the health of our economy or our society. It’s time that we stopped elevating it as the primary metric we use to define a healthy economy.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’m excited to create a more holistic set of indicators that capture the health and well-being of British Columbians, our social connections and the state of our environment, because you have to measure and report on what truly matters if you’re serious about making policy meet those ends.

I would be thrilled to see us follow the footsteps of New Zealand, which introduced their first well-being budget and runs all policies and programs through the lens of how they will affect the well-being of current and future generations of New Zealanders. I will keep working with the government to move this forward, and I hope and expect that this is the last B.C. budget that relies on GDP growth as the main metric of success of our economy.

In B.C., we have a unique opportunity to build an equitable and sustainable future and to create widespread prosperity and a high quality of life as we do so. The B.C. Green caucus is looking for a coherent economic strategy to create prosperity and position us for success in an era of unprecedented change. Government has to make smarter, more courageous choices that will allow us to meet our targets and embrace new opportunities for economic prosperity rather than spending significant time and resources to protect the status quo. We see the green economy as a central component of a thriving 21st century economy, one that harnesses all the tools of government towards the end of building resilient, sustainable communities everywhere in our province.

I also want to comment on the two roles my colleague and I play in this Legislature. We are both partners in CASA with the NDP and we are an opposition party. So while I am supportive of many aspects of this budget, I have also been clear about where I disagree on the direction the government is taking or feel that there are significant missed opportunities.

Some try to suggest that any disagreement between us and the NDP is a sign that something has gone wrong or that we must support every item in this budget in order to support the budget as a whole. I disagree. We have agreed to partner with the NDP in this minority government, and while we have shared areas of priority, we are also different parties and have different visions for this province. This is a healthy tension.

I think minority governments result in better outcomes, where policy is stronger and the governing party is kept more honest. They help to guard us against some of the excessive tendencies that can come from one party having 100 percent of the power.

I will be supporting this budget, and I will be continuing to hold the government accountable for the choices it makes. I will be working to ensure that we are addressing the most pressing issues facing our province.

J. Routledge: I really appreciate this opportunity to stand in support of Budget 2020. At its heart, this is a budget that is about the people of British Columbia. Given the extensive public consultation that has gone into this and our previous budgets, one can also say that, in large part, this is a budget by the people of British Columbia.

Speaking of people, I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge some of the important people in my life: my husband, my son and daughter-in-law, and my two grandchildren. They support what I do with so much love and enthusiasm. They are engaged in the important work that happens in this chamber.

Against all odds, my grandson and my husband were here in the gallery to listen to the throne speech. I know that at least one of them is watching the proceedings today. They have opinions about the issues of the day and, may I even say, especially the kids are engaged citizens.

[3:30 p.m.]

Now, some of you in this chamber know that my family has recently embarked on a new adventure. We are now all living together but separately, under one roof. Our home, where my husband and I have lived for more than 20 years, became, as a result of some pretty major renovations, multi-generational.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Speaking of people, I also want to acknowledge the people of Burnaby North. I want to thank them for sharing their stories, their ideas, their dreams and their fears. It is the experiences of people like them that have shaped this budget. I’m confident that the vast majority of people I represent will find themselves reflected in the vision that Budget 2020 represents.

This is a budget that affirms that, like household budgets, its job is to create the best life possible for everyone who lives here under our shared roof. Like a good household budget, it has something for the whole B.C. family. Like a good household budget, it sets money aside for immediate consumption for food, clothing and shelter, but it also plans for the future — education for the kids, healthy retirement for the adults and insurance against disaster.

I think we can all agree that a household that spends its money on designer clothes for the parents while the kids are sent off to school in rags, without warm coats in winter or dry shoes in the rain, is an unfair and irresponsible household. A household that showers treats on one child while the rest go without, I think we could all agree, would lead to serious, costly family disunity down the road. Budget 2020 acknowledges that. It acknowledges that we all make our living here in B.C. together.

British Columbia is not simply a playground for the rich. British Columbia is not simply a safety deposit box for those who have no stake in our future. British Columbia is not simply an on-ramp for the global highway. British Columbia is our home.

Now, over the last couple of days, I’ve listened to comments from across the aisle that would argue that Budget 2020 just isn’t flashy enough: too many fruits and vegetables, not enough spa days. This is a budget that tends to the needs of the whole family today and in the future. It’s a budget that acknowledges that our B.C. family has gone through some tough times and needs to rebuild and re-bond.

Budget 2020 invests directly in the people who invest directly in our communities, who spend their earnings in local businesses so that others can also make a living. Here are just a few examples of the ways that our vision and our budgets have made life better for the people in my community of Burnaby.

Let me start with child care. Since 2018, we’ve invested over $25 million in Burnaby so that families have access to affordable, quality child care when they need it. As of May 2019, we’d put $6.9 million back into the pockets of Burnaby families through the affordable child care benefit program and child care subsidy program. Since forming government, we’ve funded the creation of 363 new licensed child care spaces and created 136 universal child care prototype spaces in Burnaby alone.

Let me turn to mental health and addiction. Burnaby is receiving funding to implement community action teams so that more lives are saved.

[3:35 p.m.]

Technology. The province is supporting Burnaby-based D-Wave Systems with a $2 million investment to develop a next-generation quantum computer. It will be far more powerful than its current model, on a wider variety of applications, without increasing power demands. The technology will also improve the way computers solve problems for people in areas such as precision medicine, discovery of new materials, traffic management and climate change.

In the area of education, we are building a brand-new 1,800-seat Burnaby North secondary school, expected to be ready for students next year. Child care, adult education and language development programs will be operated out of a new 2,000-square-metre neighbourhood learning centre. We’ve invested $150,000 to support the Take a Hike Foundation, which has one of its five classes in Burnaby. We’ve hired 22 more full-time teachers in Burnaby.

Now let me turn to housing, which is a critical issue and has been for the last while — a critical issue in Burnaby. So 90 new affordable rental homes are part of the ongoing redevelopment of Cedar Place, and 331 new and affordable homes in Burnaby for low-income seniors and people with disabilities.

We’ve funded two shelters, for a total of 54 beds; $14.2 million has been invested for 142 affordable rental units for seniors; $6.1 million has been invested for 142 other affordable units; $6.1 million is invested for 61 affordable rental units for individuals, families and people with developmental disabilities; $2.5 million has been invested for 25 affordable rental units for other families and seniors; $13.8 million for 138 affordable rental units as well. Twenty units of affordable rental housing for women and children leaving violence, and $7.6 million invested for 53 modular housing units for people experiencing homelessness.

Last year we announced that Burnaby Hospital will finally be redeveloped to the tune of $1.3 billion. There will be two new towers, 400 new beds and a cancer treatment centre.

Now, these are just some of the examples of the things that we’re doing to make life better for the people who live in my community of Burnaby, and it is just a beginning. Budget 2020 continues the hard work to rebuild the Burnaby and B.C. family.

Earlier I alluded to a history of bad decisions that have torn our B.C. family apart. Let me be more specific about what those things are that our budget and our previous budgets have been working on to try to correct.

Our predecessors, the B.C. Liberal government, cut funding to important services British Columbians relied on. In the area of workers compensation, they ended lifetime benefits for permanently injured workers. They reduced benefit payments by 13 percent. They made budget cuts that led to a 30 percent reduction in worksite visits by prevention officers. They eliminated vocational rehabilitation assistance by a 98 percent reduction. They reduced the employer premium rates at the expense of workers.

Collective agreements have been stripped, which has resulted in thousands of jobs lost in health care and the privatization of many health care services. Stripping of collective agreements reduced support for students, and, in fact, were found to be in violation of the Charter rights of these workers.

In the area of the Employment Standards Act, massive cuts led to reduced staffing at the branch by a third. It closed face-to-face services by reducing offices from 17 to nine. It lowered the age of child employment to 12.

[3:40 p.m.]

Other areas under labour relations. The previous government ended card check certification, increased delays in holding and processing certification votes. Budget cuts at the board left it understaffed and under-resourced, and unionization in the province dropped.

Now, some across the aisle may applaud this. But I would point out that though unionization rates declined across Canada in the ’80s and ’90s, B.C. is the only province where unionization rates continued into the 2000s. Everywhere else in the country, unionization rates decreased, except in British Columbia.

Other things that happened on their watch. They clawed back benefits to some of our most vulnerable neighbours. They mismanaged B.C. Hydro to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. At one point, they used non-standard accounting practices to make a deficit seem $520 million smaller than it actually was. They lost $43 million of taxpayer’s money on a fast land sale they were advised not to do. They hid a growing financial crisis at ICBC. The term “dumpster fire” comes to mind. These are just some of the more egregious examples.

What was the result of these bad choices? Well, between 2000 and 2015, the number of seniors living in poverty more than doubled. While the B.C. Liberals were in power, child poverty became the worst in Canada. Student debt grew by 88 percent. Rent increased by 50 percent, and minimum wage went from the highest in the country to one of the lowest.

The benchmark price of detached homes went from $370,000 when the B.C. Liberals took office to $1.8 million when they were defeated.

How did people cope with these changes that they were undergoing? Well, what they did is they ended up borrowing. People, the average British Columbian, went into debt. By 2016, British Columbians had the highest personal debt, excluding mortgage, of anywhere in the country.

Now, the debate in the last couple days has involved quite a few distractions. The opposition does not want the people of British Columbia to be reminded that they squandered the B.C. family’s fortune, but they are back, knocking on the door to get back in to try and woo voters with flowers and chocolates. They’ll say anything to get back where they want to be so that they can go back to holding their lavish parties for their rich friends, eating caviar while the kids are eating instant noodles.

If they get back in charge of the family again, they’ll be cutting the kids’ allowances and sending them off to get jobs and then asked to be thanked for not expecting a bigger share of their paycheques.

In 2017, the B.C. family kicked out the B.C. Liberals and changed the locks. Maybe it’s time for a restraining order.

N. Letnick: First, it’s indeed a privilege to get up for my 11th budget speech. I’m honoured to be the member representing and the voice of the constituents of the Kelowna–​Lake Country riding. A great number of citizens, two-thirds of the riding, come from Kelowna, and one-third from Lake Country.

It is an amazing place. I would welcome everyone to come and visit, spend their money in the riding any time they want. I’d even welcome them at the airport if they let me know ahead of time they’re coming. That would be great. We know hospitality in Kelowna–Lake Country, and we’d welcome everyone to come, on both sides of the House, to visit and spend their money. Making announcements would be great too.

We haven’t had many announcements in the last three years since the government took over, but hopefully, that will change a year from now so we can start making announcements again.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’d first like to thank, besides my constituents, my family for the privilege of being here and for their support. My wife, Helene. My three children, Melanie, J.P. and Naomi. In the order that I met them, the significant others, Joanna, Eric and Calum. And, of course, the two added recent loves of my life, Luna and Sol, my two grandchildren.

Also, the team. We have an extraordinary team of people that support MLAs, and I’m no exception. I have constituency assistants back home, Katja Maurmann and Heather Head — two wonderful CAs who are doing an awesome job to make sure that our constituents are taken care of. I’m waving to them in case they’re watching. They might be the only two that are watching. So thank you very much to both of them. Here in the Legislature, we have Jonah Gowans, my legislative assistant. Dion Weisner and Sam Arno Burgess, my research and my communications assistant, as well.

The Leader of the Official Opposition, of course, who has given me the privilege of being the critic for health care in the province of B.C. It occupies approximately 40 percent of the provincial budget, and it keeps me occupied and hopping all the time. Of course, our two Finance critics, the MLA for Prince George–Valemount and the MLA for Surrey South, on doing the great work that they’ve done to help us craft our response to this budget.

Now, I have all kinds of information. I’m sure I’m going to run out of time, but I’ll be looking for that green light to give me my two-minute warning. I’ll just start with the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce. Their particular perspective on the budget was that…. The president of the Kelowna chamber said on Tuesday: “We were hoping to see relief on the taxes that are holding small businesses back, like adjusting the threshold with the employers health tax or a prudent approach for big business that will help them compete globally. Our biggest producers and commodity exporters are paying one of the highest carbon taxes in the world. This isn’t an environment that encourages investment.”

The Kelowna chamber also sees the budget as a missed opportunity to outline a broad vision on how the government plans to ensure we remain a competitive jurisdiction globally that welcomes entrepreneurs who see the value of investing in British Columbia. So not a glowing review by the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce.

I also have lots from the Business Council of B.C., but I’ll save that in case I speak faster than I think I am going to.

In the Budget 2020 strategic plan document, on page 13, it talks about the three-year fiscal plan and gives the general overview. If I have a moment, I’d like to just highlight a few things on here.

One of the overview issues is the capital spending. Capital spending. We’re looking at taxpayer-supported capital spending going from $5.2 billion to $8.4 billion — quite a considerable jump. That is, of course, including all the amounts of moneys that the government is spending on their union benefit agreements — $172 million so far on just two roads in excess of what should have been paid because of these union benefit agreements — $172 million. I can just imagine how many schools we could have funded with that — in particular, one in my riding. A brand-new Rutland Middle School would have been more than paid for by less than half of that amount of money.

What does that mean with the numbers? Well, taxpayer-supported debt to revenue, from what I understand, the agencies that look at these numbers look at around 92 percent or 93 percent before they start getting worried about maybe reducing the triple-A credit rating. We’re going to go from 78 percent in taxpayer-supported debt to revenue to 94.4 percent over the course of the three years of the plan. So, yes, it’s always great to be investing money in capital, but we have to be prudent, because if we lose our triple-A credit rating, then, of course, we’ll pay more on the interest, and we’ll have less money to invest in British Columbians.

Another thing that was a little concerning for many of my colleagues and myself was that the budget in 2019 was overspent by half a billion dollars. That’s $500 million more than the government had planned to spend. Of course, that is not prudent financial management.

[3:50 p.m.]

On the positive side — and I will start with a positive note on the budget — the grant program that is being brought forward to change the way students taking diplomas and certificate courses in trades, education and health care programs, which were previously ineligible, I agree with. I think most of the members would agree as well. The students made a good case when they came and visited us not too long ago that we should be looking at taking away some of the old program and replacing it with a needs-based grant at the beginning of their education. I congratulate the government on listening to the students and listening to the bipartisan Finance Committee on that particular initiative.

I think having the UBC Okanagan campus in my riding helps me to communicate on a frequent basis with the students, and I’ve heard this ask, so I would like to congratulate the government on that. So I do have one positive note on that.

I wish the government would also consider helping to find people to work in our seniors care environment. Some of the applications of the changes to the upfront grants program could be actually used to help find ways to get more health care assistants in British Columbia.

Here are three things for government to consider. One is to improve access to training and education by providing full or partial bursaries for health care assistants enrolled in private and public and post-secondary institutions across British Columbia. Providing bursaries will help address the financial and economic barriers that prevent qualified candidates from enrolling in the training.

Second, expand the eligibility for B.C.’s loan forgiveness program to health care assistants working in and relocating to underserved communities to address acute labour shortages in rural and remote communities in B.C. Expanding this program will ensure that continuing care providers have an adequate supply of well-trained health care workers and will ensure that seniors are able to age in place in their own community.

Third of many recommendations, which I’m sure our seniors critic will follow up on during estimates, is to establish and expand dual-credit programs in school districts across B.C. in order to improve access to training for qualified high school students interested in studying to become HCAs. Expanding dual-credit programs will provide students with relevant, purposeful learning and a smooth transition into industry after graduation. I’m pleased to say that I actually communicated that one a few weeks ago, probably months ago, to my local school district, and I think they are considering exactly that. So a hats-off to local school district 23 for that.

What does this budget really mean? Well, it means higher costs for British Columbians on the whole. The NDP promised the $10-a-day daycare for all parents, and that pledge has disappeared. In particular, our critic for daycare, the member for Chilliwack-Kent, has put together a very well-written note on this. He says:

“The NDP have abandoned their plan to implement universal, $10-a-day child care for all parents who need or want it. The throne speech backed away from universal child care, saying that subsidies for child care will be based on need rather than need or want, as the NDP promised in their 2017 platform. The $10-a-day child care is still a temporary pilot program with 2,500 child care spaces, and that’s just 2 percent of the 119,000 total spaces committed to.

“The $10-a-day plan is a ten-year plan. This year’s funding, $675 million, will flatline at one-third of the project’s cost, nearly $2 billion of a full $10-a-day program. Three years from now, the NDP will be five years into their ten-year plan at one-third funding.”

He also says:

“While more families, 28,000 families, happen to pay less than $10 a day under government subsidies, that was also true under our government, with 22,000. These are not part of the $10-a-day plan. The NDP plan to have funded 10,400 new spaces, but only 2,000 or less are actually working.”

He ends by saying:

“The greatest problem in child care is the shortage of early childhood educators. But there is nothing new for them in this budget. The government will continue to spend $26 million annually in wage supports, representing just 4 percent of child care spending annually.”

So not a glowing review by our critic for child care.

We also see that help for renters facing increases has been compromised. The promised $400-a-year rebate does not exist. It’s gone. These are two things that helped propel the NDP to a second-place finish in the election and put them in a position to take over government with the support of the Third Party, and of course, those two things have been dropped.

[3:55 p.m.]

Housing prices are on the rise, and housing starts have dropped 22 percent. It will take another 98 years for the NDP to deliver on a promise of 114,000 homes. The cost to heat your home with natural gas is going up, thanks to the increase in the carbon tax. ICBC rates will continue to skyrocket this year, and any relief is not in sight until after the next election.

In particular, on ICBC, I received a note from a constituent who said to me that she had two Finance critics question the budget’s forecast for the Insurance Corp. of B.C, which forecast a $91 million deficit for the year ending in March, then surpluses in the next three years. This allows record deficits totalling $2.5 billion in the previous two years. She said that she would like to thank the two critics for bringing up that concern. She spent a great deal of time researching the proposed changes, and her concern is that what’s being presented to the public is misleading and limits the rights of injured workers in terms of fair compensation.

She goes on to say: “I currently work with a number of workers who have been injured in a motor vehicle accident. These workers range in age, earning levels, occupational history and education level.” In order to be fully transparent, she does receive from ICBC directly, as well as personal injury lawyers. Regardless of referral source, her goal is to help return these workers back to employment. In almost all cases, these workers have residual limitations — physical, cognitive and/or mental health — which are barriers that they now have to navigate as part of this return to work.

In repeated cases, she’s worked with clients whose wage loss benefits have been delayed repeatedly, impacting their ability to pay rent, utilities, purchase groceries and pay bills. Compounding this is the fact that as wage loss benefits are never comparable to actual income levels, many of these people are having to use community resources, such as the food bank, in order to feed themselves and their families.

Additionally, treatment services are, in many cases, also delayed, meaning that although services such as physio, massage and counselling may have been recommended, getting authorization for more sessions leaves gaps in treatment provision and impacts on pain management and recovery strategies.

She recognizes that what’s being proposed as a care model, and they’ve presented that as a service, will allow for greater numbers of therapy appointments. However, she says that’s only one factor. They note that overall limits to weekly wage loss will be much higher than the current. However, this is not reflective of what workers will actually receive.

In other words, if the maximum weekly wage loss allowed is to be $1,200 per week, what is not being stated by the government is that the actual wage loss amount that you will receive is based on the calculation of actual earnings. Someone earning about $64,000 per year in wages may get the maximum of $1,200 per year, but someone earning $45,000 per year is going to get much less, and this maximum is only a portion of their actual earnings.

For those that are catastrophically injured…. It is her understanding that for students who may be in the early stages of education and training towards a career, they will not be able to access earning potential for their careers.

Under the current system, there is a way for this to be evaluated and looked at — what is likely in terms of the career trajectory — and access accordingly. But what is proposed is a flat-rate number per year based on what grade they’re in.

The person I was speaking to about this was unable to explain to me what that looks like in actuality, and she is very concerned. She has a number of other concerns as well. She ends up by saying: “I do not believe that this proposed change to no-fault insurance will help injured workers.” She is seriously concerned about the issue and that the attempts of ICBC to save costs is going to be at the expense of the injured worker. She’s asked me to forward her concerns to the members of the House, and I have done that.

We also see in this budget no help for small businesses that are being attacked by high taxes, and of course, we’ve heard lately that strata owners are not getting enough help when it comes to insurance rates or access. One letter I got yesterday says:

“Dear sir:

“We live in a condo complex in Kelowna on Enterprise Way. Last year our property insurance was $103,000, a jump from $64,000 the year before. This year it increased to $324,000, and we had made no claims.

“This is just gouging by the insurance companies. I find it amusing the reason given for the increase in premiums by the Minister of Finance was the cost of construction material.

“I would love to see the documentation to back up her statement. A 300 percent increase in one year — hardly likely.”

[4:00 p.m.]

That’s just one comment from one constituent on facing the difficulty that most strata owners, I’m sure, will be facing if they haven’t already faced it. Again, nothing in the budget by this government.

We’ve seen that by 2022, total taxation in B.C. will have increased by almost $4,700 per household under this current government. The NDP are now at 23 or 24 new or increased taxes. At the same time, expenses have increased $11.4 billion, and $14.95 billion in the next year, with not much planned for economic growth other than through taxation. The Finance Minister confirmed she overspent this year by nearly $500 million and failed to follow through on capital projects worth over $1 billion.

We’ve also seen confidence dropping, and when confidence drops, investment drops. According to the budget documents, British Columbia will continue its streak of losing full-time private sector jobs, which is 32,800 over the last eight months. All the economic indicators — employment, manufacturing, exports, retail sales, housing starts — are pointing in the wrong direction. Revenue from the resource sector is declining, and forestry is dropping by over 40 percent since 2018. We’ve seen a loss of 21,800 total jobs in 2019 as well. So these are very troublesome times in our province.

The government continues to tax and spend. Surprise, surprise. We now have a new Netflix tax, a tax on streaming services which will apply PST to services like Netflix and Spotify. This could cost consumers as much as $44 each per year. People earning above $220,000 will now be taxed 20.5 percent. The previous rate was 16.8 percent.

This was printed in the Okanagan Edge this morning, I believe.

“A Kelowna tax expert believes the provincial government could be driving business out of B.C. with the budget it released on Tuesday.

“Quinton Pullen, a tax partner at BDO, gave a presentation for the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce breakfast on Wednesday and said the top-bracket increase could drive employers out of the province. Combined with federal tax, those earning more than $220,000 will now surpass the 50 percent tax rate.

“‘The question that we see when this comes up is: where is the line? At what point do employers and business owners look at this and say, “It’s not worth putting in extra effort? If I don’t get to keep even half of every dollar I make, at what point do I say maybe I don’t want to hire this other employee to help expand the business for me because it’s just too much effort for me and I’m not getting anything out of it?”’

“Pullen added the increase also looks like a disguised estate tax….”

Let me say that again. It took me a couple of times to get that.

“Pullen added the increase also looks like a disguised estate tax, as business owners who pass away will be hit with an even larger tax bill. They’re not in the highest tax bracket when they’re alive, but they enter it upon passing.”

I know the speaker following me, who was a Harvard professor, has way more knowledge on these kinds of things than I do and might actually have a few comments to say about that.

“‘You’re treated as if you sold the shares of that business,’ Pullen said. ‘So not only do you have to pay a big tax bill; you have no cash to pay the tax.’”

A double whammy.

This is just the start of comments I’m sure we’ll all be receiving over time as people dissect the budget point by point, bullet by bullet.

We also have those key promises that have been broken since the last election. As I said before, no $400 rebate. No new money for the $10-a-day daycare. No moneys added to reduce congestion, to get drivers out of traffic. Of course, no money for replacing the George Massey Tunnel. No money for commuter rail in the Fraser Valley. No money for the Surrey SkyTrain or SkyTrain to UBC.

No money to eliminate Surrey portables. No money for Surrey Hospital. We’ll talk about that more in a minute. No money for the opioid crisis. No action to promote new market housing and make housing affordable. The NDP have only opened 2,430 housing units as of the latest report, meaning it will take almost 100 years to meet their promise of units built.

It’s really getting harder for B.C. companies to sell their products. As we’ve noticed, our exports have fallen by 6.4 percent.

[4:05 p.m.]

So what’s the picture like back home? Well, in yesterday’s social media, I found this, which was produced by the local regional district economic board. They show housing starts in the Central Okanagan have gone down: single detached homes down from 618 to 494 between 2018 and 2019 and multifamily down from 1,937 to 1,731. So that’s a drop of almost 13 percent in housing starts in the local market in the Central Okanagan. At the same time, we’ve seen the median new-home price go up 5.6 percent in the same market.

Supply and demand has obviously reared its head in our market. We have lower supply, and we have constant, if not more, demand, which has raised prices. A big part of that is the speculation tax. The speculation tax, which applies to Kelowna and West Kelowna — not to Lake Country — has seen a major impact on the amount of new housing starts in our local area. Indeed, $185 million provincewide has been taken in by the speculation tax.

The commitment to the mayors — in particular, our mayor, Colin Basran — was that the funds would be rechannelled back into new housing developments in the local communities from which the tax has been taken. Well, I would prefer that the speculation tax just disappear in Kelowna, as is the wish of our Kelowna city council and the west council as well. But at least they should honour their commitment to return the money back to the municipalities. There’s nothing in this budget that honours that commitment. Again, a promise made and a promise not kept, unfortunately.

Local projects. In past budgets, we’ve had the opportunity to see investments in the Kelowna area. I’m really proud to stand here and talk about some of those that we’ve invested in — Okanagan College, UBC Okanagan. We even put in $10 million for tourism. We had $9.4 million for the tree fruit replant program and $7 million for the innovation and high-tech centre in B.C., to help build that. We built a new highway from Winfield to Oyama; four-laned Highway 97 going through my riding, including improving intersections that were congested; three-laning Highway 33; a passing lane up at Walker Hill; thousands of more handyDART, conventional bus hours.

We helped to purchase the rail corridor from CN. We put $8.4 million into that. I’m pretty sure if we wouldn’t have done that, we wouldn’t today be holding on to that beautiful corridor between Kelowna and Vernon.

Of course, almost $1 billion in health care in the Central Okanagan, particularly Kelowna General Hospital — lab building, Centennial tower, cardiac surgical centre, obstetrics, a new medical school.

We’ve put money in to create the Foundry, a new hub for youth and young adults with mental health and substance abuse challenges.

We have a new integrated team approach to seniors health, which the current government is continuing on. Congratulations to that.

Funds for the new all-season soccer dome in Rutland. Parks, trails, bike paths.

Several affordable housing projects — New Gate, NOW Canada, Pleasantvale Homes, Apple Valley Homes.

Money for licensed daycare spaces. And the list goes on and on.

We also see money for John Hindle Drive, connecting Glenmore to UBC Okanagan on Highway 97.

Money for implementing a nurse-in-practice program.

We put money to transfer the ownership of the whole Highway 97 in Lake Country to the district of Lake Country.

We’ve also seen other funds for all kinds of other priorities. But we still have more to do in our local area, and I’m not too sure this budget will be providing those funds to do that with.

Work to do with UBC Okanagan to continue to expand the goal and the vision of an aerospace tech hub in composites and create jobs at the same time as spaces for students to go to school.

Continue to create a multidisciplinary health hub for the district of Lake Country. I’m very optimistic that we’ll get that over the finish line within this budget. I’m very hopeful.

We still need to do more work on reducing wait times on medically necessary procedures like hips and knees.

The perennial ask. I asked this when I was on the government side, and I’ll continue to do so. I even asked the Minister of Education today, at the line for the cafeteria, for a brand-new Rutland Middle School. I committed to him that I would do that again in estimates, and he welcomed the ask in estimates as well.

Continue to expand public transit.

Continue to look at more child care spaces.

Continue to work with the district of Lake Country to fix the bottleneck at Beaver Lake Road where it joins Highway 97 and Glenmore Road. That’s probably the number one current transportation priority that I have in my riding.

[4:10 p.m.]

Of course, continue to put money in to stop the zebra and quagga mussels from invading our province and, in particular, the beautiful waters of the Okanagan.

Continue to look at owner and rental housing and what we can do to help people get into homes, their first homes in particular.

And continue, especially right now, to help with the B.C. agricultural sector. No new money, as far as I can see, for B.C. fruit growers. They’re continuing to rely on the replant program that we put into place when we were in government, but they need some more help right now, and we need to get the government working on that.

Of course, we need more funds for Crown land fire mitigation and wastewater treatment, especially in the district of Lake Country.

Last on the local list, but I would say it’s a list that goes beyond local government, is the ability for us to provide recovery beds for people once they decide that they want to get off of drugs or alcohol. We need more opportunities for them to find a home somewhere where they can do that — and wraparound supports with long-term solutions.

What I’d like to just do now, in the limited time I have available, is just talk a little bit about health care. I am the opposition critic for the Ministry of Health. As we all know, that occupies about 40 percent of the provincial budget. The current 2019-2020 operating expense is projected at $20,698,000. That’s planned to go, in the next year, to $22,042,000. That’s an increase of 6½ percent in one year. That’s quite outstanding, I would say.

If it’s going up by 6½ percent and it’s 40 percent of the provincial budget, what did the other ministries have to give up? What flat line did we see in all these other ministries that are not going to be able to meet their priorities because of this 6½ percent in health care? That’s a very good question. What taxes had to go up to make it up? We’re going to be looking at that, of course, with all the different critics during the estimates process.

In my particular case, I’m going to be…. I will share, of course, this in more detail with the staff and the Minister of Health prior to estimates, as I customarily do. I will be looking at the Medical Services Plan amounts, the regional services amounts and the PharmaCare amounts.

Also, I would like to bring up with them some particular priorities in wait times, in urgent primary care centres, unattached citizens in primary care networks, contingency plans re the coronavirus, B.C. emergency health services, border health services — or lack of that, in Alberta — a rare drug strategy, non-resident births, health tech, how doctors get paid, the gaps in addiction strategies, how we can help resident doctors, safety for nurses and other workers, and DBS surgery.

Also looking at if there’s a way we can encourage the government to expand the number of training spaces for doctors. Since forming government, the number of doctors in family practice has only increased by 99 — that’s this government — from 6,267 to 6,366. Our government, from 2001, increased the number of spaces for new doctors from 120 to 288. The current government has increased those spaces by zero.

One way to help find doctors, family doctors in particular, for people to get attached to would be to actually increase the number of seats that our young people would like to have so they can attend school and become family doctors. It was 120 to 288 under the previous government and zero to zero under the current government in 2½ or three years.

My ask, probably to the Minister of Advanced Education and not the Minister of Health, would be to increase the number of seats provincewide for family physicians so that we can attach more people who are unattached to a family doctor — a full-service family physician.

Again, on behalf of my constituents, thank you very much.

R. Kahlon: I want to thank my learned colleague from across the way, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, for his remarks surrounding the budget. It won’t surprise many that I disagree with him on many things. I will be speaking in favour of this budget.

[4:15 p.m.]

First, I want to start off by recognizing the Minister of Finance. It’s a very difficult role, the Ministry of Finance. There are lots of pressures from, I think, her colleagues, wanting to ensure that the issues in their communities are heard, but also from many people, many stakeholders, within the community. It’s a difficult role to be in, but she’s done an amazing job — another balanced budget — while still making critical investments on the things that matter, certainly to the people of my community and, I know, to many people across this province. We’ll certainly be going through all these things, but I just want to start off with child care.

I just recently was visiting a child care facility in my community. It was parents who were just entering to child care, and there was the fear. I could just see the fear in their eyes of having to take their child to this new child care centre and leaving them for the first time. So I spoke to them about initiatives that our government is doing to make life a little bit easier for them.

You know, hon. Speaker, it’s phenomenal what we’ve seen in my community. In my community alone, we have seen over $5.3 million going back into the pockets of families — $5.3 million. Of that, it’s just shy of $4 million that’s going directly into the pockets of parents to help reduce fees — and other benefits that are associated with it.

We’ve been able to create 45 new child care spaces. That’s just the start. The challenge that people in my community have had is that, to start with, there wasn’t even a baseline for how many child care spaces were available. There wasn’t a baseline on what the city was doing, what the school district was doing, what the private child care providers and non-profits were doing.

Last year we saw the first step, which was providing funds to UBCM so that they can provide money to communities to have one table where they all come together and have a central discussion on what our inventory is, what kind of child care spaces we have and where the gaps are, the critical gaps that are needed to address the shortages in our community.

From that research, now we’re starting to see organizations start to apply for child care spaces. I met with, recently, just a couple of groups who said: “Now we’re in a place…. Now that we know the data, now that we know what the other providers are providing the community and where the shortfalls are, now we know how we can apply.” They’ve seen a historic amount of dollars on the table to build new facilities, and they’re seeing the reduced fees. They’re seeing that it’s a viable sector to be a part of, and they’re playing an important role.

I’m excited to see the increase in dollars available, especially for the infrastructure, for creating new spaces, and I can guarantee you there will be organizations, in fact, that are close to applying, close to getting into the queue right now to apply for spaces. So this, right here, is a central theme. I’ve gone through it. I’m fortunate enough that my little guy is now in school. We in fact had a party the day he left child care and went to kindergarten, because we knew that that big bill we got every month won’t be coming in anymore. We cut a cake. We had a big party. It was amazing.

I know that the cost has been a challenge for many families. I was fortunate. My partner and I were fortunate that we had the means to pay. It still was hard. We felt it, but I know many, many families who have to make tough decisions, who don’t have their parents nearby or many family members nearby. So I know that the B.C. child opportunity benefits are making a big difference.

There’s more to do. I hear from colleagues across the way, saying: “Well, you haven’t reached $10 a day for everybody in B.C.” Well, it’s going to take time. We’re heading in that direction. But what I’ll say is that what we’ve done is a thousand times better than what was there before, because there was nothing. In fact, child care was rarely ever mentioned by the government.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: My colleague from Surrey, across the way, says he mentioned child care once. So perhaps he had mentioned it. But as far as the government goes, there was no commitment made to child care throughout the province. And perhaps when he speaks, I’ll come and listen to all the amazing things the previous government had done for child care, but I suspect that list will be very short.

I’ve already mentioned some of the investments that we’ve made in child care, which we’ve seen directly in my community. Also, I know in the budget speech, it was mentioned about MSP premiums.

[4:20 p.m.]

Obviously, it’s now fairly common knowledge that MSP premiums have been eliminated. I heard the Leader of the Opposition just recently in Surrey at a town hall basically say: “Whoop-de-do. Nobody was really paying MSP premiums.”

I suggest he leave the yacht clubs and come talk to the average person, because people were being crippled by this MSP premium. I had seniors, whose doors I knocked on, who told me that this was the biggest struggle for them. They had a fixed income, and the cost continued to rise. They saw this as a major issue for them in their retirement. So to hear the official opposition leader say, “Big deal. Not many people really pay it,” just shows how disconnected he is.

Now I’m hearing from the opposition who want to know more about their leader and how disconnected he is, saying that renting is a wacky time in life. Then today we hear them in question period talk about how they care about renters, and then we hear their Housing critic talk about lifting the limit on how high the rents can be increased. I don’t understand the position of the opposition anymore.

They claim that they did so much for housing. There have been more rental units created in the last two years than were created in the last decade under the previous government. I’ve got stats right here.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: He says: “Not true.” The member from Langley says it’s not true. Perhaps in his speech, he can specify correct numbers.

I’ll go off the B.C. Housing research centre. The B.C. Housing research centre recently noted that 2019 was a record year for rental starts, with 12,289 new purpose rentals registered to begin permitting and construction. That’s an all-time high, and it’s more than double the number in the last full year of the previous government. That’s double.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: Well, again, the member from Langley says that he has correct facts and that the B.C. Housing research centre is making things up. We’ll let the public decide who’s got the accurate numbers. He claims they don’t know, but again, we’ll let the public decide who they want to believe on that question.

We’re touching on housing, and we know, again, that there was a critical shortage in housing for women fleeing domestic violence. Again, I think we’ll hear from the opposition about how great they were when it came to building transition homes for women fleeing domestic violence. But the truth is they weren’t. They weren’t great.

I’ll tell you one thing. When I was just deciding to run as a candidate, I met with many stakeholders in my community who told me that they were trying so hard to get a transition home, a first single transition home, built in Delta. I had to go and campaign with members of the community, and hey, lo and behold, right before the election, two months before the election, they got a transition home.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: Yeah, finally. I agree with the member opposite. He said: “Finally.” I agree with him.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: He says they couldn’t find the right site. You know what? He should know that the house was being given for free by the city. The city had a home. The city said: “We will give this home for them to build a transition home.” They wouldn’t provide the money until they were pushed, embarrassed in the media.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: Again, the member from Langley says that that’s not true. Well, this is something that we lived through in our community. Again, it’s an opportunity for him to talk about that in his response to the budget.

I want to touch on action on homelessness. It’s easy for some to discount that as not a big deal. When we see modular homes being built, where people who were living on the street get an actual roof over their head, it’s game-changing. We’re seeing continued investments in this budget to do that. Over 2,000 more people will be able to access this service. This is huge.

I just was reading about the story of this young man — his name is Joey; they didn’t specify his last name — in Surrey, who was living on the Whalley strip, who finally had a shelter over his head. He shared how that stability in his life…. He had struggled with drug addiction, he’d been struggling to get his feet grounded, and this money for shelters allowed him to find some stability in his life, allowed him to find some grounding so that he can get the supports and services he needs so he could get on with his life.

[4:25 p.m.]

So here we are. We’ve made significant commitments in that field, and we have a lot more to do. There’s no doubt about it. But we’re making progress.

One of the things I want to touch on is ICBC. I see the Attorney General is just walking in. I want to thank him for his good work on that file. It was a dumpster fire that was left behind, bleeding money, losing money year over year — major frustration for people in my community, major frustration for people everywhere.

I find it interesting. In the debate now, the opposition has amnesia. They’ve forgotten that they created that fire. But I will remind them of the leadership debate, where the Leader of the Opposition asked the member for Kamloops: “How could it get so bad? Where did this debt come from? Why is this in such bad shape?” He reminded the Leader of the Official Opposition that he was sitting right next to him when it all was being done.

I think it’s important to remind people in our communities that this was left to us. Report after report was given to them that there’s a financial crisis there, and pages were ripped out before they were made public. I’d say disgraceful, and I think many in my community would agree. So we’ve made these changes.

I’ll give you one example of a young man named Ted, who I’ve known over the years and lives in my community. I remember, in the election, he was campaigning against me, and he was saying the NDP this and the NDP that and posting things on social media. So when we made changes on ICBC in the first round of changes, providing supports for people who’ve had injuries…. Just recently he came to my office, and Ted said: “Thank you for the changes you’ve made there.”

He got into a really bad car accident. He had a concussion, trouble being in rooms with light, couldn’t go to work for a long time. This guy was formerly in the chamber, and he came to me and said: “Listen, thank you.” He said: “This has been huge for me. I’ve been able to get the supports I need.” He didn’t want to become a millionaire from the accident. He just wanted to get enough supports so that he could get back to having a normal life and get back to being at work and doing things with the community. I want to say to Ted: “Thanks for coming to see me.”

We’ve made major reforms. I think saving $400, on average, for drivers, starting May 21, is huge. Again, I think it’s welcome news from the public, and I want to thank the AG for taking on such a difficult file. It’s a lot, considering he’s got a lot on his desk. But this is major. I’ve had people who were on the ICBC board come to me and say: “Hey, I’m glad you guys had the guts to do what we couldn’t do.” So I’m proud that we’ve taken that step, and I’m proud that it’s here in the budget.

Health care. My learned colleague from Kelowna–Lake Country, who I’ve got a great deal of respect for, is very knowledgeable on the health care file. I just love the fact that he and the Minister of Health and the Third Party work so closely on health-related issues. He said: “How is it that there’s a 6 percent increase in health care?”

I assume that that’s a good news story. I assume that that’s enough for him to want to vote for this budget — a 6 percent increase. He’s looking at it and saying: “How is that possible? Where is it coming from?” Well, it’s here. The numbers are in front of him. He’s very passionate about health care. I know that. So I think that’s enough for him, right there, to support this budget.

What we’re seeing is improvements in MRIs. We’re seeing surgery wait times go down. I was just recently at the physiotherapist with my knee. They told me I’d need to get an MRI, and the physio said: “Hey, don’t worry about it. Just go get an MRI done. It doesn’t take much time anymore.” That put a smile on my face.

That’s directly the work of the Minister of Health, his focus on this issue. That was making investments in buying private MRI facilities so that we can increase the capacity in the system. It was operating MRI machines 24-7, instead of having them sit there without a person to operate them. It’s making a major difference in people’s lives.

[4:30 p.m.]

In fact, what we’ll see is that when the time comes down, you’ll see more people who need the service go and get the service. That’s what we’re starting to see. We’re starting to see people who probably should have gotten this done for their quality of life but didn’t want to wait and couldn’t afford the private clinic. What they’re seeing now is an opportunity to do that.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

I was at a high school just recently, and they asked me about how private health care continues to expand. I was trying to explain to them how it’s not by accident; it’s by design.

What I was telling them about was that when a young couple or a young person goes out — let’s say, to a bar — and they get to the line, they see that this line is so long. They say, “Oh man, I don’t want to go through this line. I’d rather go to the side door, pay a couple of extra bucks,” and get into the club, the bar or whatever it is. But when they poke their head in, they see that it’s not full. There are actually not many people in there. The line is artificially created, because they’re trying to encourage people to go to that side door and pay the extra money.

That’s what is happening with our health care system, with the long lines. People were seeing that the rooms were empty. They were seeing that the lines were created, and they were using the private option. Now we’re giving them the opportunity to come into the system as it is now.

I could go on about the list of the new hospitals and the upgrades for hospitals. I’ll do it: Williams Lake, Quesnel, Trail, Cowichan Valley, Fort St. James, Terrace, Surrey, Dawson Creek, Richmond, Burnaby, Vancouver, North Vancouver.

I’ll touch on the Surrey piece. You know, just recently the member for Richmond-Queensborough put out a funny picture of a bunch of milk cartons, put my face and my colleagues’ on it and said: “No money for a Surrey hospital.”

Well, I’ll take you down a little trip down memory lane. In the 1990s, the government at the time bought a piece of land on 152 and Highway 10, and they said: “This is going to be the future for a hospital in Surrey.”

What happened? The B.C. Liberals decided: “No, no, it’s not going to be the future home of that hospital.” They sold the parcel of land for under its value. It wasn’t even at the value of what it probably could have got on the market. It happened to be to donors. By coincidence, it happened to be to donors. They sold that parcel, and now there’s housing. Guess what. Now there was no land for a hospital to be built.

So here we are now. We have acquired land. My worry is that if we don’t get this hospital built really fast, they’ll come in and sell that again, to different donors. That’s what we’ve seen in the past. I’ll say to them that we are building a new hospital in Surrey. We’ve made that commitment. We’ve made the commitment to get the land. That hospital is going to get built. People in Surrey have waited way too long. They’ve had way too many commitments made to them for many, many years.

I’m from North Delta, and I had to remind one of my colleagues across the way, who was accusing me of not having all the things I needed in Surrey, that I’m from North Delta. But yes, the hospital in Surrey is important to me, because many people from my community go there.

There are two hospitals now. There’s that main hospital in Surrey, we’ve got this new one being built, and we’ve got the hospital in Delta. We are centrally located. It will be 15 to 20 minutes for all three facilities. People in my community go to all the facilities. So this new hospital will make a difference for people in my community as well. I look forward to being there the day that the business plan is put forward. I look forward to my constituents having that facility being available for them.

I want to touch on the urgent care centres. I know that the urgent care centre model is the future. It is the future. I remember that four years ago, I went to a facility in Prince George. It was a prototype facility, where they had the same kind of model. They were providing physiotherapy, mental health support services. All these support services were under one roof. My mind was blown, because I thought: “Hey, this is the future.” You walk in, and people are passing their files to the appropriate person. There’s team-based care.

What the Minister of Health has done: he’s decided that this is the future. The future isn’t the future; the future is now. He’s made significant investments in creating these opportunities where there are doctors for people who don’t have a family practice doctor. It’s an opportunity to get in for non-emergency things quickly so that you don’t have to wait in the queue and clog up the emergency rooms.

What we’ve seen is a new one opened in Surrey. We’ve got new ones in Kamloops, Quesnel, Vancouver, Nanaimo, Langford, Kelowna, Prince George, Burnaby. Oh, that’s a big list. I’ll keep going: North Vancouver, Vernon, Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge. And two more planned — in Victoria and in East Vancouver.

[4:35 p.m.]

I know there’s money for further development on that. I look forward to it. I have talked to some doctors as well — young doctors, actually, who just finished their practice — and they said: “I want to be there.” There’s a big trend amongst doctors — young doctors, in particular — who don’t want to run their own business. They don’t want to buy a business from someone else. They would rather work the three days or four days and have a life on the side as well.

There’s a shift in a new demographic of doctors who want to be able to enjoy their lives. They put their work in for their education and don’t want to work all the time — not like my doctor, the one I grew up with, the one from here, who worked all the time. He just retired. He worked non-stop. But there’s a shift happening. This provides opportunities for some doctors to have that stability of work. It gives them some freedom to do other things in their life, whatever that is that they choose. But at the same time, it provides team-based care.

My brother, last year, had to use the Westshore clinic. He needed attention, so he and I went to the clinic. Within half an hour, he got in. He got seen. They realized that, perhaps, he needed more attention. They referred him back to the hospital. We went to the hospital. His file was…. They were called in advance to tell that he was coming. He got seen right away, and that was my only personal experience with the clinic.

I was sitting in the waiting room, talking to some of the others. They had a little child with them and said: “This is the second time we’ve been back here.” They said: “We only go here now because we get in right away.”

This is making a significant difference in people’s lives, and I’m grateful to the Minister of Health for all the work he’s doing there.

Education. I want to touch on education. In the budget, it’s a $339 million increase over the next three years. That’s on top of the historic increase of dollars that we’ve put in the last budgets. We’re continuing to invest in education. Again, I have a child in the education system — amazing teachers, amazing principal. We’re making these investments to continue to raise the level of our education.

We are fortunate. We have got a great education system, one of the best in the world. These targeted investments will go a long way in providing obviously more teachers, more special education teachers, psychologists, counsellors. All of these things are critically important, especially when the conversation of mental health and youth mental health is now on the rise. And it’s very real.

I’ve had a small forum of students in my constituency office, local students, who wanted to talk about mental health. They were talking most about high school mental health, but they were also touching on mental health of young kids in elementary school. I know that the Minister of Mental Health is now just launching a strategy around youth mental health and a strategy on how we can start to address that.

Of course, being of a sporting background, I think that one of the biggest challenges that is amplifying this challenge of mental health is a lack of activity. Kids are not as active as they used to be. I touched on this on the throne speech, but I used to play until the sun came down. One of my friends used to get called home, and that was the cue for everyone to go home. Those days are no longer there, so we need to find ways to continue to keep kids active.

The Ministry of Health is investing $1.5 million over the next three years around physical literacy and funding physical literacy programs with Active for Life and other organizations in order to find ways to keep kids active but also find ways for the school system to adapt our education.

I think West Vancouver is leading the way. I did a tour with the Minister of Education around what West Vancouver is doing. They have built physical activity directly into the classroom. Kids are learning math and throwing beanbags. They have transformed their hallways, creating skipping opportunities and climbing the walls. They’re reimagining the traditional classroom and putting in physical activity throughout the day so kids are encouraged to do that. That’s coming from the Ministry of Health’s budget — $1.5 million, I believe — to provide that support. That’s going a long way. I’m hoping that we’ll see a continued expansion of that this coming year and in the coming year after that as well.

[4:40 p.m.]

Obviously, in the budget, there are dollars towards better access to justice and support services. We’ve heard this in communities that I’ve travelled to, where there are some serious issues around legal aid and accessing court justice, in particular with Indigenous communities and First Nations communities. I’m looking forward to seeing more on some of the pieces that are coming here.

Of course, Budget 2020 includes $15 million over three years to make sure that Indigenous youth in care get the support they need to maintain their connections in the community. I don’t think there’s a person in this Legislature that will critique that. I think there’s unanimous support across the board for that.

I just want to touch on one of the things that was mentioned in the speech made by the Minister of Finance on the day of the budget, that 1,200 youth in care are going to post-secondary education because of the investments this government has made — 1,200 youth in care. That is game-changing stuff right there.

I think of how many times I’ve heard the Ministry of Advanced Education talk about how critically important it is to provide educational opportunities to children in care, give them hope. We have these former children in care, youth in care, who come and speak to members on all sides of this Legislature. You know what jumps out at me the most? They said that people want hope. They want to know that there’s an opportunity for them at the end of the day. They don’t have the same family structures that I had the luxury of having, but they want to know that the government, who they’re in the care of, will provide that support.

I think one of the most proud things that we’ve done as a government is providing funds for these youth in care to get post-secondary education. We’ll see the results of that in a few years from now, when they go on to become, hopefully, MLAs or doctors or social workers or teachers. It’ll be an exciting day when we start seeing that. I hope we start seeing that soon, but I suspect it’ll be a few years.

We had a lot of students here when this budget was brought forward. The excitement on their faces…. How many years they’ve been advocating for a B.C. access grant program, upfront access grant program, so they don’t have to take on the debt and then pay interest, which they were paying before we formed government. They now have access to those dollars up front.

Not only that. We had the Delta chamber here, and they were talking about not enough people for the work that they have. So they were really excited to see that the program is open to diploma and certificate, because that will be able to provide the training opportunities for some of the workers they feel they need for their businesses. That’s becoming a major challenge.

I’m only halfway through, and the green light is on. So I’ll jump forward as much as I can just to say that I am supporting this budget. I think it’s pretty clear from my comments.

This budget and with the work we are doing…. It doesn’t solve all of the problems, but it certainly gets us further along. I think that what’s critically important for people in my community and people from British Columbia is that we can’t turn back. We’ve got to continue through and make sure that we continue the work that we’re doing, keep moving forward.

With that, I’ll take my seat. I look forward to hearing the next member speak.

R. Sultan: I would like to begin with a couple of bouquets.

First of all, I would like to compliment the professional staff we have behind the scenes who produce a budget document with as much clarity and transparency as this one. Having been here for, I guess, close to 20 years, it wasn’t always this way. I mean, the numbers always added up, but you weren’t quite sure whether you believed them or not. I think, over the years, our professional staff has refined, been encouraged to, and increased the quality of reporting of our operations of the British Columbia government to a point where I think it is one of the major factors in our receiving and maintaining a triple-A credit rating.

[4:45 p.m.]

They pick up the book. They can understand it. There don’t seem to be any games being played, and they say: “Well, these guys seem to know what they’re doing on the financial side.” That, of course, doesn’t cast a thumbs-up or thumbs-down as to what the actual bottom line is. I’ll get to that in a minute. But nevertheless, thank you, officials, for a job well done.

The second bouquet I would like to give is to the Finance Minister herself, who has presented a balanced budget. Now, in today’s world, this is a threatened species. We only have to look a few miles south of us to see a country led by a president and a Congress who think it’s okay to take in $3 trillion in taxes every year and spend $4 trillion on you name it, with some kind of crazy accounting along the way. I think it’s unusual in today’s world, and I say it with regret and concern, that Finance ministries all over the world, given the choices they face and the political pressures, kind of chuck the idea of balancing the books out the window.

So far, the culture that has been created here…. I’ll give credit to the prior government, in particular, but I’ll give credit to this government for maintaining the idea that we should really try very hard to bring in a balanced budget.

As slender as the margin is, we have one here to debate today. So thank you, Minister. Thank you, government. This is an accomplishment.

Let’s turn to the substance of the budget. The government’s lead-up to this budget described where we stand and where they intend to take us. It sort of sketched out the priorities and the policies that the government thinks will actually get us there. Amidst this general outpouring of self-praise, there were many good things that we could agree on but also significant areas of over-optimism, to be polite about it.

The government clearly believes things are proceeding just splendidly in British Columbia, which the Premier has repeatedly assured us has “the strongest economy in Canada” over and over again. We heard it again today; it’s picked up by everybody.

The government tells us things are getting better day by day, compared with the dreadful inertia of the past — those dark days, 16 years of them. The press release accompanying it says: “Budget 2020: Move B.C. Forward Again.” Again, although inconsistently, the same press release also says: “Budget 2020 keeps British Columbia moving forward.” Well, there’s something not quite consistent there.

Another example, this time from the throne speech: “As British Columbians greet this new day and a new decade, they are starting to move forward.” Notice the key phrase “starting to move forward,” which implies we were more or less stuck in the mud until the new folks came along and gave us a push. I guess we should thank them for that.

We’ve also been told: “When they review their bank statements” — referring to the citizens of our province — “many families have more money left at the end of the month than they did three years ago.”

Now, that’s a simple measure which every former banker in this Legislature must applaud, if it is true. I propose to examine whether it is, in fact, generally true that British Columbians are more flush with cash, that our personal cash reserves have greatly improved. Or is the government’s use of the qualifying phrase “many families,” in quotation marks, having more cash on hand than ever really a verbal deception, skating quickly over the great big possible loophole called “most families,” who are not enjoying such a cash bonanza?

That, in a nutshell, is the NDP government’s case. They’ve laid out lofty goals followed by a confident assertion that they already have, by and large, achieved them. In sum, their accomplishments are simply wonderful.

[4:50 p.m.]

Well, how is British Columbia doing in fact? In particular, can we believe the assertion that we have the strongest economy in Canada? That’s a pretty powerful phrase. I’m sad to report that while there are patches of success, many of them coasting on the momentum of projects and policies implemented by the previous government, things are not generally wonderful.

I would like to illustrate that negative report card by focusing attention on five things, using as source material the data on “Earnings and Employment Trends, January 2020” — published by our own excellent B.C. Stats organization, which, in turn, relies very heavily on our excellent Statistics Canada labour force survey — and tossing in a few comments by Bloomberg Economics along the way.

Here are the main points: (1) fewer jobs; (2) a switch from growth in private sector employment to growth in public sector employment; (3) a loss of high-paying resource industry jobs; (4) a severe cost-of-living squeeze between wages and cost of living — Generation Squeeze we have heard of before, coming out of UBC; and finally, (5) a growing threat of insolvency among ordinary British Columbians.

Let me just amplify each of those five points. Let’s start with jobs and employment, because this is pretty fundamental. The budget says that good things are happening. British Columbia, in 2019, created more than 45,000 jobs. Unfortunately, B.C. Stats reports don’t quite agree. They say that total employment in British Columbia actually declined in 2019 from 2.506 million in January 2019 to 2.505 million in January 2020. A smidgen, I admit. But it’s a negative, nevertheless, and a bit awkward if you’re running around telling everybody that you’ve got the strongest economy in the country. We somehow lost jobs along the way. That’s kind of a bad starting block position.

Perhaps the softness in the labour market was common right across Canada. Maybe we’re still the best of kind of a weaker lot. Well, actually, no. If we look at B.C. Stats table 2.3, Canada as a whole gained in employment in 2019. Only three provinces did not: Alberta, Newfoundland and British Columbia, by the narrow margin that I reported a moment ago. All the others, and the big ones, gained employment: Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. They all grew in employment. We were categorized with the losers. Uh-oh. Does that sound like the strongest economy in Canada?

Questions. Well, perhaps it’s structural. You know, the mix of jobs, changes. Can you blame goods-producing versus service jobs, etc., etc.? Let’s take a look again at the B.C. Stats numbers, this time, table 3.1, on mix. It turns out, lo and behold, that both the service industries and the goods industries lost employment last year. Well, that’s a bit of a downer. Let’s see if we can find some other excuses.

We can look at labour market indicators as published in the document itself, the budget book that I just praised. It begins, in fact, illustrating my point. This is a very good book to begin to understand what’s going on here. It’s what we used to call, at school, “How to lie.” Oh no, I can’t use that word. “How to tell untruths with statistics.” I think it’s, in fact, true. If you compare the average number of employees in 2018 with the average number of employees in 2019, it shows a bit of growth.

[4:55 p.m.]

But look at the chart pattern. You can’t really see it, so there’s no point in me holding it up. But 2018, coming out of the shock of our government being thrown out on its ear, was still in an employment downdraft. But around the middle of the year, in 2018, people said: “Well, I guess this isn’t as bad as we feared.” And employment really started climbing again, until when…. Well, who can speculate? Maybe they finally figured out what was in store, because it really peaked at around March or April of 2019, and it has been in a nosedive ever since.

Now, if you average the 12 months, you can still say, “Well, we grew in 2019,” but I sure wouldn’t invest money on the basis of that chart. It looks like we peaked almost 12 months ago. That’s why I say…. In fact, January to January, we didn’t even come out even. That’s part of the explanation.

Moving right along, what else has been happening on the employment side? Well, let’s take a look at the private versus public sector, which the budget speech does go out of its way to comment upon.

Not only do we have fewer jobs, British Columbia’s employment decline is particularly concentrated in the goods-producing industries. In the aggregate, total employment dropped by about 3 percent last year. The other larger employment sector, called the service industry, also showed declining employment last year. For the two combined, we lost about 52,000 jobs. However, public sector came to the rescue. They added 58,000 new jobs. On balance, we increased employment, but it shifted from private to public.

The other interesting thing, just in passing, is that we note, from these excellent tables that B.C. Stats puts out, that public administration jobs in British Columbia paid, on average, a weekly wage of about $1,400 last year, compared to…. It is about 40 percent higher than the average weekly wage in all the industries. Wow, these public servants, in all sectors, all levels of government, are paid rather well by comparison. So no wonder people are switching from private sector jobs into public sector jobs. I sometimes wonder whether I shouldn’t have taken up firefighting, as a matter of fact, as my career instead of going into politics.

Not only has there been a drift from private to public employment, there’s another very significant employment change taking place. This is the loss of resource industry jobs. Last month average weekly earnings in B.C. were about $1,036, placing us squarely in the middle of the Canadian average — lower than Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan but higher than the others. Looking down the road, however, we see a strong possibility that B.C. average wages will drop below the Canadian average. In particular, this will be because of the accelerating loss of high-paying resource jobs.

For example, no new mines are on the horizon. Existing mine developments have been frozen. No mine lasts forever. Last year the forestry, fishing, mining, quarrying and oil and gas sector paid average weekly wages around $1,750. By contrast, the average weekly wage in health care and social assistance was about $940 and, in the hospitality sector, $510 a week. Want to treble your wage? Give up that job at Starbucks and go work in the mining sector, for as long as we have a mining sector, that is.

I find it hard to categorize British Columbia as having just about the best economy in the country when our high-paying mining industry jobs and other resource industry jobs are eroding consistently over time. We all know why. Land tenure issues, environmental hostility, turbulence in our export markets. Who really wants to go up there to work in the woods anymore? It’s just not what a lot of younger people want to do with their lives. They want to live in Vancouver. You know, life is good down here in the south.

[5:00 p.m.]

As a result…. If we look from January 2019 to January 2020, the employment in forestry and logging went down 40 percent. Compared to the peak of about 2016-2017, it’s down 44 percent. In mining and oil and gas, over the same period, down 9 percent. If we go back to the heyday of the previous government, it’s down 22 percent.

These are serious shifts in the employment base. Out of high-paying jobs. Maybe, in some cases, out of British Columbia, if they can’t really replace that high income in the future.

The fourth factor I said I would mention is the squeeze on the cost of living versus the wage being earned.

I talked today with Chuck Byrne about what’s happening in condo insurance. I know the member for North Vancouver–Seymour has raised this issue. It’s a significant one. It’s just another element in the death by a thousand cuts — whether it’s the carbon tax, gasoline taxes, higher municipal taxes, higher condo fees, car insurance premiums. Food costs are going up. That’s a kick in the head. Interest payments, on and on.

Meanwhile, in Vancouver, we have one of the highest cost-of-living communities in the world. No wonder people are finding it hard to make ends meet. We can blame the mayor of Vancouver and a whole bunch of other assorted culprits for what’s going on, but I think we better include the provincial government in the list. They certainly have played their role in adding to the cost of living, despite their repeated claims that they’re making life more affordable for British Columbians.

I’m looking here at average weekly wages in the accommodation and food services business. If you multiply them by 52, it’s around $26,000. Who can live on an annual wage of $26,000 in Vancouver? I think apartments…. If you can find one for $2,000 a month, that would be extraordinary.

The final factor I would raise in assessing this budget is the threat of the consequence of everything I’ve just described. It’s called insolvency and bankruptcy, both personal and from a business point of view. At some point, the credit card gets maxed out. The bank loan…. They say: “Wait a minute. You’re late on your payments. What’s going on here?”

Even though the throne speech says lots of citizens now have extra cash in their bank accounts, I don’t think that’s very typical of what the average person living either here or in Vancouver or up in Williams Lake is experiencing. These people are having a difficult time, a very difficult time, and it’s showing up in the numbers. According to data from the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, the number of British Columbians filing for insolvency in the third quarter of 2019 was up 11 percent compared to the same period in 2018.

Mortgaging yourself to the max to put a roof over your head is half the problem. Scott Hannah of the Credit Counselling Society says that’s not the only problem. British Columbians have the second-highest non-mortgage debt in the country — credit cards, car loans, student loans, payday loans.

The Internet overflows with people who seem eager to lend us money in minutes. “Just make a phone call. The cash will be in your bank.” There’s got to be something wrong with that proposition, and we all know there is.

Could there be a reckoning? Well, I got out of the forecasting business quite a while ago. People were beginning to say: “Wait a minute. You said five years ago this was…. I’m leaving. Bye.”

[5:05 p.m.]

Aside from the forecasting uncertainties, can we say the Speech from the Throne throws a life ring to these people? Is it helpful? Well, not likely, I would say.

Conclusion. Do we have the strongest economy in Canada? Add it all up: the wage/cost-of-living squeeze play, the erosion of employment in our high-paying resource sectors, the growth of our high-paying public sector — has to be paid for by somebody — no growth in total employment, the growing risk of insolvency. Surely, not a cumulative story of economic strength. In fact, just the opposite.

I am particularly troubled by the imbalance between the growth of high-paying jobs in the public-versus-private sector. Because the public sector is often financed out of tax revenue, not through user fees, it’s, you might say, immune from that first order of market impact. So the richer and more affluent the public sector becomes, the more burden is placed upon the other folks who are the taxpayers.

That’s my summation of Budget 2020. I repeat my sincere tribute to the Finance Minister, who withstood, I can only imagine, some of the strongest pressures and arguments and arm-twisting imaginable to say: “We’re bringing in a balanced budget.” And by golly, she did. Good on her.

Despite that, the budget as a whole hardly lives up to its billing that it is in support of the strongest economy in Canada. What worries me, really, is that if people really believe that in government, they’re likely making decisions that are kind of wacky in terms of the reality of our situation. So I would plead with the officials to once more walk their political masters through the numbers.

There are glimmers of hope. For example, on page 70 of the budget book, there’s an unusual kind of editorial entry on the chart of B.C. employment. Somebody wrote in “December 2019, 2,542,000” and put an arrow on it with the annotation “December 2019.” Why would they do that?

I think that they were saying: “Look, Mr. Speechwriter, or whoever is putting the words behind this document. Looky here. If you’re going to talk about growing employment, the chart doesn’t back up what you’re saying. Here it is, right in front of you. So even though you never talk to me, you ought to read your mail and see what the chart says before you try and put in words what it’s saying, because they don’t match.”

Hon. D. Eby: It’s an honour to stand up and speak in support of the budget today. I did listen to the member’s speech, the member from North Vancouver over there. It’s an interesting speech. I’ll just give you a couple of quick facts to respond.

He rightly notes that the budget is balanced. It’s balanced in all three years of the fiscal plan. Last year B.C.’s economy was among the top of provincial real GDP growth rankings. B.C. led the country with the lowest unemployment rate, and B.C. was among the leaders in employment growth across Canada. Now, it’s not just last year. We’re projected to continue to be among the top provincial real GDP growth rankings in 2020 and 2021.

Things are so…. There’s so much potential here, so much growth and strength in our economy, that our population continues to grow and is expected to grow by 346,000 more people by 2024. We’re preparing for one million more people in the next 15 years. So that’s an opportunity. It’s a testament to the strength of our economy and the work of our government in ensuring that British Columbians not only see some increased affordability in their lives but also that our province has a strong fiscal footing.

[5:10 p.m.]

I’d like to start, as some members do in the Speech from the Throne and, sometimes, the budget speech, to just take an opportunity to thank friends and family who support us in these jobs. I certainly am incredibly grateful to my wife for all of her support to be able to be here, and our two amazing kids.

I also wanted to thank my staff at my constituency office in Vancouver–Point Grey. It is a stressful job to be at the front desk in a government position, because people have all kinds of concerns, issues and compliments for the provincial government. They come right in the front door, and they expect to be heard right away. I’m incredibly grateful that they’re there doing that work.

I also wanted to thank the staff in my Ministry of Attorney General office, as well, for all the work they do on a very demanding set of portfolios that the Premier has seen fit to send my way. So thank you to all of them.

The members here will know that there are a number of different files that I’ve been working on, and I’ll be focusing on those rather than a sort of more general look at the budget. But there are a number of budget pieces that relate to key pieces of the ministry that I’m responsible for. I’d like to go into them in a little bit of detail.

The first is the issue of money laundering. Now, I heard the member for Prince George–Mackenzie deliver a speech here in the House yesterday, and he said that the issue of money laundering wasn’t a priority for government. He drew that conclusion, saying that there was no money in the budget for anti-money-laundering initiatives. In fact, any information that the government had was provided to this government by the previous government’s work in improving policing work around anti-money laundering.

Now, that is certainly one theory of what happened in this province, but it is not correct. There is $11 million in this budget alone for a public inquiry into money laundering that’s going to be taking place over the next year or so. That work is incredibly important to help us to get to the root of what happened in this province — how we became internationally known as a hub for organized crime and money laundering — and, equally importantly, how we can most effectively stamp out this activity that’s been happening in our economy.

I’d like to just correct a couple things, on the record, that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie said. He said that the information that this government had about money laundering when we took over government came from police investigations that were funded by the previous government. That’s not true. The information that we released to the public was, first of all, an MNP report that had been paid for by the previous government and not released that outlined large-scale money laundering in B.C. casinos. It was a report, a very detailed report, received by the previous government and kept secret.

The second was that the photos and the videos that were released were not, in fact, videos from police investigations. The videos that were released to the public showing people walking duffle bags full of $20 bills into casinos were, in fact, a training video from the gaming policy and enforcement branch from 2009. So the gaming policy and enforcement branch, under the previous government, from 2009 until we took over government, had been aware of this phenomenon of people walking in duffle bags full of $20 bills to B.C. casinos. And somehow, through that whole extended period, nothing had happened in terms of simply saying: “We will not accept this cash.”

That was one of the first steps that our government took after taking over this file. We said: “We’re not going to accept that cash anymore.” And you’ll see that in the budget. We took a $30 million hit to the B.C. Lottery Corp.’s bottom line. High-end table gambling — the people who are walking in these $20 bills — has declined because we made the decision not to accept that cash.

You’ll also see in this budget increased money for inspectors in B.C. casinos. It used to be that the gaming policy and enforcement branch inspectors were in the casinos Monday to Friday, nine to five. I’m sure that no member in this House would ever darken the door of a casino. I have, and I’ll tell you this. It wasn’t Monday to Friday, nine to five, when I went there with my friends. It was on an evening or a weekend. This was, of course, before I was the minister responsible.

The idea that the regulator wasn’t present in the casino when the majority of British Columbians or tourists would be attending a casino — evenings and weekends — is incredibly bizarre. So we have the inspectors now present in the casino when the people are actually in the casino gambling, which seems like a very good idea. But that required some additional spending and some hiring to bring those inspectors on.

[5:15 p.m.]

We also invested heavily in mental health. We know that there are a lot of people that have problems with gambling, and it doesn’t all revolve around money laundering. So we have now a significant investment in additional on-demand counselling for people that have gambling addiction.

We also have GameSense advisers in every single gaming facility across the province. When people are in distress, when they have questions about odds of particular games or when they need some kind of assistance, there is somebody at every single facility who is not connected to the casino facility to provide them with assistance.

We’ve shifted the regulator from being under the control of government towards being an independent regulator, and that work continues. This is really important, because one of the things that we learned after taking over government was that the previous regulator had been waving a flag and saying: “There’s a big problem in B.C. casinos. We have a huge transnational money-laundering problem in our casinos.” Yet nothing at all was happening in terms of public discussion about that. The public was completely unaware that the previous government had not just made the obvious decision to stop accepting this cash, at a minimum.

What we’ve done, and what we’re doing, is shifting the regulator to be independent of government so that they can, if they have concerns, release that information publicly without having to go through government to do it. If standards need to be changed, then they will be able to change those standards without having government to sign off. Because the obvious conflict of interest is that the government likes the gambling revenue, and that might be compromised by more strict regulations. So to have an independent regulator is critically important. All pieces that are part of this budget.

Members here will know, too, that I was passed a file that…. When the Premier called me and said, “Would you like to be Attorney General?” I said, “I’d be incredibly honoured.” He had said some other things during the call, and I didn’t hear a lot of what he said after that, to be totally honest. But he said minister responsible for gambling, minister responsible for liquor as well as minister responsible for ICBC.

On reflection, I thought: “You know what? ICBC will probably be one of the quieter files. The same with gambling.” They’ve turned out to be two of the biggest files in terms of responsibility that I’ve had to take on. ICBC, in particular, especially on a budget-related topic.

The reason for that is in the first year that I had the file, ICBC was in the middle of a fiscal year where they lost $1.1 billion. Then the second year was $1.2 billion. So obviously, the job that was in front of me was to, with the support of my colleagues and staff, identify a way to turn around ICBC’s finances so that it stopped hemorrhaging money.

We’ve done that. You’ll see that ICBC is projected to turn a small profit this year in the budget. It will be very close to break-even this year; for next year, a zero percent basic rate increase for British Columbians through some pretty dramatic and significant reforms.

That is just the first part of the work. Although we did manage to stop the bleeding, and although we did manage to return a zero percent basic rate increase for this year, car insurance is still too expensive in the province. The benefits are inadequate. People don’t realize it, but if they’re in a one-car collision, if they’re at fault in a collision — if they don’t check their blind spot when they’re changing a lane, if they’re a kid riding a bike going through a stop sign and not stopping and they get hit by a car — the maximum value of benefits that you can get in this province is $300,000.

I met a lady, Lorraine Tran, who ran into a moose. People who live in the north, in rural areas, know that it’s one of the most dangerous things that can happen to you. The moose has really long legs, and it comes right through the windshield when you hit the moose. She was rendered quadriplegic by this accident. Under the old benefit rates, the maximum that was available to her because of a one-car collision — you can’t sue a moose — was $150,000 for the rest of her life. So once she retrofit her van and once she retrofit her house, there wasn’t a lot left for her to live on in terms of, certainly, caregiving or anything like that.

People don’t really realize how exposed they are if they’re in that kind of situation. Even if there is somebody to sue, the maximum that most people carry in terms of third-party extended liability in the province is about $2 million. So the vast majority of claims, when they’re in the catastrophic range, will settle for the maximum insurance limit, which is, as I said, about $2 million.

[5:20 p.m.]

If you’re in a situation where you’re badly injured and you require full-time care, you’re no longer able to work, it is surprising how quickly you can go through that kind of money, never mind the fact that a third of that is going to go to pay for your lawyer. So instead of $2 million, all of a sudden, you’re ending up with $1.4 million for the rest of your life, for all of your income, for all of the care that you need, for all of the benefits — period — going forward. That’s why this reform that we’re proposing for ICBC is so significant.

First of all, it’s a dramatic increase in benefits available, up to $7.5 million in benefits for British Columbians. And because we’re taking legal fees and legal costs out of the system, we’re able to also pass savings on to British Columbians, savings of an average of about $400 per family.

Some British Columbians will see commercials about this. They’ll hear about this through the media, and the majority of the reaction that I’ve had is that people are optimistic but skeptical. The skepticism comes from a lack of trust in ICBC. I want to talk a little bit about that, because a significant part of this transition and this new project to reduce rates and improve benefits is going to involve a fairly dramatic culture shift at ICBC.

Currently ICBC has a legal duty to defend the at-fault driver. If someone causes an accident and they have insurance with ICBC, ICBC will hire a lawyer on their behalf and go to court to defend that driver. But ICBC is also responsible for ensuring that the person who’s injured in the collision actually gets the benefits that they’re entitled to.

The person who’s injured in the collision suddenly finds out that ICBC is in court saying: “Well, maybe they should have paid more attention. Maybe they were negligent in how they were driving. Maybe they’re not as injured as they appear to be. Maybe they don’t need as many benefits.” And they’re trying to reconcile why ICBC is attacking their right to benefits at the same time as they’re supposed to deal with this insurance company and try to figure out how they’re going to get better and get back to work.

We’re getting rid of that component of ICBC’s work. They will no longer be fighting British Columbians in court. It’s not going to happen anymore. They’re not going to be doing that defence work for people who cause at-fault accidents anymore. They will have a legislated requirement to assist people in understanding what benefits they’re entitled to and to assist people in getting those benefits. That will be their only job, and that is a cultural shift. That is a significant cultural shift for ICBC.

Because of the significance of the shift and because we looked at Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where this model has already been done — where it’s delivering savings, where it’s delivering better benefits already — we recognized that we had to put some safeguards in place. So if people were denied benefits for some reason, if they got an adjuster who didn’t get the memo that things have changed now and you don’t have to fight people about their benefits….

We want them to get the benefits so they can get back to work and minimize the inconvenience in their lives. They can go to the civil resolution tribunal — it’s independent of ICBC, independent of government — and make their case: “Here’s what my doctor says I need.” And it is based on what the doctor says you need, not based on what ICBC says you need. “Here’s what the doctor says I need. The doctor says I need physiotherapy. The doctor says I need an occupational therapist.” You name it. “I’m not able to work.” Then it’s a simple question for the civil resolution tribunal. It’s a yes or no. If that’s a benefit that they’re entitled to, then they’ll direct ICBC, and it will be delivered.

There will also be a fairness commissioner. If people feel like they’re being treated unfairly by ICBC, whether it’s assignment of fault for an accident — “They say it was my mistake, and it wasn’t” — there’s someone independent to examine ICBC’s activity but also to identify problems in the system where there are multiple complaints coming in on the same topic and to bring those forward — not just to ICBC, not internal to ICBC but publicly to ICBC’s board and to government. So the public knows what the fairness commissioner is hearing about issues that need to be addressed.

If those two systems fail, there’s a third level, which is the Ombudsperson of B.C., who will be able to look at the system as a whole and identify these systemic problems. We’re putting those safeguards in place because that culture shift will be significant. It was something that they ran into a problem with in Manitoba when they shifted over from the old system to the new system. They needed to have those safeguards in place.

We’re also going to have a committee of people from the disability community, caregivers supporting government to make sure that the latest treatments, the access to the resources that people need, are available to them.

It’s a big reform. It’s a huge shift, and it is long overdue. It will be a challenge, I know, for a lot of people in the legal profession and their families, their friends, the staff at their offices. I don’t take that lightly. All I can say is that British Columbians cannot afford to maintain the current system. It is no insult to the work of those lawyers who are working in the old system, where ICBC was fighting their clients tooth and nail. It’s a shift to a new system. Although I know it will be taken personally, it is not meant personally in terms of the hard work of those lawyers.

[5:25 p.m.]

On the topic of law, I wanted to briefly address the issue of legal aid. We’re doing some remarkable things and making sure that people have access to justice in the province. I was part of an announcement. You have these moments in this job where a policy that you really cared about…. For me, it was legal aid. I saw many of my clients who weren’t able to access a legal aid lawyer. They deserved a lawyer. They needed a lawyer.

I had many friends working in legal aid, doing their best to provide services but being dramatically underpaid to the point that they would lose money when they were working on files for legal aid. They would do it as kind of charitable work. It’s an issue that I really cared about.

I was part of a press conference out front of the courthouse, which was the same site where there had been massive protests around the cuts to legal aid in 2001, where we announced an agreement with legal aid lawyers to pay them not a dramatically huge wage, not a wage that anyone is going to get rich on, but enough money that you’re able to do the work and provide supports for people that they’re constitutionally entitled to in our province. We announced a deal with legal aid lawyers in the province, the culmination of many years of campaigning by people who believe in access to justice — incredible lawyers like Allan Parker. It was a really exciting moment.

That is just one. Just that piece alone, ensuring that people have access to lawyers all across the province if they’re facing a child protection issue, if they’re facing a criminal charge…. These are the biggest issues that people can face. That they get basic legal advice is critically important.

Beyond that, one of the things that I would see in other provinces, when I travelled to other provinces, is that they would have legal clinics. There were these places in the community where people could go to and get summary legal advice. They could get support around the legal issues that they faced.

This isn’t just helpful for someone who has this kind of problem; it’s really helpful for the court. When the person goes and appears in court, they’ve had a chance to talk with someone before they show up so their papers are all in order, so they know what the judge is going to ask them, so they don’t waste a bunch of everybody’s time trying to figure out what’s happening in the middle of the day that their appearance is on. They show up with the right documentation in order for their matter to go ahead, instead of having it put off for another day. It saves money for the system. It’s more humane. It’s more practical.

These clinics existed in many other provinces, but they didn’t exist here in British Columbia. So we found a way to partner with the Law Foundation. They have these lay advocates across the province, in many communities. And I’m sure many MLAs will know these lay advocates, because they’re probably referring their constituents to the lay advocates in their community. They’re funded by the Law Foundation.

We said: “If we give you some additional support, could we supercharge these clinics that you already have?” Get a lawyer in there. Get some additional capacity in there so they can help more people. They could have articled students, law students across British Columbia, where they could come in and practise, where they could have local lawyers come and provide pro bono hours. And the Law Foundation said: “Absolutely. We can do that.”

In this budget, what you’re going to see is money for legal clinics across the province providing support to many different communities. It’s something, again, that’s long overdue, not a huge cost, but will make a big difference for many people in the province and will make a difference in our justice system.

Further on our justice system, in this budget, you’re going to see capital expenditure and operational expenditure related to a new courthouse in Abbotsford. It’s going to be a beautiful new facility for a growing community, for the Fraser Valley, an exciting development for them and for a number of MLAs, I know, that have been involved in the community planning process around this new courthouse.

In addition, we have an expansion of the Fort Saint John courthouse that’s underway as well. This is a community that is dramatically backed up with cases. They needed that capacity and additional place to hold hearings. We provided them with the support to be able to open that expanded facility up there.

Additionally, on the legal side, one of the particularly interesting parts of this job has been to learn about the role of B.C. sheriffs. Not everyone knows about the sheriff service of British Columbia, but these are the men and women who provide security in courthouses across the province.

[5:30 p.m.]

In order for our courts to be independent, they have their own security, and the sheriffs are that security. They are involved in prisoner transport. They are involved in serving warrants. They’re involved in the security at the courthouse. When you go to court, and you see somebody sitting at the front desk in a uniform that looks like a police uniform, it’s probably a sheriff. They do really important work.

When I took over this job, the province was literally flying sheriffs across the province because the court won’t sit if there’s not a sheriff. There’s not security for the judge and for the lawyers and for the people appearing in court. The court won’t sit. So in order to keep courthouses open, we had to fly the sheriffs around because there weren’t enough sheriffs. So one of the things we did was we added another class of sheriff training at the Justice Institute. We had back-to-back-to-back sheriff trainings.

We also looked at some of the underlying issues. Why is it that there were so few sheriffs? There’s a real retention issue within the sheriff service, and a lot of efforts have been taken by court services branch and by Chief Paul Corrado at the sheriff service to improve the retention of sheriffs. I’m happy to tell you that our retention numbers have improved dramatically. We’re keeping far more sheriffs now. We’re far more successful than we have been in terms of keeping those sheriffs, and the additional training shift has resulted in us not being reliant on having to fly sheriffs around the province in order to keep courtrooms open.

I’m incredibly grateful for the work that those sheriffs do. I try to make every graduation ceremony for the sheriffs. Three times a year I’m up at the Justice Institute, and it is a pleasure to see the folks who are being recruited. Usually there are about 300 applications or so to become a sheriff, and there are about 25 recruits in each class, men and women from all across the province.

The final piece on the justice elements of this budget that I’d like to touch on are the Indigenous justice centres and the Indigenous justice strategy that we’ve been working on with the First Nations Justice Council. We have a very serious issue in this province and across Canada of the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in our prisons. In the ’90s, this was considered to be a crisis. About 10 percent of the prison populations in the country were Indigenous people. Now that number is closer to 30 percent. So we are going the complete wrong direction in terms of reducing the numbers of Indigenous people in our prisons.

Part of that is believed to be that Indigenous people are falling through the cracks of our justice system. We need to find ways to ensure that there are supports to keep Indigenous people out of jail, especially on things that are called administration of justice offences. This is where someone allegedly commits an offence and then they don’t make their court hearing for whatever reason. They miss a court hearing and then they get a “fail to appear,” or they don’t keep a term of the sentence that they’ve been given or they breach some kind of a condition of their release.

These charges can add up and add up and add up on people, and they end up with very long criminal records of administration of justice offences. With a little bit of support, people will make it to court on time. They’ll be able to meet the minimum conditions, and they won’t find themselves in jail for extended sentences. That’s part of the hope.

There’s a whole discussion that needs to take place around the justice system’s relationship with Indigenous people — how we end up in this scenario, how we end up with more Indigenous lawyers, more Indigenous judges and Indigenous courts that are more meaningful and significant for Indigenous people and that they feel more connection to.

The Indigenous justice strategy work has been going on for about the last year and a half, and part of that is our plan for Indigenous justice centres, which we hope to open across the province. These centres will be culturally safe spaces for Indigenous people who are involved in the justice system for some reason, where they’ll find support, whether it’s legal advice or other services that they need in order to be able to avoid the justice system entirely, not end up in jail, or, if they are facing a charge, that they’re going to feel like they had a fair shot.

That is incredibly important work, and I’m very grateful to the First Nations Justice Council for their continued faith in this process and for partnering with government on that.

I’d like to take a brief moment to talk about one of the priority areas of the government that has had a significant impact in my constituency in a way that’s very visible, and that’s the child care program that has been pushed forward by the government and supported by the Minister of Finance.

[5:35 p.m.]

In my community, Vancouver–Point Grey, there have been 167 new child care spaces funded by the government. The people in Vancouver–Point Grey, in terms of reduced fees and benefits that they’ve seen because of the child care initiatives in our province…. They’ve seen $3½ million in money back in their pockets, reduced fees and benefits, money that they didn’t have to pay out for child care.

The total amount of child care investments in my community is $9.8 million. You can see it. If you come to Vancouver–Point Grey and if you go out to UBC, there is like a whole village of child care facilities for UBC and the west side of Vancouver community. You can see the new modular units that have been put in. They have beautiful landscaped areas for the kids. Just an incredible effort by UBC to do quick turnaround.

So 167 new provincially funded spaces are open now for people in the community. As the minister has said, this work is just getting started, because there was a memorandum of understanding signed with the city of Vancouver for 2,300 additional spaces in Vancouver. That number is not included in this constituency count because the sites have not been formally selected yet. So there is more good news to come for parents who are desperate for child care.

I’ve been there, my wife and I. When our son Ezra was born, Cailey and I went to a child care facility in our community. We put our names on every list that we could in the city. We didn’t get any calls. Cailey’s mat leave was wrapping up. We needed somewhere for Ezra to go. We went to a child care facility that was in our neighbourhood, and they said they could probably find a space for us. At the last minute, we got a call. My wife was a student at UBC at the time. We got a call from UBC child care that there was a space.

I can’t tell you the relief for our family of having high-quality child care for our son so that my wife could finish her studies. She went back to school to study medicine. She could finish her med school studies and I could go to work and our family could continue living in Vancouver. I don’t know what we would have done. I don’t know what we would have done without child care. I know so many families that are in that situation, trying to cobble together nanny shares and trying to work things out with neighbours — maybe someone would be able to take their kid — with family and friends.

We’ve got a lot more to do. I’m incredibly proud of the work and how it’s manifested in my community, in Vancouver–Point Grey, because it’s making a difference for a lot of people. There are over 10,400 approved spaces across the province that this program is funding, and 27,200 kids have received child care for $10 a day or less in this province. A lot of low-income families, middle-income families where that makes a huge, huge difference in their lives. I’m so grateful for that.

The other areas in Vancouver–Point Grey where some of the government’s funding initiatives have really manifested are around seismic upgrades for our schools and new transit lines through UBC, express buses. I would love to talk about all of those things and all of the amazing things that are in this budget that are making life a little bit easier for British Columbians in my community: the elimination of MSP, the fact that for families under $140,000, British Columbia has the lowest taxes in Canada. It makes their lives easier.

I, unfortunately, have run out of time. Maybe next time.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

J. Thornthwaite: First of all, I’m honoured to be able to stand up in the House today and give thanks to all the people that supported me to get me here. I’ve done several responses to the budgets over the years. It’s always a pleasure to represent the people from North Vancouver–Seymour.

[5:40 p.m.]

I have a great riding. We have basically everything there from the water to the mountains, lots of tourism in between, great businesses and lots of great people. I’m really honoured that the people of North Vancouver–Seymour have sent me here again in the last election.

Obviously, I would be remiss if I didn’t thank my staff. Certainly, my staff in North Vancouver…. I’ve got a CA who works very, very hard when I’m not there, and he also helps out with stuff, digitally anyway, that I’m working on here. I’d like to say thanks to Nick Hosseinzadeh for all the work that he does to help me become successful. Then we’ve got our LAs here. I’d like to thank Hannah as well as my research person, who is Dion, and then our comms people. Stephanie Marshall-White has done a fabulous job, not just for me but other MLAs.

Then, of course, my family, who put up with me not being where, perhaps, they want me to be — at home. Working really, really hard in the constituency and then not being home. I appreciate my kids for their support. In either case, I’m quite grateful.

Just briefly, I thought I’d talk a little bit about the top issues in my riding, and then I’ll go into the meat of it when we come back next week. The top issues I’m going to speak on when we come back are basically traffic, transportation and transit. These are the key issues, even more so than affordability. Affordability is a close second, but we have a real traffic issue in North Vancouver — well, the whole North Shore, basically. But the crux of it is at the foot of the Cut that is right at the beginning of my riding there.

I’m just pleased that I was able to get forward, when we were in government, the $198 million highway improvement project in the lower Lynn, which is well underway now. You can see all that construction, the mounds of dirt, etc., and bridges coming together. I’m really, really proud that I was able to do that, and it’s going to make a huge difference for my constituents.

The other issue is affordability. We have relatively high housing costs on the North Shore, so the businesses are finding trouble retaining their staff because the people that they want to work there or to live there, to work close to home, can’t afford to live there. So transit is very important. The traffic and the transportation is very important to get people to work, back and forth, from the North Shore. That’s why I’ve been a real advocate for SkyTrain to the North Shore.

Child care is an issue as well. This new strata insurance is freaking everyone out, including me. Rents are still high. So those main events, main issues, I’m going to talk about further when I come back.

Noting the hour, Mr. Speaker, could I hold my spot until Monday?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. Thank you for your consideration.

J. Thornthwaite moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Monday, February 24 at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:44 p.m.