Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In Committee A, I call continued debate on main estimates for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

In the main House, I call for the consideration of reports and resolutions from the Committee of Supply.

[1:05 p.m.]

Supply Motions

REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Hon. K. Conroy: I move:

[That the reports of Resolutions from the Committees of Supply on March 2, 6, 7 and 8 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.]

Motion approved.

FUNDS GRANTED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Hon. K. Conroy: I move:

[That there be granted to His Majesty, from and out of the consolidated revenue fund, the sum of 2 billion, 715 million dollars towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023. This sum is in addition to that authorized to be paid under Section 1 of the Supply Act, 2022–2023.]

Motion approved.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — SUPPLY ACT, 2022–2023
(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES)

Hon. K. Conroy presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates).

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the said message and the supplementary estimates accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of Supply.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: I’m just turning to the Clerks here for a moment.

Hon. K. Conroy: In keeping with the practice of this House, the supply bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. For greater clarity, the question is first reading of Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates).

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: Now I’ll say, hon. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

Bill 9, Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates), introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — SUPPLY ACT, 2022–2023
(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES)

Deputy Speaker: We’ll pause while the bill gets circulated to all members that would require it to read it.

[1:10 p.m.]

We will resume shortly. We’re just waiting for the bill to make sure that it gets to all electronically who might not be here to receive it.

[1:15 p.m.]

All right, Members. In keeping with the practice of this House, the supply bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 9 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 9 be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 9, Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates), read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 9 — SUPPLY ACT, 2022–2023
(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 9; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 1:16 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill 9, Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates).

On clause 1.

P. Milobar: I wasn’t going to actually speak at committee stage, but the Government House Leader seemed to want to jump the gun here.

I thought it would be important for the public to understand that this is a routine, moving this supply bill through as quickly as it is today, because it has not really been quickly. We’ve dealt with these issues all during supplemental estimates, which have garnered much attention, in terms of how the opposition has or hasn’t been voting.

I want to make it very clear that although, with the concepts contained within this bill, the opposition doesn’t take issue, we do take issue with the lack of process, lack of detail, lack of government ability to explain some basic premises on how this will be distributed, how it will be tracked. This is $2.715 billion, after all, that we are talking about. This is not a small sum of money to be added to the expenditures of the government from taxpayers.

I wanted to make that abundantly clear out there, as it relates to clause 1 in this bill. I guess it’s more of a more of a statement than a question, but I thought it important before we do the final vote or two on this bill, as it proceeds through.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:19 p.m.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

[1:20 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — SUPPLY ACT, 2022–2023
(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES)

Deputy Speaker: The question is third reading.

Division has been called.

[1:25 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.]

Bill 9, Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates), reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 44
Anderson	Bailey	Bains
Beare	Begg	Brar
Chant	Chen	Chow
Conroy	Coulter	Cullen
Dean	D’Eith	Dix
Donnelly	Dykeman	Elmore
Furstenau	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Kahlon	Leonard
Lore	Ma	Malcolmson
Mercier	Olsen	Osborne
Paddon	Popham	Rice
Robinson	Routledge	Routley
Russell	Simons	Sims
A. Singh	Starchuk	Walker
Whiteside		Yao
NAYS — 24
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Clovechok	Davies
de Jong	Doerkson	Halford
Kirkpatrick	Kyllo	Lee
Letnick	Merrifield	Milobar
Oakes	Paton	Shypitka
Stewart	Stone	Sturdy
Sturko	Tegart	Wat

Deputy Speaker: We’ll just take a moment to let the House breathe, so to speak, and then we’ll return to the House Leader.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main House, I call continued debate on Bill 10.

Deputy Speaker: There’s another committee that needs to sit, and I believe the Government House Leader is going to appoint it.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In Committee A, I call continued debate on the main estimates for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

Deputy Speaker: Now we’re returning back to the bill.

[1:35 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2023

(continued)

A. Singh: I’m happy to stand up and speak about the Budget Measures Implementation Act, which is very self-explanatory. It implements the budget that our wonderful Minister of Finance introduced the other day. It’s quite a hefty bill, about 130 pages, 185 sections. I’m not going to go through the sections one by one.

Interjection.

A. Singh: I will absolutely do it if you want me to, but I can see the restraint there.

So again, Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act, is essentially a vehicle by which the budget is implemented, how the government implements the budget. One thing that did strike me was — I don’t know if anyone else noticed — on the title paper, now it says: “Fourth Session, Forty-second Parliament, 1 Charles III.” When I first saw that, I was just struck by that, because it is a change.

Like I said, what the act does is provide a vehicle for implementing the budget. Section 5, the Carbon Tax Act…. For all of the wonderful things that there are in the budget concerning health, the environment, public safety, housing, all of those things, advancing British Columbia’s sustainable economy, furthering our phenomenal CleanBC plan…. Almost $1.4 billion in the new operating capital funding over the fiscal plan.

This budget sets the absolute groundwork for a greener, more sustainable future powered by good-paying jobs, holistic management of our natural resources, which belong to all British Columbians, healthy and active communities, reducing emissions, responding to a changing climate and, ultimately, partnership with Indigenous people.

This is coming, obviously, at a very key time. As I’ve said here before, I started speaking about the environment a long time ago, back in the ’80s, speaking about our emissions and what we were doing to our world at that time. No one really…. Very few people were paying attention at that point.

I think the world has changed substantially, not fully but substantially. We’re not fully there yet, but the world has changed substantially. You can’t avoid it now. We are in a climate emergency. We’ve seen that firsthand with the heat dome, with the atmospheric river, with what’s happening here in British Columbia, and also around the world — air pollution poisoning our rivers and waters everywhere. So it’s really…. To me, $1.4 billion in new operating and capital funding is welcome. This is a beginning. We can always do more, but you have to start somewhere.

The focus of the budget and the focus of this whole plan is skills for jobs of the future. We can’t keep on going back and looking at the industries of 50 years, 100 years ago. There are some phenomenal new technologies coming up. They won’t come around tomorrow or the day after, but just yesterday I….

The House will be surprised to know that my background actually isn’t originally in law. I originally went to university to study physics.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

If people are going to have a side conversation, could they step outside, please?

Please continue.

A. Singh: I grew up as a physics nerd and went to university to pursue an undergraduate degree at the University of California, Berkeley in physics. Just yesterday or the day before yesterday, I was reading about some phenomenal…. Two new discoveries that, in the future, could have an enormous impact on technology.

One is a bacteria that creates an enzyme that takes hydrogen out of the air and creates electricity. Obviously, that’s at a very, very experimental level right now.

Then the second, which has a huge impact for our electrification. Scientists have now managed to create a superconductor that you don’t have to cool. It can be pressurized, which is much easier, and that has some fantastic implications. Alas, they probably won’t come around for a few years, but that has some impressive implications for the future — for the future of electrification, for magnetic travel, for all sorts of things.

[1:40 p.m.]

I won’t go into that now, but what this budget does is it lays the groundwork for that, for the skills for the jobs of the future.

B.C.’s people are key to building a strong, sustainable economy, with more than one million jobs — this is what we’re expecting — anticipated over the coming decade. Our Future Ready plan is there to ensure that everyone that comes here has the opportunity to learn new skills and secure good-paying jobs that will support them, their communities and their families for the future, and that we’re ready to respond to the biggest challenge that we’ve heard from people, from businesses: the need for more people in industries.

Budget 2023 lays out $480 million, almost half a billion dollars, over three years to support Future Ready’s work to break down barriers to post-secondary training, so more people can get the training they need for in-demand careers, and employers can access the talent that they need for the future that’s coming.

The Future Ready plan also includes initiatives such as a new grant for short-term skills training, which will help people get the relevant skills and training that they need to succeed in good-paying, high-demand jobs. These are the jobs of the future. There’s also new funding to assist small and medium-sized businesses in finding and implementing practical solutions to current labour market challenges and preparing for a changing economy.

There will be more opportunities for Indigenous peo­ples, including funding to support Indigenous-led programs, such as a new guardian training program that will be co-developed with Indigenous peoples, and also creating thousands of new training seats for in-demand fields to help build up a workforce that’s ready and able to meet the demands of the future.

In addition to that, $58 million over three years will help expand supports for newcomers and immigrants and speed up foreign credential recognition for professionals, such as health care or child care workers. This disproportionately helps marginalized communities, communities of colour. I can’t tell you the number of people that I know that aren’t working in their profession who welcome these changes. I think we’re going to see quite a phenomenal change in the whole atmosphere of British Columbia coming in the future.

Future Ready will help maximize our workforce participation throughout British Columbia by offering supports, programs and access to targeted training that’s affordable, accessible and recognizes the individual needs of different learners. People have different capacities, different ways of learning, and we’re cognizant of that. It’s focused on opening economic opportunities, including those for people who are underrepresented or who face barriers in the workforce, such as Indigenous, Black people and people of colour; women; people with disabilities; 2SLGBTQ+ people; immigrants; people with multiple barriers; youth and former youth in care. The full Future Ready plan will be released later on in the spring of 2023.

Clean and sustainable economic development is also at the core of this budget. We here are fortunate to have many natural resources that shape our province’s landscape, that can help us grow a strong economy and that support vibrant, diverse communities. It’s essential that all of these resources are taken care of, in collaboration with the Indigenous peoples, to create a sustainable economy that will continue to benefit all of the people of British Columbia for generations to come.

Budget 2023 invests more than $250 million, a quarter of a billion dollars, over the next three years to protect, maintain and care for B.C.’s abundant natural resources, including $21 million to partner with First Nations on eight more forest landscape planning projects to protect more old growth while providing greater certainty on where sustainable harvesting can occur and $77 million to speed up natural resource permitting and then to begin modernizing B.C.’s permitting service delivery model.

This will help reduce backlogs, move projects that can be moved forward and continue to advance electrification and connectivity in remote, rural and Indigenous communities. And $6 million over three years for a new critical minerals strategy to leverage B.C.’s natural resource advantages and continue to assess the critical minerals value chain potential.

[1:45 p.m.]

So $101 million in operating and capital funding over the fiscal plan to help preserve and enhance outdoor recreational opportunities in B.C. parks and outdoor recreational sites and trails — I’m especially excited about this, because this is part of part of the work that I do — and $49 million in operating and capital funding over three years to maintain and upgrade forest service roads

All in all, this budget really speaks to the future. It speaks to taking care of British Columbians, and it speaks to the values that this government has.

S. Furstenau: I just have to rise, to stand to speak to Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2023, today. I just have three sections that I want to speak to as briefly and efficiently as I can.

One section is on the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. Bill 10 proposes significant changes to the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, GGIRCA, which establishes the regulatory framework and infrastructure for offset units, which are required to fulfil the province’s commitment to have carbon-neutral government operations under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act.

Amendments to GGIRCA, as laid out in Bill 10, exempt large emitters from paying carbon tax up front — the way, Madam Speaker, that you and I and everybody else in British Columbia will be paying carbon tax, which is up front — and introduce a new made-in-B.C. output-based pricing system, OBPS, to match the federal carbon-pricing schedule beginning April 1, 2024.

I just want to take a moment. I was part of an organization called Citizens Climate Lobby in — I don’t know — the before times, 2010, 2011, 2012. We were advocating for a price on carbon pollution as a means to put a price on the pollution that is driving so many of the climate-related disasters and weather events, one of which I spoke about this morning, the heat dome that we saw in 2021.

We are hearing more and more about the growing impacts of climate change. Just this week, we are hearing about the potential for sea level rise each year in British Columbia. That could have catastrophic impacts on Vancouver, in particular, but other coastal regions. Climate change is the most pressing existential crisis that we face.

Those of us in these seats who have asked to be here, who have been elected to be here, have a particularly heavy burden on us because our predecessors, for decades, have not done the heavy lifting and the work on climate action and response that has been needed. Now we are at a point where we are having to look at mitigation. We are having to recognize that the storms and the weather events that are climate change–driven are going to become more severe and more frequent.

We had the largest mass-casualty event in B.C. in 2021, when 619 people died because of the heat dome. That’s climate change. Madam Speaker, in your own riding, a town does not exist anymore. That’s climate change. The smoke that fills our skies and our lungs through the summer months and into the fall now — that’s climate change. The droughts that we are experiencing — that’s climate change. The floods that we saw in the atmospheric river that literally devastated Abbotsford and the Lower Mainland, devastated travel infrastructure across the province — climate change.

We don’t have the luxury anymore to tinker around the edges of policy on this. The benefit of a very clear program that puts a price on carbon pollution and returns those funds to people to incentivize them to use less carbon in their lives — to be able to purchase, say, a heat pump, move away from a car that uses gasoline, insulate their homes, find all sorts of ways to reduce their own carbon impact…. This was the simplicity of the price-on-pollution program that we were advocating for. That is the federal program, in essence.

[1:50 p.m.]

Again, this is what happens. We get a made-in-B.C. program, and it gets a whole lot less simple. It gets a whole lot less transparent. Industry really appreciates these kinds of programs because all sorts of things can be done behind closed doors that we don’t have a say on in here, in this House, in our job as legislators. This is what concerns me a lot about this particular part of Bill 10.

Under this new system, which exempts large emitters from paying carbon tax up front and introduces this new made-in-B.C. output-based model system, large emitters like oil and gas operations and large mines will pay a carbon price on emissions that exceed established performance standards. But does that mean they don’t pay a carbon price on emissions that don’t meet those standards? I think that’s a really important question: the largest emitters are paying less on carbon pollution than the rest of us?

Emissions will be evaluated at the end of each year based on required reporting, which then must be verified and validated by an accredited third party. So now we’ve got a whole bunch of bureaucracy added to this. These changes exempt large industries from paying the regular carbon tax up to a certain limit, but what that limit is, is set via regulation, by this government, without the input of the Legislative Assembly and without the ability for debate.

Bill 10 does not establish emissions thresholds or a complete framework on verification and validation processes, although these details are crucial to assessing the merit of B.C.’s new made-in-B.C. system.

This legislation leaves huge gaps to be filled in regulation, with many unanswered questions, a trend we’ve all spoken about a lot in this House and a trend that is not healthy for ensuring that there is the kind of transparency that we should expect in a democracy. When things get set by regulation, they get set behind closed doors. We find out about it through orders-in-council. There is no debate that happens about that in this House, which is where that debate should be happening.

My questions: how are the emissions thresholds de­signed? What is the process for reviewing the thresh­olds? How often are they reviewed? Do they keep up to date with changing technology? Are there any commitments around timelines in consulting stakeholders? Which stakeholders are consulted? Were there attempts to consult groups outside of industry? Don’t know.

Regulations which are set out in GGIRCA were actually a focus of the professional reliance review — close to my heart. These regulations rely on external professionals to validate plans for emission offset projects and to verify project report and emission reports in order to receive offset units administered by the B.C. Carbon Registry.

When it becomes really complicated to explain to the public how a program like this is going to work to ensure that the biggest polluters in the province are actually paying their fair share of carbon pricing, I think we have a problem.

In Budget 2023, the government suggested that additional policy development and engagement on the new OBP system will occur throughout 2023, with more details likely to be unveiled through regulations. The environmental success of this program will ultimately rely on its ability to incentivize emissions reductions through stringent emissions thresholds, regular updates and the validation processes that hold emitters to account.

I feel some trepidation about that. I think when these programs get more and more complicated, it gets harder and harder to know if they’re actually working effectively. There’s less and less transparency, and it’s very hard to hold either industry or government accountable for the outcomes that we should be trying to achieve. And let’s be really clear. The outcome should be massively reducing our carbon pollution from British Columbia.

We are instead hurtling headlong into creating what are being described as carbon bombs or methane bombs, with a massive uptick of fracking in this province at a time when the rest of the world, mostly, is getting on board with reducing their carbon emissions. Not the direction that we need to be going in 2023. So we will be asking questions around that at committee stage.

[1:55 p.m.]

Then, the second thing I wanted to just touch on was the Income Tax Act changes — amendments to the Income Tax Act in Bill 10 which establish a renters tax credit. A rebate will come in, in the form of a tax credit, and unlike what was proposed back in 2017 — I think it was sold as a cheque to every renter in British Columbia — this tax credit will be distributed based on income rather than one universal amount.

Establishing the renters rebate was in the minister’s mandate letters in 2020 and again in 2022. I think, while people will welcome the relief of $400, $33 a month to those who are eligible, this does not bring lasting change. This does not solve the systemic problem we have in British Columbia around housing unaffordability. Unless we’re willing to really recognize that this can’t be on individuals getting a couple of cheques a year when we have a housing crisis that is so enormous in this province, I worry about this being held up as, “Well, we’ve actually solved the problem for renters,” when we know that we haven’t.

In Metro Vancouver, renters are spending 51 percent of their monthly income on rent, and 30 percent is considered affordable. That’s what’s considered to be affordable rent — 30 percent of your income. So very few, I would say, people in this province can be assured that they will be paying 30 percent of their income on rent.

I think the other question around this is: how does this rebate support people in perpetuity? I would argue it doesn’t; $33 a month is not going to make a lasting change in people’s lives.

People who legally rent from a family member are not eligible for this credit, nor is a cohabitating spouse or common-law partner of a renter who already claimed the credit for the tax year. In the midst of an intersecting and debilitating housing and affordability crisis, I wonder about the justification for excluding people who have need in this province.

It takes courage to make lasting changes that support people over the long term and change the fundamental structural and systemic foundations that are resulting in these outcomes that we’re seeing. Cheques, renters rebates, tax credits aren’t going to solve those structural or systemic issues.

Finally, the property transfer tax. The changes to the property transfer tax are intended to incentivize building purpose rent builders. Sorry, purpose-built renters. Oh my gosh, Madam Speaker. I’m going to get it. Third time’s a charm. To incentivizing building purpose-built rentals.

Interjections.

S. Furstenau: Thank you. Thank you very much. She sells seashells by the seashore. We’ve got this. A little bit of levity in the House is never a bad thing.

These changes do not seem to have parameters on who would be eligible for this tax exemption, and that is a concern for us, particularly when it comes to REITs, which are real estate investment trusts.

Having this tax exemption be eligible to anyone opens the door for greater movement of real estate investment trusts into the B.C. housing landscape. I would argue that multi-billion-dollar corporations or trusts building high-cost rentals really shouldn’t be eligible for tax exemptions in this province. We want to deincentivize the commodification and financialization of housing, and I worry that this tax exemption might actually produce the opposite outcome to, hopefully, what’s intended.

It’s also unclear if this exemption applies to existing buildings that are bought and renovated. For example, will a non-profit housing society be able to buy an existing building, renovate and expand on the units and put those up for rent and receive the same tax exemption? Another question we’ll be asking.

Just for some data, over 36 percent of condos owned in B.C. are owned by real estate investors. British Columbia has the most real estate investment trusts in the country.

[2:00 p.m.]

I think that we have to ask ourselves very serious questions about, again, how we are going to structurally change our housing market in order to ensure that, first and foremost, housing is a right, housing is for people to live in, and that we are not continuing to create the conditions where housing is, as I describe it often, a safety security box for people to put their money in and watch it grow as an investment, when we have….

I look forward to hearing the results of the homeless count, but the last data I saw in this was over 20,000 people in British Columbia who do not have a home. I think we have to really treat that as the emergency and the crisis that it is and recognize that we can’t continue to contribute to the conditions that are creating these outcomes.

Madam Speaker, on that note, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

P. Milobar: I actually have some of the similar speaking areas that we just heard from the leader of the Green Party, as well as some broader comments around Bill 10, which is the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

I think it’s important that we recognize the Budget Measures Implementation Act. Although it sets out a lot of detail around the tax changes in this year’s budget, those tax changes are all necessary to connect back into the budget, to be able to fund things at the level that the government is hoping to fund. It’s really difficult to try to talk about one without the other. The budget itself is directly tied to the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

That’s why some of our previous speakers, and speakers moving forward — you’re going to hear a lot of that interconnection. We’ve heard that already from government speakers as well. The reality is that the government, in their budget and in this bill, will prioritize how they feel they should be spending taxpayers’ dollars over the next fiscal year and then two years after that as well.

They need Bill 10 to enable themselves to collect the requisite dollars they need and adjust various taxation levers that they have at their disposal to generate the revenues needed. That’s why it was so disappointing when we saw such an uninspiring budget in terms of clear direction of what this government was actually trying to accomplish, despite the level of taxation that they’re bringing in with all these changes on Bill 10.

What I’m going to do today is, really, highlight a few of the areas. Originally hearing the leader of the Green Party speak about the oil and gas industry and the carbon tax provisions that are built into this bill, I was going to start there, but then she started talking about REITs and the real estate measures in here in terms of the property transfer tax. So I think maybe I’ll start with that area, because it’s going to be very questionable how effective the property transfer tax changes in this Bill 10 will actually be to be able to accomplish any of the goals or discussion within the budget around housing.

We’ve already seen the government move away from their 30-point housing plan. This government, on year six, has decided to abandon their ten-year housing plan.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

They’ve abandoned any discussion or reference to trying to build 114,000 housing units. We no longer even know what it is exactly the government is trying to achieve with housing and what they would consider a success or not for the public to be able to judge whether or not they’re having success.

When you look at the property transfer tax changes in Bill 10, it’s exempting the new purpose-built buildings from that additional 2 percent property transfer tax applied to the portion of residential property value that exceeds $3 million, starting January 1, 2024. There are some qualifications in there as well.

But the uptake will likely be low, given the strict conditions. And, in fact, it appears that only $5 million in tax expenses are projected by the full implementation in 2024. Now, contrast that with a $2 billion-ish range of property transfer tax that gets collected in a year in British Columbia, and this is going to be a very small piece overall.

[2:05 p.m.]

Now, our Premier loves to rail about the REITs that are out there. We just heard the leader of the Green Party express concern around REITs. In fact, this is what our Premier has said in Hansard of February 15 of this year: “There were these big corporations called real estate investment trusts buying up these properties, doing these superficial renovations, evicting people, increasing rents. The behaviour is decreasing affordability and hurting British Columbians.”

Now, certainly, we’ve never seen affordability under siege like it has been under the six years of this government. This is as close as I think we’ve had to the Premier acknowledging that under his watch, we have seen rents climb to the highest level they’ve ever been in British Columbia.

In fact, I can give a direct example. I have a rental apartment in Victoria for when I’m down here on government business instead of staying in a hotel. That’s all within the housing provisions that MLAs have. Everything is declared and all of that. After the 2020 election, I had been in that building for a year, so I was able to move internally if I so chose. I was in a studio, because that’s all that was available at the time when I first moved in. That would have been around 2019, because I stayed in a hotel for the first year or two after the 2017 election. That studio apartment was around $1,100 when I moved.

I moved to a one-bedroom in the same building in 2020. It would have been after the October elections in 2020, so probably November or December, to a one-bedroom that was $1,400. Just yesterday I happened to go on the apartment building website to check to see if they have any units available, and if so, what they are renting for.

A studio in that same building that I vacated in late 2020, basically 2021, that I was paying $1,100 for is now on the rental market in Victoria for $2,000 a month. For a studio apartment. That’s under this government’s watch. That’s what’s happening to the real estate market under this government’s watch in a rental building renovated to become a purpose rental.

Now, why that’s important is that the Premier will characterize that these REITs are these big corporations. Well, so let’s take a look at some of the people that have significant real estate holdings in British Columbia, some of these big corporations, the public sector and union real estate investment portfolios.

BCI owns QuadReal, which is $33.6 billion in real estate holdings. WorkSafeBC — their investments are handled by BCI. B.C. Hydro. College pension plan. The municipal pension plan. Public service pension plan, which is managed by BCI. The 2020 reports a 16 percent of market holding in real estate and 4 percent in mortgages. Teachers pension plan. Vancouver Coastal Health via the municipal pension plan. Those are all managed by BCI, which has $33.6 billion in real estate holdings.

Other institutional investors. SFU pension for admin and union staff — the 2021 report has a 10 percent real estate benchmark.

The UNBC pension plan says that Sun Life has managed the pension plan since 1997, and Sun Life has $112 billion in real estate assets under management. That’s as of 2013.

UBC faculty pension plan, co-administered by the same Sun Life, and UBC pension administration office. UBC staff pension plan 2021 annual report shows investment in real estate assets at 11 percent asset mix in real estate.

IWA forestry pension 2021, 5.8 percent in real estate.

The SPP, Steelworkers pension plan, asset mix holds 15 percent in Canadian real estate.

The Boilermakers 191 pension plan 2019 year-end report shows assets allocations of 10.1 percent on mortgages.

The pulp and paper industry pension 2023 pension facts — the majority of planned assets invested in bonds and mortgages.

[2:10 p.m.]

Now, there is nothing wrong with pension plans trying to get a return for their members. That’s actually what they’re supposed to do by law. But this Premier wants to characterize the exact same investments these people are doing as large real estate investment trusts. The reality is that they’re tied into the real estate market so that people actually have a pension because they can get a rate of return. How they’re getting that rate of return is this government has failed on their 30-point housing plan.

So the sections in Bill 10 that deal with the property transfer tax simply are inadequate to make any real, substantive change to the housing market. Instead of seeing a new housing plan, after six years in government, with a Premier that was the Housing Minister for 2½ years…. Instead of seeing a plan….

The Premier can’t come up with the plan. The new Housing Minister can’t come up with the plan. We had to go and hire an outside consultant, a high-priced consultant, a former mayor of Victoria, to write the plan, behind closed doors, and to tell the government what they should be doing on housing moving forward. But we’re not going to see that for at least six months. So another six months of rents skyrocketing.

As I say, a studio in my own building, which I live in, went from $1,100 at the beginning of 2021 to, just this week, being listed for $2,000 in the exact same building.

We also heard, from the leader of the Green Party, about the use of regulations around greenhouse gases that are built into this budget, around carbon taxation and other measures.

Again, I think part of the problem the public is starting to have is understanding just what exactly this Premier truly stands for or not. A lifetime as an activist trying to figure out how to have people protest and not get arrested and how to sue the police has now evolved to: “No, I’m not soft on crime. I’m not the architect of catch and release. Trust me. As Premier, I’m going to be tough on crime.”

Deputy Speaker: If you wouldn’t mind, Member. I see another member…. If you would just hold that thought for a second.

F. Donnelly: Thank you, Speaker. I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

F. Donnelly: In the gallery today, we have students from Scott Creek Middle School along with their teacher Mr. Devaney.

I’d like for all members to make the students feel welcome.

Debate Continued

P. Milobar: As I was saying, people start to have trouble knowing what exactly this Premier truly stands for, or not, when you look at past actions around crime and safety, both as an activist but also as an Attorney General, versus the language we hear now. Just saying something doesn’t mean there’s actually true buy-in.

When we look at the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act…. We look at what’s going on in Bill 10 around carbon taxation and the fact that industry will now be self-reporting and some of those changes. I think it’s important for people to understand what they might have thought the Premier stood for in the past versus what this budget is now indicating the Premier stands for.

As we heard from the leader of the Green Party, it’s all going to be left to regulation behind closed doors. One would have thought it would have been a golden opportunity for the government to change that by bringing forward legislation, as they are, with Bill 10.

When this was introduced in 2014, this is what the Premier had to say: “This government wants a broad and generous opportunity to write this legislation in private, and that is unacceptable on an issue as important as restricting greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia.”

Nine years later the Premier is in the position, as the head of government, to change that. And do we see those changes in Bill 10? No, we don’t.

[2:15 p.m.]

In fact, I can remember when the LNG agreement was going to be signed, in committee stage, as the critic, talking with the Environment Minister and highlighting the fact that on that specific agreement, it was enabling the minister to set greenhouse gas targets for LNG without ever having to come back to this chamber again, to be able to do it behind closed doors by regulation — the exact thing the Premier was speaking out against when he was in opposition in this chamber.

The clarity in Bill 10 — and lack of clarity, more importantly — around things to do with the carbon tax and the act itself is problematic. As we’ve just witnessed, through supplemental estimates, a government that continually just says, “We’ll figure it out later; just give us the cheque,” is not really an effective way to govern a province. It doesn’t provide the transparency one would want. So when you read Bill 10 and you see that those details are missing and going to be left for later discussions with industry, with later targets to be made, that’s a problem.

Now, we were happy to see clause 2 actually recognized, and it’s retroactive to 2020, when this House all agreed to take a pay freeze in 2020 during COVID, and that in clause 3, the government is actually following through on the leadership shown by the opposition during skyrocketing inflation to enact our demand for a pay freeze for 2023 for MLAs.

The government could have taken the step further to get back to the accountability measure that cabinet would be held accountable for their spending instead of ensuring their extra 10 percent in pay with a deficit or not, but we don’t see that level of responsibility and accountability coming out of the government on this budget or on this implementation bill.

The renters rebate, as we’ve heard about…. Again, this has been six years in the making by this government. Six years, and this is the best they could come up with, a refundable tax credit that actually can’t be actioned until you start filing your paperwork for taxes this time next year. You have to have a household income — not a personal income, a household income — of $60,000 or less to qualify. The average affordable rental in Vancouver now…. You need to have an income of $110,000 a year to afford a one-bedroom apartment.

The government in their wisdom has brought in a renters rebate that says: “Anything over $60,000, we’re going to start clawing it back, and at $80,000, you get nothing.” It’s too bad that everyone in Vancouver needs to be earning $100,000 plus to be able to afford the rent.

So how the government comes up with that — that 80 percent of renters are going to qualify, with the small asterisk that says: “Some or in part of the $400….” It would be really nice if the government was a little more transparent with that and actually shared what the true breakdown was. We’ll undoubtedly get to that in committee stage on Bill 10, to find out exactly how that 80 percent of renters is calculated.

How many of the 80 percent are actually going to qualify for 25 bucks versus how many of them are going to actually qualify for the full $400? What does “household income” mean? How is the government defining that? If you have a roommate, technically, there are two of you living in the household, whether you’re married or not.

[2:20 p.m.]

It’s going to be a bureaucratic mess, where people, in times of financial stress that this government has brought upon through the housing market, will be tempted to maybe check a box off on their tax form that they really shouldn’t be checking off. As we saw with the used-car tax, this government’s penchant for going after lower-income people and calling them tax cheats and tax frauds knows no bounds.

Just as we saw with the supplemental budget items, with scarce little detail — in fact, not even finalized negotiations with the groups that were supposed to be receiving the money…. In Agriculture, the minister wasn’t even sure which two groups were going to get the money, didn’t want to publicly say their names, which is shocking, and couldn’t say how much each group was going to get out of the $111 million. But they somehow came up with the random number of $111 million — not $110 million, not $115 million, but $111 million — and couldn’t provide any detail.

That’s what we see in Bill 10. We see more things being punted to regulation around taxation, around the rules that will govern that taxation, more lack of actual detail.

It does start to matter as people start to see carbon tax climb to $170 a tonne from $50, when they see it go from $50 to $65 this year. When people are already paying more in carbon tax on their home heating bill than the cost of the gas to run your furnace, at $50 a tonne….

The carbon tax refunds and offsets to heavy industry, and the detail around that, are critical. It’s critical for people to understand how that’s going to work while they’re paying the full freight. But as with all things with this budget and supplemental budgets, the government says: “Don’t worry about it.” Well, we are worried about it.

When you look at the budget measures in this bill that are meant to pay for things like addictions and treatment and recovery and complex care, and the government can’t provide a clear answer where the capital is for treatment and recovery centres…. The only reference we can find is actually a contradictory reference of $169 million, which, on page 10 in the budget book, very clearly spells out is for complex care capital. Complex care is not treatment and recovery. That is not, when our Better is Possible plan was rolled out, what we were talking about as treatment and recovery.

Then you go to a backgrounder document that is a very easy and quick document to be able to have edited and reinserted back into background budget documents. That $169 million pops up as part of the $1 billion plan that was announced just days before the budget was to be released. The government can’t clearly point to where any of those dollars actually intersect to what the words they’ve been saying are.

Even a week after the budget has been delivered, it makes you wonder just how accurately they calculated things in their Budget Measures Implementation Act to make sure the funding is actually adequately going to be there to fund something as life-and-death critical as proper recovery treatment in an expedited fashion to actually get them built, not just talked about.

That’s the problem that we have with Bill 10. That’s the general problem we have with the budget overall. As I say, the two are one and the same document, frankly. You can’t have one without the other. You can’t have a budget without budget measures implementation. Unless you’re not making one change to any tax rule anywhere, it’s impossible.

[2:25 p.m.]

When all we see are budgetary changes to facilitate this government throwing more and more money at programs, expecting a different result than the disastrous results we’ve seen over the previous six budgets, that’s a problem.

We’re not seeing any new dollars to any new, fundamental, transformative type of programs or services or capital projects that would justify why they need to make this many changes to taxes to generate the literally billions more of tax dollars they’re going to need, to use the words like “historic” and “record” that they’ve used in six previous budgets. It doesn’t add up. The results certainly aren’t there. The results that have been happening will continue to happen.

That is a result of a caving housing market that is skyrocketing out of control, highest prices in North America, highest rents in North America, highest purchase prices in North America, largest lack of affordability, highest gas prices in North America, taxation being collected at levels we have never seen before.

Last year — the result of previous budget measure implementation acts under this government’s watch — the Auditor General made it clear that from 2017, when this government took power, to the end of the last fiscal, they were now collecting $12 billion, with a “B,” more in taxation each and every year. This budget shatters that.

Bill 10 is the vehicle to enable the government to do that. When this government says no new taxes, well, Bill 10 is setting the stage for them to collect more taxation than they’ve ever dreamed of having in this province, yet they’re still going to run a deficit. Usually, when a government runs deficits, it’s because revenue is a problem, not because revenue is at record levels. It makes you wonder what situation we’d be in with this government if revenues do slump at all.

They will slump. Their own budget recognizes that corporate taxes are going to drop significantly this year, and the very next line in the budget collects record levels of the employer health tax, which is collected whether you’re profitable or not as a company. This government is recognizing that small businesses are going to take it on the chin this year, not be profitable, not have much profit to pay tax on and be taxed on, but they’re going to dig a little deeper just to make sure they get their employer health tax out of them.

We don’t see any changes in Bill 10 to address that inequity, either changing the threshold upwards so that people need to have a higher payroll base before they start paying employer health tax or just adjusting the overall percentage paid on your payroll so that people could pay a little bit less of the employer health tax. The government will say, well, that means we don’t want to fund health care. That’s not what we’re saying.

The employer health tax is not the sole way health care gets funded in this province. It will be $2.7 billion in this budget. The health care budget is what? Around $30 billion overall? Seems to me there’s still $27 billion out there they need to find anyways. To try to paint the fact that we’re saying that small businesses need a bit of a break on payroll costs, which have gone up by 24 percent under this government…. We were hoping to see that in Bill 10, but there is no relief for small businesses.

[2:30 p.m.]

That’s the fundamental problem we have, as we stand in this chamber. We have a government that seems to think the bigger the dollar figure, the bigger the success, and that doesn’t actually want to be held accountable with any form of measurable numbers, never wants to tell anyone what they would consider a success, what the desired outcome of a program or the spending actually is It’s like they think that if they just announce the money, their job is done, and things will just operate itself.

By every measure, things are worse now than they were six years ago. Bill 10 was a golden opportunity for this government to try to make some adjustments to some of the taxes that are being paid in a wide range of areas. It was a golden opportunity to provide some clarity on how some things are going to be calculated, but as with most things with this government, that opportunity has been missed. The accountability measures are missed, and the transparency is completely missed, as well, with Bill 10.

I thank you for the time. I look forward to committee stage on Bill 10.

B. Banman: As we’ve heard from the leader of the Greens, as we’ve heard from my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson and as we’ve heard from other speakers here today….

It’s very difficult to separate the budget from Bill 10, because Bill 10 actually talks about the implementation of the budget. It becomes virtually…. They’re one and the same, in a way. They’re highly connected. This is a rather extensive bill. It kind of reminds me a little bit of Bill 36, which went through this floor. It was considerably larger. Unfortunately, closure was invoked on Bill 36, and we did not get a chance to actually discuss and go through the clauses.

This one here has, if memory serves me right, 185 clauses. It’s an extraordinary piece of paper on how government can change the rules and figure out how they are going to collect what, as we are discovering, is one of the largest budgets ever.

I think it’s worth going over. As I sat, I was reminded, as I listened to my colleague from Abbotsford West…. I think it’s important to understand that it took us 135 years, approximately, to reach an approximately $40 billion deficit. I think $42 billion is the exact number. It took 135 years.

This bill will implement what is now going to be the largest deficit. In the last six years…. It’s worth noting that we are now looking at over a $100 billion deficit. I think it’s important to talk about that. Who is it that’s going to have to pay that? What implementation…?

What I don’t see in here is it talking about, by far, the largest burden that will be placed upon those who will have to pay that back. It is, actually, going to be those that are much, much younger. It’s as if we are asking generations to come to pay for what we fail to implement and control now.

To put that in perspective, there are approximately five million people in British Columbia. A $100 billion deficit works out to approximately $20,000 for every adult and child in British Columbia. That doesn’t even include the federal debt. That’s just the provincial debt.

I look at this particular bill, and it talks about a lot of things. There are some things, I think…. There were some groups that would have liked to have seen some things that were in this bill. I think it’s important that some of the implementation of what they wanted to see…. I’ll just take a moment to go over some of them.

[2:35 p.m.]

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce said that the budget and Bill 10 provide “little support to businesses who are struggling with the cost of doing business.”

Here’s why that’s important. Rather than charging more and more tax on a smaller and smaller pie, it would seem wise that we figure out how to make that pie bigger. We figure out how we can make the economy boom so that there are actually more taxes coming in because the economy itself is doing better. What this appears to be doing is the exact opposite.

What Fiona Famulak said…. She is the president and the CEO of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. “In order to have healthy communities, we need to ensure we have healthy businesses.”

Unfortunately, Bill 10 and the budget will do little to take any meaningful steps towards addressing the concerns that the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has raised. They said one of the things…. We heard some of this mentioned. “Of particular concern to small- and medium-sized businesses is the increase to the carbon tax of $15 per tonne per year, through 2030, with little to offset the costs they will incur.”

It would have been nice to have figured out how this would have gone revenue neutral, but the carbon tax doesn’t do that. If you take a look at it, it’s going to go into gross revenues, and it won’t be neutral at all. I am sure that many small businesses, those that did their duty, especially in households…. I think they could have used those revenues coming back to them, but it’s not anywhere in this bill.

The importance of that is…. It’s going to impact our supply chains and raise the costs of producing goods in British Columbia. What that means is that we are going to become less competitive as a result.

Whether we want to admit it or not, we cannot isolate ourselves from the fact that we live in a world economy. So if we make business too difficult here…. Business is fluid. It can move somewhere else. We’re seeing that, also, in the forest sector. The forest sector is putting their money where their feet are, and they’re moving to other places.

What the B.C. Chamber of Commerce suggested is a small step, which is not addressed in Bill 10. Adjusting the employee health care tax threshold would have demonstrated that this government is willing to address the challenges that many of their members face. As Famulak said, unfortunately, that was an opportunity that was missed. It would have been nice to have seen that addressed in the implementation in Bill 10.

Those are not the only people that had something to say. The B.C. Business Council said that government spending is set to advance at a record pace. I’ve mentioned that. We have more than doubled the debt in six years, what it took 135 to get to.

The B.C. Business Council says: “Government spending is set to advance at a record pace, which is likely to pose financial risks over the medium term. In addition, the budget contains no substantive measures aimed at driving long-term economic growth, improving business investment conditions, boosting productivity or reducing business costs.” That was Ken Peacock. He is BCBC’s chief economist.

The B.C. Business Council is “particularly concerned over the competitiveness of the province’s leading export industries, which play an outsized role in underpinning B.C.’s prosperity.”

“Unfortunately, the budget does nothing to address or even acknowledge challenges stemming from high business taxes, levies and fees,” which are directly implemented in Bill 10, “and uncompetitive personal income tax rates for” what all businesses are screaming for, which is “highly skilled workers and entrepreneurs.” They go on to say: “These are significant shortfalls.”

[2:40 p.m.]

The bottom line is that the budget and Bill 10, which implements the budget, significantly expand the role, reach and cost of the public sector in the economy, while offering little new to support the prosperity of business or families in British Columbia.

As we heard the prior speaker talk, this side of the House did try to come up with ways to help families by implementing and removing the PST on a used car at the threshold of $20,000 or less. It could have helped people that really were looking for a reliable used car and that are struggling to get ends to meet. That’s not mentioned in Bill 10, and quite frankly, I think it should have been mentioned in Bill 10.

Families who end up buying a car like that are on the lower end of the economic spectrum, generally. It’s worth mentioning that a car that is now down to that level…. There are points where the tax collected, if it has been sold numerous times, will actually have surpassed the price, the purchase, of $20,000 or less on the car. Implementing in this Bill 10 does nothing to help those people get a break, and I think they deserve a break.

The B.C. Business Council goes on to say that: “Considering that the private sector accounts for at least 75 percent of all economic activity, including jobs in B.C., the Business Council does not believe British Columbians can expect much in the way of sustainable and prosperous economy, nor real per-capita income growth, against a backdrop of an ever-expanding public sector.”

Within Bill 10, I would say to that…. I go back to that rather than expand the pie and take a smaller amount on a larger amount of money, these 185 clauses seem to do the exact opposite. We are asking for more and more and more. And what is going to become less and less and less…. I believe that is a self-fulfilling way to the bottom of the barrel. Unfortunately, Bill 10 doesn’t mention that much, if at all.

The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade gave the overall budget — I’m explaining this for a minute, because they will talk just about the budget — a C-minus for the ’23-24 provincial budget. On economic vision, which is what I’ve been talking about, expanding that pie, they gave it a C-minus.

There is scant mention of small business, innovation, manufacturing or businesses in general within the budget document. They mention in Bill 10 how we can tax them more, but there are no substantive measures to reduce costs or generally improve business conditions.

Now, when I was mayor of Abbotsford, it became very aware to me…. I read a report that basically said the equivalent: that a dollar of profit raised in a small business has six times the economic impact in your local community and economy than some of the larger corporate chains. Now, I’m not against corporate chains. That’s not the point. The point is that small businesses account for the most amount of hires. They account for the largest….

Yes, Mr. Speaker?

Deputy Speaker: I see another member standing, so if you wouldn’t mind, I will recognize him, and then I’ll come right back to you.

Thank you, Member.

F. Donnelly: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[2:45 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

F. Donnelly: In the gallery today, we have another group of grades 6 to 8 students from Scott Creek Middle in Coquitlam. They are joined by their teachers Mr. Best and Mr. Perko and parent volunteers Ms. Turpin, Ms. Variz and Mr. Rajbahak. I also want to give a special shout-out to my friend Benjamin Judd.

Will the House please make these guests welcome.

Debate Continued

B. Banman: I, too, would like to welcome the students here. This is democracy in action.

What we’re now talking about is the implementation of Bill 10, which talks about a budget — a rather large budget. The largest one in the history of this province.

I don’t mean to scare them up there, but I don’t know whether they were here when I mentioned that their share of the deficit is now approximately $20,000 each. There is no free ride, and they may be the ones that have to pick up the tab because we have trouble implementing budget measures and keeping things in check. I have grandchildren myself, and I got into politics, actually, to make life better for them.

My parents often used to say, when we would go out camping or outdoors, and we would see a mess that someone left behind, that our job was to leave the campsite better for those coming behind us. I can remember as a young boy: “Well, how come I got to clean up somebody else’s garbage? I don’t want to.” I was taught that if we don’t, then, sooner or later, that beauty that we all enjoy in British Columbia will be nothing but a big trash heap.

So partly why I got into this was to try and make life better for students like those that are watching right now. It’s important, and it’s important that they understand.

As a matter of fact, when I was the mayor, one of the things I used to ask them, if you pardon me, if you’ll indulge me for a minute…. I used to say, “Hey, who wants the city to buy everybody free ice cream?” and they’d all put up their hands. Then they’d go: “Okay, that’s a great idea.”

I said: “Oh, but I forgot to tell you that there’s only so much money in the city budget. So if I give everybody free ice cream, I’m going to have to lay off all of the firefighters and policemen.” I said: “So when you phone 911, there won’t be anybody there. But I guess you could try and throw ice cream on your fire. Maybe they’d be able to…. You’d have lots of that.”

Then I would ask, “Who still thinks free ice cream for everybody is a good idea?” and generally students get it. There’s always one. You know, then one would say: “Well, yeah. I can’t say. Ice cream is pretty tasty. Who doesn’t like ice cream?”

The point is that we can’t just spend money that we don’t have. I think sometimes that message gets lost. That we’re not just spending our own money. We’re spending money that people work hard for. They go to work every single day. They work hard, and part of that government takes….

What happens in Bill 10 is we are asking for more and more and more and more — the largest historic budget we’ve seen, and the largest deficit. As you heard from the previous speaker, these are record levels of new taxes. That’s what’s projected, but that wasn’t good enough. We couldn’t just keep to the record levels of new taxes. We had to do that and then continue to go into debt. I’d love to say we got an awful lot for it, but in six years, we have not seen any huge measurable gains. In fact, everything’s going the wrong way.

So where we’re spending the money clearly isn’t in the right areas, in many cases. Some of it is, and this side of the House will agree on that. But much of it, if you’re talking about…. You know, let’s have something we can do a victory lap on. There’s not a lot.

[2:50 p.m.]

Gas prices, as we heard, are the highest in all of North America. Yet there are those on the other side of the House that say that has nothing to do with the gas taxes that are at the pump. That defies logic. We have the highest taxes, and we have the highest gas prices. We look at other provinces and other parts of North America where the taxes are lower, and gee, the prices are lower at the pump. There’s a direct correlation.

We take a look at housing costs. As we heard from the previous speaker, rents have gone up. It would be nice if this bill…. Hopefully, they’ll get to implementing that $400 that was promised to renters. It seemed like a great idea, during the middle of a campaign, to get people to vote, but it has been six years. Not only has inflation gobbled up that $400, but they’re out $2,400 if you apply $400 over six years.

In addition to that, if you take a look at some of the things that are now going to come, there are now going to be rules to qualify for it. Very, very few will actually get the full $400. It’s almost as if it’s a bit of a…. It just doesn’t seem fair.

I was talking, before the introduction, about the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. They gave the budget a C-minus, and they said: “There is scant mention of small business, innovation, manufacturing or business issues in general within the budget document. There are no substantive measures to reduce costs or generally improve business conditions.”

Yet as we’ve learned, when it comes to the film industry…. I come from Abbotsford. We’re pretty happy with the film industry because one of those…. You know what? If you watch Hallmark movies…. I don’t know if you do, Mr. Speaker. For those who do watch Hallmark movies, we have a war going on with Maple Ridge as to whose downtown streets are in the most Hallmark movies, right?

It is an economic generator into Abbotsford, into the Fraser Valley, into British Columbia, and we give them, as we’ve heard, $1 billion in credits, approximately. Yet when it comes to other businesses, the ones that are already here….

You know what? One of the things…. When I was in the restaurant business and when I was a chiropractor and many of the other things…. You’re only as good, if you’re in the restaurant business, as your last meal. As a chiropractor, I was only as good as my last adjustment. If I didn’t fix it, well, then they were going to go on to somebody else.

The point I’m making is that you want to work to keep what you have. You want to savour that, because it is very, very difficult to generate new business. It’s difficult to encourage people to come here when, sadly, they’re watching people leave.

I was talking about that, about being a world economy. The world economy means that, whether we like it or not, we have to compete with other areas around us. I know that in Abbotsford, it’s particularly…. I remember there was a roofing industry that moved in just across the border. They did it because it was more cost-effective. That taxation base left the city; those jobs left the city.

What these businesses are saying, and what I was saying about small business having a six-times-greater impact on your local economy, is that you want to protect those. You want to create an atmosphere.

Sadly, Bill 10 talks about taking more money out of their pocket, not stimulating what they do. Bill 10 does little to make that pie bigger, to encourage businesses to stay, to encourage businesses to come and actually set up — as, in a chiropractic term, open up, to hang out their shingle.

[2:55 p.m.]

For financial prudence, the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade says, rightfully so, that “the vast majority of this debt is taxpayer supported. Budget ’23 does not reverse the decision to phase out the PST rebate on machinery and equipment.”

Now, that would’ve been a great way to stimulate businesses to buy new equipment. It’s been done in the past. It’s no surprise why it doesn’t work. How many times have we seen a “pay no PST” sale at either a furniture store or a hardware store, wherever it may be, where they have a “PST is on us”? They use that to stimulate customers to come in. The province could consider the same. Businesses would take those savings to reinvest in their own businesses. That’s not in Bill 10.

At the end of the day…. I could go on to a bunch more trades, but let me go to a couple of advocacy groups with the time I have left. This is Canadian Taxpayers Federation. “The government is mismanaging provincial finances with big deficits and no plan to balance the budget.”

The Alliance of B.C. Students — nothing. Actually, we talk all the time about “it’s the future.” Those students will be our doctors. Those students will be our nurses. They’ll be our highest-skilled technicians. They’ll be those that go into the trades. Here’s what the Alliance of B C Students said: the B.C. budget “misses the mark on supporting students.”

It’s interesting. We talk about rent controls. Yet when it comes to universities, they don’t have to abide by the same rules. They can charge whatever they want. It doesn’t seem fair, because it’s not fair. That’s not mentioned.

Bill 23 doesn’t address the root causes of the affordability of post-secondary education or living costs in British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: We are on Bill 10.

B. Banman: Yes, I know we are on Bill 10. This goes directly to that because this has to deal with our students. Part of Bill 10 would be in dealing with the students.

Deputy Speaker: Not quite. It is….

B. Banman: I can go on. I may be stretching it a little thin, but it is part of the budget.

They’re saying: “Hey, where is it for us?” It’s not there. They said: “We cannot invite more students to live on campus without first making sure that there are well-funded supports in place to prevent and respond to the sexualized and gender-based violence.”

Deputy Speaker: I would say that I think we are going a little too far off track here, Member. We are on the Budget Measures Implementation Act, which is around the taxation portion of the budget.

B. Banman: Fair enough. I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

Basically, in a nutshell, what this large, huge, thick document does is that it gives government the tools to reach deeper and deeper into our pockets. It is the largest amount…. It gives the government the ability, through regulation, to design their way to get more and more taxes from those that support government. And what I hear people saying is that they don’t feel like they’re getting much in return. They don’t feel as if they’re actually better off by paying more taxes after we implement Bill 10 than they were yesterday.

This side of the House would love to have supported some of these things. But you can’t just back up a truck, dump a bunch of money out of it with absolutely no measurables and expect to have a good outcome. It’s the equivalent of basically writing a blank cheque, as we’ve heard before.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Welcome to the Chair, Madam Speaker.

I could go on further and further.

Interjections.

B. Banman: Yeah? You want me to go on more? I’ve got a whole two minutes and 53 seconds left, I see, according to the clock, and you want me to use them all.

All right. Let’s hear what a union had to say, then. CUPE said that amid all the new investments in critical services, they were surprised that the budget was relatively silent on continued expansion of child care services.

We now know that child care services are actually an economic generator. This side of the House believes that we need to expand child care services. The other side of the House says that we don’t, but it’s actually not true.

[3:00 p.m.]

Interjection.

B. Banman: No, it’s not true. It’s not true at all. But this would be one of those things where they’ll twist it and say we’re somehow against cancer research as well because we voted against the budget. That’s just tomfoolery.

It’s actually, I believe, one of the reasons that actually annoys the public, because that’s not it. We’re against the budget. We’re against the budget and the massive amount of debt and the massive amount of new taxes that are now going to be put in. It’s totally different.

With the few moments I have left, I would say…. Here are the unions that have problems with this particular budget: the B.C. Nurses Union, the health employees union, the B.C. Teachers Federation.There are quite a few others. They all have pointed out shortcomings with the budget, and, thereby connecting it to Bill 10, the implementation of those taxes as well.

I do appreciate the time to be able to talk about this budget. It’s one of the great things about democracy. We may not always agree with what one another says. But somehow, if we search for that common ground, I believe that the public and the taxpayer will be better off. There are good ideas that come from both sides of the House. Unfortunately this budget and Bill 10 I just cannot support.

M. Bernier: I was delaying my rise to speak because I thought for sure that some of the members of the NDP would want to stand up and defend all the tax increases that they’re going to be voting in favour of. But it seems like none of them were willing to take their place to rise at this time. There’s still ample time, so we’ll see if they choose to do so.

It is a pleasure to stand up and speak to Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. As we’ve been hearing…. We’ve heard from a few members, including the minister, as well, when they talk about Bill 10, the implementation of the budget and how they’re basically tied together. You can’t implement a budget unless you have a budget. You can’t have the budget unless it’s implemented. You can’t have Bill 10 unless you have the budget. They go together.

I’ve noticed and appreciated the flexibility the House has shown as we talk about some of the challenges, especially when we’re talking about Bill 10. I also appreciate the fact that we have the ability to debate this right now. As we’ve seen under this government, usually they ram bills through at the end of a session and then force closure and don’t allow the opposition time to speak on them. It is good to know that I will have at least 30 minutes on this bill to be able to speak to it.

Bill 10, as was mentioned…. I think holding up a bill as not necessarily a prop, but I have it in my hand. It’s 185 sections. It’s all about the budget. It’s all about the implementation of the taxation and how the government plans on achieving the revenues and achieving their goals as a government.

What I find interesting, though, through this process — not only through the budget but in Bill 10, implementing that budget — is that hardly anybody in British Columbia is supporting this. It’s been an utter failure. You’ve heard from my colleague even before me. I won’t bother reading into the record a whole bunch of the negative comments and responses that we’ve heard from stakeholder groups from every corner of this province who were disappointed in this budget.

They were disappointed in the approach that this government has had, mostly because it’s the seventh budget, which means it will be the seventh Budget Implementation Act. This means it’s the seventh time this government has had a chance to get it right, and they have failed.

In fact, one of the biggest issues when we’re looking at not only the Budget Implementation Act, but the budget surrounding that, and the taxation, is how we’re going into three more consecutive deficit budgets under this government. The big question that this government fails to answer is: who’s going to pay for this in the long run?

They’re acting as if there’s a money press down in the basement here in Victoria. Let’s just keep cranking that money press, and don’t worry about it. Well, unfortunately, as a father of five, as a grandfather of four…. Hopefully, someday I live long enough to be a great-grandfather.

[3:05 p.m.]

Interjection.

M. Bernier: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast thinks I’m already old enough to be a great-grandfather. Not quite.

An Hon. Member: You’re just a great grandfather.

M. Bernier: I’m just a great grandfather. Exactly. I appreciate that support.

At some point, they’re going to have to pay for this. We need to be thinking about that when we’re talking about the increases in taxes, the increases in debt. The government has no problem bringing forward Bill 10 as if it’s nothing. “Just put it here. We don’t even have to have speakers. Let’s just support it.” But forget the overarching theme of the lack of discipline within this government when it comes to financial scrutiny, financial discipline on how they manage the budget.

Again, it goes back to the lack of understanding, I believe, of who’s going to pay for this, which is why so many stakeholder groups, as I mentioned at the onset, are struggling with this budget. Taxpayer-supported debt, which is going to be supported through this budget when they pass it and pass Bill 10, is going to be $100 billion. Think about that: $100 billion. Under the NDP’s time, this time, in government, it’s doubled.

That is, again, something we need to be very cognizant of. The government’s going to try…. “Oh, well, we’re doing all this spending.” But there have been no results. They’re going to say, “We’re doing all this spending,” but you don’t see anything for it. We’ve highlighted that in some of the original estimates we’ve done around the supplementals. We talked about that a little earlier today. What’s scary about this, when we talk about deficits and when we talk about debt, is that at some point, it has to be paid for, as I said.

Now when you look at the budget, and then you look at Bill 10, and we talk about all the taxes that keep going up…. This government’s idea of generating revenue is not growing the economy. It’s not about stimulating growth in the business sector. It’s just about throwing a few more line items in the budget of finding a way to tax people. That’s not sustainable.

In fact, the last time we saw large operating budget deficits that a government was forced to figure out a plan to pay back was after the last time the NDP was in government. Go figure. We saw, I believe, if I remember, in 2001, almost $10 billion of operating debt, because at the same time, under the NDP government in the ’90s, they had no problem cranking the money press down in the basement with no understanding of how they were ever going to pay it back. Somebody has to.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: That accountability, as my colleague from Peace River North says, needs to be considered through all of this.

When we look at all the increased taxes…. We know that we’ve seen over the NDP’s, I’ll say, long almost seven years, just increase after increase in taxes — over 20 new taxes that they’ve brought in. They’re highlighted, a lot of them here, in Bill 10. If we really wanted to see….

It’s interesting, because they’ll say: “Oh, you’re voting against this.” Well darn right we’re voting against a lot of this, because there is no plan here to help the people of British Columbia other than saying: “Don’t worry. We’re going to reach into your pocket further, as an NDP government, to take any little last pennies that you might have rattling around in there for our own increases here.”

We’re at record levels of new taxes coming in. In a lot of ways, that’s no surprise. This NDP has a track record and a history of never finding a tax that they don’t want to try to implement or never seeing a dollar rolling around that they don’t think is theirs that they want to take away from somebody. But that hurts our economy, and it hurts the families in the province of British Columbia.

[3:10 p.m.]

We saw the Minister of Finance, in the introductions to the budget, which is part of the implementation here, in Bill 10…. We saw it in the throne speech. This NDP government has no problem, interestingly, in all of those documents, highlighting the immense struggles that the people of British Columbia are going through right now, whether it’s in affordability for housing, the price of gas going up, the shortage of doctors and nurses. You name it. All the struggles. We are the highest cost jurisdiction for housing, for rents.

All of this stuff has taken place under the present NDP government. They had no problem, in their documents, highlighting that, which I found very interesting. Most people, you would think, would highlight a struggle and come through with: “Here’s the solution to fix it.”

We never saw that here. We saw this government acknowledging, as they rightfully should, the struggles and the pain that families and businesses are going through in British Columbia. You would think that the budget would have reflected those struggles with programs, with savings that would have assisted.

When you look at Bill 10…. You look at the huge list of taxes. In section 11…. It’s not only the huge list of present taxes. Bill 10, under the implementation act, is talking about all the tax increases that they plan on implementing over the next three years.

Madam Speaker, I’ll just bring to your attention…. I’m going to sit down for a moment. I believe another member just wants to do an introduction.

F. Donnelly: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

F. Donnelly: In the gallery today, we have another group of grade 6 to grade 8 students from Scott Creek Middle School. They’re from Coquitlam. They’re joined by teachers Ms. Dunn and Ms. Kamali, and they have five parent volunteers in their group. This is Scott Creek’s first overnight trip since COVID.

Would the House please make these students and their accompanying guests feel welcome.

Debate Continued

M. Bernier: I will welcome, as well, our colleague’s friends, the youth that he has introduced here today. Welcome to the Legislature.

We’re talking about everybody’s future, including the children that are in here today. So it’s interesting that they can be part of this, especially witnessing the democratic process that we go through here in the Legislature, where we sometimes agree to disagree to make the decisions to move British Columbia forward.

I will probably say, for the youth that are here today and the adults that are with them…. Sometimes we disagree on how we want to get to the good solutions. We always agree that we want to make life better for people in British Columbia. I will acknowledge that.

It doesn’t matter who gets elected. I’ve never ever met somebody who has put their name on the ballot and become an MLA here in this Legislature that says: “I hope I win so I can make things worse for the people of British Columbia.” That doesn’t happen. We just sometimes have a difference of opinion on how we want to make life better and how we will achieve that. That’s part of the discussion that we’re having here today, which takes me back to where I was.

Some of the struggles that families are faced with right now in the province of British Columbia, whether it’s…. I will talk about housing, maybe, for a moment.

In the budget implementation act…. One of the things that is talked about here in Bill 10, as well, is how…. There are 21, if I remember, new and added taxes that directly and indirectly go to the increased costs for building a home, whether it’s a fixed structure or a rental unit.

[3:15 p.m.]

The government had no problem acknowledging — again, rightfully so — the cost pressures people are facing when it comes to high housing costs and high rents but then, in their own documents, increase taxes and put further pressure on the costs to try to help young families or people starting out that want to get into the housing market and, I would argue, even into the rental. Some people choose maybe just to rent their whole lives, which is their choice and something that works for their life, but they are seeing the increased pressures as well.

So wouldn’t you be surprised — in fact, I wasn’t — that this government, after seven budgets, failed to deliver on their repeatedly promised $400 renters rebate? Election after election, this government said: “Don’t worry. We’re going to be basically cutting you a cheque for $400 to put in your pocket to help offset the increase in rent.”

A bit of a slap in the face for those people who are struggling right now with the highest rent costs in North America when, in this budget, instead of that $400 renters rebate, this government announces…. Finally, after seven years, they think they’re doing something, but it’s a refundable $400 tax credit.

Now, for those that understand how tax credits work, you don’t get the money up front. So this means you’re waiting until sometime next year, a year from now, 13, 14 months, maybe, from now, until you’re doing your next taxes in 2024. Meanwhile, your rent has gone up possibly hundreds of dollars again this year, and you’ll be, maybe, eligible for a $400 tax credit, which could work out to $30 a month. The reason why I say “maybe” eligible is that the only ones that are going to be able to obtain the full $400 tax credit…. It’s if you make $60,000 a year or less.

But the recent reports have come out and said that just to afford to rent a place in the Lower Mainland, you need to be making over $100,000 a year to afford a one-bedroom place to rent. So people who are making under $60,000 will get this full $400 credit. If you’re making $100,000 and are fortunate enough to make that, and you’re trying and struggling to pay for rent in Vancouver, you’re out of luck. Even though this government promised it to you many, many times, you are out of luck.

You’re also out of luck in this budget when you look at trying to find anywhere where this government plans on achieving their goals on building the affordable housing that they promised.

As I mentioned, in Bill 10, they have no problem talking about all the budget increases, tax increases that are going to take place in many of the different sections. But you’ll notice, anybody paying attention to this, that this government conveniently doesn’t talk about anymore and have walked back their promise of 114,000 affordable housing units in ten years.

We’re now going into budget 7, and what we find in the budget, when you look deep down into it, are documents that say they may or may not achieve 3,000 units this year, completely walked back. Well, I shouldn’t say walked back. They haven’t even given an explanation. They’ve just pretended they didn’t promise 114,000 affordable housing units in this province at the same time we’re talking about the struggles that people are facing.

Now, one of the taxes that we talk about in Bill 10 is the carbon tax. Carbon tax is going up yet again. Over the next seven years, the annual carbon tax increases are going to increase the price of gas by around 26 cents a litre. That’s on top of what has already happened under this government in the last six years, which is around 50 cents a litre.

[3:20 p.m.]

It continues. We continue to be the highest cost jurisdiction on almost every level when it comes to what people have here in British Columbia for what they’re trying to pay for.

I appreciate being heckled by some of the members about climate change. They might want to remember that they voted against the carbon tax. “Axe the tax,” they were saying. “We would never support a carbon tax,” until they got into government and realized: “Holy cow. Instead of making it revenue neutral, we’ve got billions of dollars that we can put into general revenue — another tax grab.”

Instead of putting it back into the pockets of people of British Columbia, rather than putting it into a tax shift to support families or businesses, they said: “Let’s just take that money, the billions of dollars, and let’s just put it into general revenue to spend it where we want.”

It’s a little ironic when they say, “Oh, the carbon tax is all for helping the environment,” but they have no problem taking that money that they voted against to spend it on anything else but what might actually be helping the environment. They say one thing and do another. I’m hoping they continue to heckle me, because I’ve got way more answers I can continue throwing back at them on these issues if they want.

One of the things that is really interesting when we talk about this carbon tax is the fact of how it hits people, individuals, families that have no choice. When I look at Bill 10 and I look at how carbon tax is going up under this government over the next few years, again, I look at people in my region, who just went through another winter where we had weeks and weeks of minus 40.

Any single one of them that would have looked at their gas bill would have realized, and I can’t explain this very well to them either, how the carbon tax that’s added to their natural gas bill is actually more than the natural gas that the company is selling itself.

The problem with this is that they have no choice. They have no choice. Somebody gets a $600 gas bill in my riding, and $300 of that is carbon tax. They have no choice but pay that, because of what this government is doing. Now, if they truly want to say that this is going to help people, then maybe they should come up with tax credits to make things more revenue neutral when it comes to the carbon tax. Maybe they….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I’m wondering if the members are willing to stand up, then, when they have their turn and explain to the people in my region that their natural gas bills that they have no choice on are going to be going down under this government. That will be interesting to hear.

The Finance Minister is not saying that. If the other members want to stand up and say that, I’m sure we’d all love to hear it. I know the people who live in my riding would love to hear that as well.

The government stands up and says: “We’re raising carbon tax to incentivize people to stop using as many carbon-emitting products.” But they’ll have no problem burying their heads in the sand and not answering the phone calls and emails to give the explanation to people in parts of British Columbia that have no choice but to do that.

That is just wrong. That’s not fair. This government continues to try to make announcements and promises here and the Lower Mainland and forgetting that there’s actually a large, vast difference in the entire province out there. We can’t regulate or legislate for one group down here thinking that’s not going to negatively affect other people.

Now, when we also look at Bill 10 and we’re talking about, in the budget, the taxation increases, well, that’s the revenue coming in. I’m looking forward to any of the members opposite standing up and justifying, explaining why they have no problem budgeting for resource revenue to go down.

This government has completely, basically, abandoned anything when it comes to the growth of our resource sector. In fact, it’s the opposite. They’re actually budgeting and planning for a decline, managing for a loss of jobs, managing for a decline and huge negative impacts to our communities. They have no problem doing that, it seems, from here in Victoria.

[3:25 p.m.]

It’s 33 percent over the next couple of years that revenues are dropping from natural resources, such as oil and gas, in my riding, and such as forestry around the entire province.

I mean, when we look at…. Again, in Bill 10, when we talk about all of the pressures that Bill 10 is putting on our resource sector, our small businesses, our families, it’s no wonder we’re hearing on a daily, weekly basis that companies are saying: “Enough is enough. We’re moving our offices down to the United States” or “In the natural gas sector, we’ve got billions of dollars, but we’re going to be investing them in Alberta, because we know, because of the taxation rules that they have there, that it’s more economical to invest in that region.”

Under Bill 10, maybe this is where the government would have had an opportunity, when they’re talking about all these taxes and when they said they identified all the pressures people are facing, to actually put their money where their mouth is and actually show that when they put this bill forward and say: “We’re actually going to acknowledge the pressures, and we’re going to actually look at lowering the tax burden. We’re going to actually have a plan for getting out of deficit budgets. We’re going to have a plan to getting back to a revenue-neutral carbon tax. We’re going to have a plan for supporting families who are struggling with their gas and their groceries and their housing, their rent.” Whatever it might be.

But no. We heard all of those pressures people are facing, but we put Bill 10 on the floor that says: “Oh, and by the way” — add insult to injury — “we’re increasing those pressures. We’re increasing those taxes.” I hope they find the irony in that at a time when, as I just mentioned, in the resource sector, we’ve got mills shutting down all over the province.

I look up in my region of Chetwynd, a couple hundred jobs; Taylor, a couple of hundred jobs; Houston; Merritt; Quesnel; here on the Island. I mean, the list goes on. I was just touring a place over in Maple Ridge, a shake and shingle facility. They’re worried because they can’t get their permits anymore, worried for their hundreds of jobs.

While we’re seeing the decline of resource revenues, while we’re seeing families losing their jobs in resource communities and when we’re seeing communities being faced with huge, devastating revenue impacts because of that, this government says, “Don’t worry, we’re just going to raise your taxes because we need more money,” not acknowledging the same people that they’re trying to collect money from are the ones struggling right now in British Columbia.

One of the things…. I’ll say this, hopefully, with all due respect, and it doesn’t come across the wrong way. I was doing an interview and talking about the 200 jobs being lost in Chetwynd with a mill being shut and the impact that that has on a small community. One of the people — I won’t mention what party they were from; I’ll just say they weren’t from mine — put on Twitter: “It’s only 200 jobs.” Two hundred jobs in Chetwynd is 10 to 15 percent of the population. Quick math in my head — that would be like the Lower Mainland losing about 400,000 jobs in one day.

Can you imagine the outrage from this government, the panic from this government and the work that they would try to do if 400,000 people in the Lower Mainland lost their jobs because of the impact it would have on the communities there?

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I agree. Devastating. It better never happen. But that impact is exactly the same to a small community when only 200 people are getting laid off, according to this government. That is huge.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Well, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who comes from a region that actually is, was…. He appreciates how hard it is when people lose their jobs.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I guess he must be speaking next to talk about it — exactly.

[3:30 p.m.]

His government stood up numerous times and said: “Don’t worry. No mill will ever be shut down on our watch. Nobody will lose a job under the NDP.” Maybe he can stand up after me and explain why the NDP, on that promise, like many others — how they failed to deliver. This is real. These are real impacts. These are real pressures people are facing, and those need to be dealt with. I encourage…. I implore members in the NDP to stand up after me and justify that, to explain why they think it’s okay to make promises and then not deliver on them.

It’s amazing how quickly a half an hour goes by when there is so much that you can talk about that is facing the people of British Columbia right now.

The people in the province are hurting. They’re struggling. The last thing they expect is for us to be passing a budget that really doesn’t help them. By passing Bill 10, which agrees to tax them more, and passing a budget that is going to put further pressures and impacts on future generations…. It sometimes boggles my mind that people would think that is reasonable and that is appropriate in a time when people are struggling.

I didn’t even have time to get into all of the challenges that I’m faced with in my region. I would have loved to see in here and in the budget…. Rather than $3 billion going out in all of the different supplemental estimates to areas where the government can’t explain, I would have loved them to come forward with stuff that says: “This is what we’re going to do to stop all of the diversions of the hospitals in the Peace region.”

Guess what. Tumbler Ridge, again, this weekend…. I just found out a half an hour ago that the hospital is being shut down again — the closest hospital 130, 140 kilometres away — with a sign on the door that says: “Sorry, you will have to drive yourself to the next nearest hospital if you’re in a crisis or phone 911. We will do what we can for you.”

As I say, time goes by too quickly. I would have loved a lot more time to talk about the struggles of lives. I have a hard time with the budget and the budget implementation of that because of all the increased taxes, the lack of a plan and the lack of support for families.

I appreciate the time I’ve had, and I appreciate the House listening.

D. Davies: I thought for sure that after…. They were heckling my colleague from Peace River South, calling him wrong, saying that he was saying the wrong things.

This would have been a wonderful opportunity to stand up and defend your budget, defend all the taxes.

It is quite sad, actually, that we’re here in this place having these conversations, and it is only us talking about what they are very proud of. One would think that they would want to stand up and do this.

I digress. I am pleased to rise and give my remarks on Bill 10. There we go. As my colleague just said…. Of course, Bill 10 is the bill that triggers all of these taxes and costs that are going to be coming forward and bringing their budget to life, I guess we might say, a budget that has no light at the end of the tunnel. I think I’ve used that exact phrase on at least a few of the last seven budgets that this government has asked.

I had someone ask me, actually: “What do you mean by seven budgets? They’ve only been in here….” Well, when they first became government, it was kind of partially into…. They had to do their own budget.

[3:35 p.m.]

That’s really for the people watching — okay, there’s nobody watching — and the two people watching on Hansard right now. Actually, there are probably lots of people watching on Hansard. There are lots of people watching on Hansard.

No light at the end of the tunnel. We’re at a time when…. We recently saw the throne speech. We recently saw the budget tabled. Each of these have come out at a time when people are looking for hope. People are looking for a light at the end of the tunnel.

It has been a hard few years. COVID is behind us now, but there are still a lot of things left over that are challenges. People, I think, were really looking forward to this government’s budget to provide the relief, first of all, that they needed but, secondly, to provide that hope. We did not see that in this budget. As I said, we haven’t seen it, unfortunately, in the previous budgets.

Now, before I dive into all of my notes — I probably won’t get through them all, but I might — I do want to thank my constituents for allowing me to represent them here in this place.

My riding, as I’ve said here before, is quite unique. It’s a very large riding, 170,000-plus square kilometres. It contains everything that British Columbia needs as a resource. We have forestry. We have lots of agriculture. I’ll talk about that in a bit. Oil and gas. Mining. Tourism. I mean, we have everything. We’re really quite lucky.

As I see this budget come out, it really wants me to even take my job in a more responsible manner. Now I really need to be talking about how there is nothing in it, really, for my constituents. I’m going to highlight these points, which I think is my role to do here as the representative — to take whatever action I can to make sure that they have a stronger future. We have a brighter future. All British Columbians have a brighter future.

Much of my motivation comes from my two children: my son, Noel, and my daughter, Hana. I think many of us who have children can probably say the same thing. That’s our guiding light, our motivation. This is what really brings us to this place. I do this for them. I do this for that generation, up and coming, and the generations that will follow so that they will have a bright future. They will have hope.

What happened just one week ago, maybe a little more than a week ago…. My daughter, Hana, is graduating this year. She’s in grade 12. She graduates, my goodness, in a couple of months. She was going to move to Vancouver. She had interests in getting into a whole bunch of different stuff. The film industry was certainly one. She started looking around and looking at options that would provide her the most opportunity and that would provide her the most hope.

To my dismay…. I was expecting her…. She was coming to Vancouver. She had even looked here in Victoria. Last week she came to me and said: “Dad, I think I’m moving to Calgary.” I was a little taken aback. I want to build a province where…. I want my kids to be here. I want my kids to grow up in this province.

I was like: “Oh, why?” She did her own research. She looked at housing. She looked at the cost of tuition. She looked at the cost of groceries. It came back to affordability. She has decided that she cannot afford to live in British Columbia, and she is now going to go to Calgary to do her next journey of her life.

It is sad when young British Columbians are choosing to live in other jurisdictions, other than their home, because it’s better. It should never be better. British Columbia has so many opportunities that are missed, so many opportunities that are being squashed by Bill 10, that are being squashed by this budget, that are being squashed by this government.

[3:40 p.m.]

My daughter was born and raised, as I was, in Fort St. John, and we’re proud to call that home. I’m proud to be a British Columbian. I know my daughter is proud to be a British Columbian, but when she weighs all the odds, she has to do what’s right. She has to do what’s right for her, and I hope that this province does change around and welcome her back in the near future, so that she can come back and make a life here in British Columbia.

Part of that comes from…. Bill 10 is implementing a number of taxes and, of course, has identified…. One of the things that was identified in the budget was the direct cull of revenues from the resource sector, dropping upwards of 35 percent. Those industries are in my riding. All of those industries are in my riding.

The natural gas sector. I mean, we are the NG of the LNG. All of the natural gas that’s going to feed the LNG facilities is coming from my region, my colleague from Peace River South. It’s coming from our region, the mining opportunities and the mining that is happening in the Peace country.

The forest sector — well, that’s another story. It’s taken a hard hit like many other communities. I mean, I’ve just had my pulp mill in Taylor, which is just south of Fort St. John, 15 kilometres, just announced they’re shutting down. I know my colleague from Peace River South has had mill closures in his riding recently — Chetwynd. Pick a small forestry community in this province. They have all been seeing forestry closures, mill closures. I do want to highlight, and it’s been highlighted a few times, the Premier said in 2017: “There would be no mill closures under my watch.” I’ve lost count of how many mill closures there are.

But I go back to these industries and the uncertainty that is being created in this province, the uncertainty by the taxes that are in Bill 10 that are going to be coming down, and they are going to come down like a ton of bricks, like the other previous budgets have been. This is death by a thousand cuts through seven budgets on our resource sector. We have seen our resource sector continually attacked by this government — continually attacked, not supported.

We are now starting to see continuous deficit budgets. Because remember, all of our resources are really what brings the revenue into the province of British Columbia. The majority of the revenue that governments have relied on over years and years to make sure that we have the best education system in the world; great health care, which we had at one time; good roads; good infrastructure; all of these things that British Columbians want — the ability to look after our vulnerable people.

That money cannot only come from the taxpayer’s pocket. I should do this one because the front ones are empty. They’re now into the back ones and the side ones. They continue to reach into the pockets of British Columbians because that is the only place that this government can reach now as we start to see our decline in our resource sector.

These industries are all good-paying jobs across the province of British Columbia, good-paying jobs that keep families in their communities, keep their communities going, their communities thriving and generate that much-needed revenue that the province of British Columbia needs, not only by what the industry pays, but by the spending of these families. This is why Bill 10, this is why this budget, is so troubling to me.

British Columbia used to be an envy in Canada. It used to be an envy to be here, to come here. Unfortunately, it isn’t that anymore.

[3:45 p.m.]

I think it’s really important…. This is why I’ve taken a number of minutes just talking about the resource sector and how it’s crumbled. In fact, 11,700 jobs have been lost in the resource sector since this government became government in 2017. That’s 11,700 good-paying jobs that have been taken out of British Columbia.

I know we heard today…. Even during question period, we heard today with the forest sector, “We are going to look after them. We’ll retrain them into tech,” or retrain them into whatever or bridge them to retirement. Well, as was mentioned earlier, many of these people are living in a community…. What does tech look like in Mackenzie, retraining into a tech job? What does retraining into a tech job look like in Merritt or Fort Nelson or Dease Lake? What does that look like as a tech sector job? It’s cold comfort for many of these people that are losing their jobs across the province when the answer from government is: “Don’t worry. We’ll retrain you.”

These are resource communities. British Columbia does resource extraction very well. We’ve innovated. We are a leader in the world. We need to continue to do that. But continually attacking all levels of the resource sector is not sustainable. I think my colleague from Peace River South said that. It’s not a sustainable way to continue going.

Life has never been more unaffordable as it has been in these last couple of years. Deficit spending seems to be becoming a normal thing now. I get it. There are times…. We saw during COVID…. That was an opportune time. We needed to deficit spend. We needed to generate the extra supports out there for British Columbians. But now it seems like this government’s loving having deficits, drunk on deficit budgets. For the foreseeable future, that’s all we’re going to be seeing. So $11 billion of deficits over the next three years.

As has been said, I think maybe a couple of times…. I’m sure I’ve heard it in here. British Columbia became a province in 1871, 150 years ago. Up until about 2017, the provincial debt in this province, which would have been 146 years ago…. We had a debt of $50 billion. From 2017 to now — what’s that, six years and a bit? — we’ve doubled that debt. Not we. They’ve doubled that debt. Government has doubled the debt to now be almost $100 billion. There’s no end in sight.

As I talk back to my children again, that worries me. That worries me for not only my kids. I think the member for Abbotsford mentioned that that’s 20-some-thousand dollars that every single British Columbian owes. That’s just the provincial. It’s not sustainable. We will not be supporting Bill 10. I can’t, with all conscience, support this bill, just for my children’s sake.

[3:50 p.m.]

One of the things in here, of course, is…. Not one of the things. There are many tax increases in Bill 10. In fact, that’s really what it all is, just tax and grab, tax and grab, tax and grab, continuously.

I just want to bring forward…. He’ll be happy I brought this forward, one of my constituents. One of the pieces here, of course, is the carbon tax increasing another $15. Now, of course, everyone remembers that the previous government, the B.C. Liberal government, brought in the carbon tax as a revenue-neutral tax, a tax that would go back to supporting innovation, supporting people. Now it’s just a tax grab — and a big one, a massive tax grab, at that.

This constituent, Arthur Hadland…. Some of you might even know Arthur Hadland. You know, he’s been involved in politics for a number of years. He was the regional district director in Fort St. John. He was the chair, I think, of the regional district. He ran against me in one of my elections a few years back.

He comes from a family of farmers. They farm a lot of land up in the northeast. In fact, I think one of the breweries here in Victoria uses his barley to make beer. That’s one of his things.

Anyway, Arthur came into my office. He is the nicest man, but he came into my office, a week or so back, chewing nails and spitting rust, as I think may be what the term is. In his hand, he had his natural gas bill for his place. It was $1,136. I think it was for the months of December and January, almost 1,200 bucks.

You know, when it’s minus 40 or minus 35, we don’t have the option to heat our houses with any other source, other than using natural gas, because it is the most efficient, and it does provide the most heat. When we see this tax grab — that’s what it is now — you can understand why people like Arthur Hadland and so many others, myself included, usually have to sit down. That’s the one bill I have to actually sit down for: when I open my natural gas bill.

When you see this continually going up and just becoming general revenue, it…. I can’t use the word, but it really makes me upset, along with thousands of others that live across the North and that heat their homes with natural gas.

Even with the natural gas…. You know, 95 percent of all grain comes from my region, the Peace region. Some 95 percent of all grain in British Columbia comes from the Peace region. That grain needs to be dried using natural gas heaters — again, another expense, and they’re not exempt on that. So when we look at affordability and we wonder why food prices are going up, the costs of things are going up, there’s one example.

Again, my colleague from Abbotsford mentioned the gas tax. Well, when British Columbia has the highest gas tax in the entire country, which pretty closely equates to us having the highest gas prices in the entire country — diesel prices — that directly translates onto the cost of food, the cost of goods and services, because everything in this province is trucked here. Everything that’s distributed throughout this province is trucked here — or on a train, which also burns diesel.

When we see Bill 10 and the budget, there’s no relief in there. There’s no relief for British Columbians — the trucking industry, British Columbians that rely on their vehicles, British Columbians that rely on and have no choice but to heat their homes with natural gas. Bill 10 does not provide that relief. Budget ’23 does not provide that relief.

[3:55 p.m.]

Speaking of relief, as I mentioned, my daughter was looking at different things in Vancouver, moving to Vancouver. She has decided now to move to Alberta. You know, the $400 renters…. Well, it’s not a rebate. When the rebate was first introduced, I think it was the 2017 budget — was it not? — the big promise…. This government has a ton of promises over the past years that just keep getting regurgitated in seven budgets, over and over again.

The renters rebate was one. “We’re going to give you four hundred bucks cash.” Well, that four hundred bucks cash in 2017 is different in 2023, because the cost of rent has gone up 15, 20 percent. It’s not even cash anymore in your pocket for British Columbians or, certainly, people on the Lower Mainland that are renting. Now it’s a tax rebate with a whole bunch of strings attached to it that is going to amount in very few people actually receiving it, or some only receiving a small little portion of this.

We wonder why people are, in record numbers this year, moving out of British Columbia — in record numbers, moving out of British Columbia. I wish I had…. I can’t remember who. One of the agencies did a study on that. I can’t remember where it was, but record numbers of British Columbians, in 2022, left the province. That’s a shame. There’s no reason for that.

I talked about the declining resource revenues in the budget, zero job creation incentives that are really being pushed out. There are some, and I’m not saying it’s zero. There have been some; some in the Lower Mainland. There are some options. But when we, again, look back at rural B.C., in the North, there’s really nothing for us in this budget, nothing for us other than these tax grabs that are in Bill 10.

We’ve seen this over…. Again, this is just a snap, a little glimpse in the current time. When we look over the last five years, 6½ years, I think we’re up to 29 new taxes or fees, 29 brand-new taxes that have been created by government on British Columbians. That’s astounding. At a time when we should be looking at how we provide relief for British Columbians, this government has doubled down on taxation, when British Columbians don’t have any more to give.

It’s like Prince John and the sheriff of Nottingham walking through the streets of every community in British Columbia, knocking on your door. “Here to collect taxes.” “I have none to give.” “Well, then we will continue to take. We will get it out of you somehow.” That’s what British Columbians are feeling right now. Every pocket is empty? Well, they’ll find a way to get it. It’s really sad.

You’ve just got to go into any coffee shop. I know the members opposite must go to coffee shops in their riding. They must, and they must hear the conversations. I tell you…. I don’t know if I can do a promotion here. I go to A&W in my community if I want to hear what’s going on in the streets, because everybody goes to A&W. There are about four shifts of people. They start at seven. There’s an eight, a nine and a ten o’clock shift. When I’m in there, I’m hearing everything that I’m saying right now, because that’s what people are talking about.

Oh, they’re not talking about the good old days. Well, they’re talking about the good old days, how they wish it was the good old days again. But now they’re talking about: “My God, I don’t know what I’m going to do.” That’s all ages, especially seniors. They’re really feeling the punch.

I should talk off my notes. I’m just going ad lib here, so I don’t even know where I got to. Anyways, that’s fine.

[4:00 p.m.]

Madam Speaker, rather than taking responsibility for their actions, this government is quick to blame many things on the previous government — when this side was. But they are the previous government now — two terms, plenty of time to turn things around, plenty of time to make things right. But they continue to not. They continue to find reasons why they have to blame for this and blame for that. “We need to increase this,” because of X, Y, or Z.

As I mentioned, those people that are sitting in A&W are fed up with the excuses. They want relief. They want to know that they’ve got good health care, but they’re not getting it. They want to know that when their kids are off to school, they’re getting a good education. They want to know that the roads are going to be looked after. They want to know that if they have a loved one that’s suffering from mental health or addictions, there’s going to be help for them.

But we’ve seen nothing, or very little, from this government to give people confidence at a time when people are looking for hope, at a time when British Columbians deserve more than they’re getting, because they’re paying for it. They’re paying a lot of money for it. The money is flying out of the back of the pickup, but there are no results coming, which is really concerning for all of us.

People are worried about their health. They’re worried about their economic well-being. They’re worried about their children. They’re worried about their future. They’re worried about the future and where the future of British Columbia is going.

With that, I’ll take my seat. Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Recognizing the member for Columbia River–Revel­stoke.

D. Clovechok: Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and it’s always a pleasure to see you in the chair.

I am honoured today to stand here in this House, representing the people of Columbia River–Revelstoke, and share some thoughts on Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I do want to start out with the caveat that with this bill, it’s about implementation of a budget. I need…. The thrust of my discussion will be about some of what I think are the shortcomings that my riding has told me about in the sense of: how can you implement if there are shortcomings? So I do beg your indulgence on that.

What I do know is that in my riding, contiguously through my two offices…. You have to remember that my riding is unique in the sense that it’s rural, remote. It’s as big as the country of Switzerland.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: Not as big as yours; no, it’s not. But I’ve got more communities.

Interjections.

D. Clovechok: Okay. Don’t touch it. Oh my god, it’s getting worse. Anyway, where was I? Switzerland. Once the boundary….

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: We’re neutral. We’re neutral.

Once the boundaries have been approved in the new changes with the boundary commission, assuming that that’s going to happen, it’s going to even get bigger. I’m going to get a part of Cranbrook to go with me as well. So it just keeps growing. That’s what happens to good people. You just keep on growing.

Anyway, I hear from my….

Got to have a little levity here, Mr. Speaker.

Back to the serious part of this, people in my riding continue to contend with a number of incredibly serious challenges. I hear those challenges through my constituency offices every day.

[4:05 p.m.]

I’m going to take this moment just to recognize Sioban Staplin, who is in my Kimberley office, and Chelsea Meulendyk, who’s in my Revelstoke office, because they work so, so, very hard. They’re me when I’m not there. We talk every day on the phone, but they hear that every day. I hear that every day — that these issues continue to impact people’s lives and their livelihood.

They tell me that they had hoped for a budget that would provide more relief and for tangible actions that would make their lives better. In my humble opinion, that’s not this. You can’t implement something that isn’t good. So that’s what we’re sticking with here.

The Minister of Health will know that I’m a pretty positive guy. We’ve worked together on many things and come up with some great solutions.

I want to start with a couple of positive things that I do see in this budget. That, of course, is the free birth control. I think that’s a long time coming. As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, it is something that we certainly have advocated for over the last two years. I’m very, very pleased to see that. That’s something, I think, that British Columbians will, without question, very much appreciate.

Another thing that I found very positive was the initiative that will feed kids. There is no way a child in this province, with the riches that we have in this province, should go to school hungry. I think the measures inside this budget will actually deal with some of that. So I’m pleased to see that.

The money that was given to municipalities…. I’m very pleased, for my communities, for the dollars that have been allocated.

I did have an opportunity to speak with the minister of municipalities yesterday in supplementary estimates. There are still some things that are kind of unclear to everybody. She wasn’t able to talk with the area directors. She talked to the municipalities but not the area directors, who, unfortunately, are elected officials too. One area, area F, actually has a larger population and land size than the town of Invermere. She did commit to getting in touch with those folks.

It’s really important that you do so. Those dollars are important.

Always start out with a positive twist. But that’s about it. If you look at it overall, after six years in government and looking to implement, I think, a fairly sparse budget with really no results or outcomes associated with it….

When you spend money in business, you build a business plan. You have KPIs, or key performance indicators, as you’re going through your business, so that you can measure and judge what you’re doing. If you get off track, you can try to get back on track. You have forecasted outcomes as well, and then you measure those outcomes with the results that you have achieved. I don’t see any of that kind of thing in this budget. It’s just money out the back door, as my last colleague said, with none of that.

I think life has…. If you ask people in my riding the question: “Has your life become more affordable in the last six years?” I think what you’re going to hear and, certainly, what I hear is that the answer is no. They’re very concerned about the state of the province.

We are kind of this little remote area. We are not little but, certainly, a remote area in British Columbia. Hard-working and fun-loving folks.

What I want to do, in the next little bit here, is look at this budget through the lens of my constituents’ eyes, not through my eyes, as their representative. I’m just one individual. I certainly counsel them. I answer their questions. I certainly take their issues and their concerns back to this House, as I’ve done on many, many other occasions. I want to look at how this is making them feel today and what they actually think about the budget, based upon what I’ve heard from those constituents.

I want to start by talking about, first of all, housing affordability. We all heard, and my colleague mentioned, just a little bit ago…. In 2017, one of the big promises was that the government was going to build 114,000 units of affordable housing. What we find in this budget today…. It looks like there might be about 3,000.

Governments, first of all, in my humble opinion, shouldn’t be building housing. They should be pushing that out into the private sector to people who actually know what they’re doing. Nonetheless, rents and housing in my riding have gone up. They have gone up. It’s all about that affordability. I will kind of weave this throughout my whole speech.

When we talk about affordability, we’re talking about food. This isn’t new to any of the members on my side. It’s certainly not new to any members on the opposite side. Food is incredibly expensive.

[4:10 p.m.]

I was just up at Thrifty’s here the other night and got a couple of bags full of groceries. There wasn’t a lot in there. It was 220 bucks. You think: “My goodness. I’m privileged to do what I do, and I can afford food.” But for a young family, that’s got to be hard for them to manage.

I hear that throughout my riding, in Revelstoke, in Golden and through the Columbia Valley and, of course, through Kimberley, about the price of food. People are really having trouble affording it. My ex-CA told me the other night that she doesn’t buy as much fruit anymore as she used to, which is too bad, because fruit is so important for kids and their health.

I had a constituent phone my office the other day, and he was almost in tears — a young guy in his 30s, almost in tears. I wasn’t on the other end of that phone, but my constituency assistant phoned me right away, so I phoned him back immediately from this building.

He said: “You know what, Doug? We’re in trouble. We’ve got two great jobs, but I can’t afford to feed my family.” He’s a hunter, and he knows that I’m a hunter as well. He said: “I might be forced to go and poach an animal.” We had a long conversation about the downside of that activity, and he won’t be doing it. We got him in touch with some help.

That’s what this kind of budget and where we are in this province right now under this government, with all due respect…. It’s pushing people to break the law to feed their families. That’s not right. When you hear stories like that and other stories, like single moms crying on the phone, too, saying: “I can’t afford to feed my kids….” Man, when I look at this budget, it’s not what they had certainly hoped for.

Rent. Let’s talk about rent, because it’s an interesting concept. I mean, back in 2017, this government certainly promised — I heard that promise when I was running in that election in 2017 — a $400 renters rebate. Well, I even thought that sounded pretty good. I’m not a renter, but I thought that sounded pretty good. No materialization of that, and here we are in 2023. People are wondering when they’re going to get a cheque and whether it’s going to be retroactive. Then we find out now it’s some sort of a credit.

One of the lessons that I’m going to share in this House that my father taught me — and God bless him because he’s such a fine man — was that when you give your word, it’s one of the only things you actually own in your life. That is your word. If you give your word, make sure you take good care at giving it, because once you give it, you can’t take it back.

Unfortunately, that’s a piece of advice that I’d like to share with the members across as far as government goes, because I think most of those members understand that — that when you make a promise, you keep that promise, because then people don’t trust you. If they don’t trust you, that’s not the way you govern.

Rent has gone up. Now, interestingly enough, there are always unforeseen consequences. Now, this government around rental…. I mean, the NDP government doesn’t get up in the morning and say: “How am I going to wreck the lives of British Columbians?” They don’t do that. I don’t believe they do that. What I do believe is that at so many levels, they just don’t know what they’re doing.

They put in the Residential Tenancy Act. Protect tenants — that’s a great thing. I’m a landlord. I have fantastic tenants, and I think they think I’m a fantastic landlord, but that’s not the case always. That kind of made sense, but there’s a downside to that in that it went so far as to actually preclude the owners of that property to have rights. Well, what those owners did is complained a lot to me throughout the riding.

The thing that disturbs me the most, and it continues to go on today inside of Columbia River–Revelstoke…. It’s a huge issue, and it comes…. It’s certainly not found inside of this budget — any way to address this issue. It’s that homeowners sold their property. Because you can’t get your renters out at any time, if they’re wrecking your property or whatever have you…. There’s a long and lengthy process.

[4:15 p.m.]

So they sold their property. Guess who bought it. The people that this government condemn constantly, which they, in my humble opinion, shouldn’t — investors.

What has happened with these properties that used to be rental properties…. That’s the key thing that people need to understand. They used to be rental properties, but today they’re either Airbnb or VRBOs. Fairmont, which is a little village I live very close to, has one of the highest per capita of Airbnbs anywhere in British Columbia. You go: “So what?” Well, here’s the so what. Those houses are not owned by locals anymore, by and large. They’re owned by people from other provinces and, in some cases, out of this country.

The thing that I think bothers me the most is that it has changed the complexity of and the makeup of those communities. They used to be communities where you could wave at people as you’re driving by. Today there are cars piled up in people’s driveways across from the homes of local residents.

Partying. People come on holidays. We’re a holiday destination. There’s no question about that. People like to have fun, but defecating and urinating on people’s property….

This is what has happened with some of the policy that has come out of this government — unforeseen consequences, but everything has unforeseen consequences. The problem that I have with it is that there’s nowhere inside any budget that I’ve seen or anything that would recognize, first of all, the significance and the problem associated with this — Airbnb and VRBO in neighbourhoods. But there’s no money to help find a solution. That’s the province’s responsibility.

You’ll say: “Oh, hang on, Doug, you’re wrong. That’s actually the municipality’s problem.” Actually, it is, in some respect, in that it has been downloaded to the municipalities to come up with bylaws that will deal with Airbnbs and VRBOs. That’s fine, and some have. I know the regional district of East Kootenay is working very hard at putting some measures together, as well as Kimberley has done and Golden and Revelstoke have done. But the problem is: how do you enforce it? You don’t have the revenue to enforce those bylaws, and so it’s the Wild West when it comes to that.

The key point that I want to underscore is that because of that act, people sold their houses, have taken them out of the rental market. There’s less product on the market for rental people, and that’s because of the Airbnbs and VRBOs. That is a fact. People can’t find places to live where I live. That’s not there as well.

Gasoline is a huge issue, and I want to spend a little bit of time on that. Gasoline, as one of my colleagues said, is the most expensive anywhere in North America right here in British Columbia. It takes me $185 to fill up my truck. It’s not cheap. Yet we brought in the carbon tax.

I look at this budget measures implementation…. They talk about the carbon in there. They talk about that. But when we brought in the carbon tax under Gordon Campbell, it was revealed to be one of the most progressive taxes in the world when it came to green energy and green alternatives. We won awards for it. I know that Premier Clark went to the States to get an award for it.

But the difference was that it was revenue neutral. What that meant was…. People know this. When they talk about revenue neutrality, their eyes kind of roll, but then when you explain it, they get it immediately. It’s that the money that was being generated from the carbon tax produced by the B.C. Liberals was actually going back into the pockets of British Columbians.

Well, with this government, that money no longer goes back into the pockets of British Columbians. It goes into the general revenue pot. What happens after that? We don’t know.

When I hear members on the other side literally patting themselves on their backs for this carbon tax, remember that it’s the B.C. Liberals who brought that tax in. It’s the B.C. Liberals that recognized the importance of having such a carbon process and carbon tax. But we also were the ones that didn’t put it into general revenue. We gave it back to people, and that was the key to that.

[4:20 p.m.]

Let’s talk a little bit about gas prices and affordability. Revelstoke. If you haven’t been to Revelstoke for a while, you should go. It’s one of the fastest-growing rural communities anywhere in Canada, for that matter. Gas prices in Revelstoke, on average, are 25 cents to 30 cents higher than you would find them in Malakwa or in Sicamous, where my colleague is the MLA from.

With the mayor of Revelstoke, His Worship Mayor Gary Sulz, I have spent time speaking about this to ministry staff. We spent an hour or more with the UCBC senior officials trying to figure out what that is all about. There was going to be a pilot project they were promised, but nothing came of that.

Prices aren’t…. Nobody can figure out, nobody, why those prices in Revelstoke are higher than 40 minutes down the road, either in Malakwa or Sicamous or two hours down the road from Golden. Nobody can figure that out. That’s wrong. This government needs to try to do that. And UCBC told me: “Well, shoot, when we talk to the oil companies, their lawyers respond.” Well, we’ve got lawyers too, although they’re out on the lawn today protesting. I forgot about that.

In any event, gas prices are huge, and it’s about affordability. We’ve got young men and women in my riding who drive logging trucks, and the fuel costs are killing them. Not found in this implementation measure or not found in any budget that I’ve seen — very disappointing.

Now, let’s talk about small business. I’ve been a small business man. With my wife and my daughter, I bought a coffee shop. The happiest day I ever had — it’s kind of like a boat — is the day I bought it, and then the happiest day is when I sold it. Running a coffee shop is not an easy job. I thought: “How hard can that be?” Well, let me tell you. It’s not easy.

Small business is the baseline for economics in British Columbia, yet inside this measures implementation, inside the budget, there’s really nothing for economic growth here, which is frightening. It’s absolutely terrorizing. As a guy who came out of the business community, how do you generate revenue in this province?

If you’re not going to support small business through incentives or whatever you want to look at doing, how are they going to make any money? What are we seeing with small business? They’ve been hammered by tax after tax — the employer health tax, which is now going up. They’ve been hammered by additional holidays. When is it going to end?

I hear from them all the time. It’s interesting when you look at business and the response to the budget. That really kind of boggles their minds, too, when you think that this is actually going to be implemented.

Let me just give you a couple of quotes here, They’re not my words, but they’re from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, associated to the budget: “It provided little support to businesses who are struggling with the cost of doing business. Of particular concern to small and medium-sized businesses is the increase of the carbon tax of $15 per tonne per year through 2030, with little to offset the costs they will incur.” I just finished talking about that. That comes from the B.C. chamber.

The B.C. Business Council: “Budget 2023 contains no substantive measures aimed at driving long-term economic growth.” I just finished talking about that — words right from the B.C. Business Council.

From the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, which gave this economic vision a C-minus: “There is scant mention of small business, innovation, manufacturing or business issues in general with the budget document. There are no substantive measures to reduce costs or generally improve business conditions…. The vast majority of this debt is taxpayer-supported.”

If you can’t drive revenue — unfortunately, this budget doesn’t help small business, medium business or even large business to drive revenue — where do you go for money?

[4:25 p.m.]

Well, you go to the seemingly ending ATM of the taxpayer. With all fairness, this government has picked the front pockets, and now they’re after the back pockets, of people that I represent. It’s not right, and it’s not appropriate.

I could go on. I’ve got sheets — literally sheets; no props, Mr. Speaker — of quotes from very astute business people in this province who are just absolutely condemning this process in this budget — absolutely appalled that there’s nothing that’s going to be implemented for seniors, absolutely appalled with the fact that the people who built this province are being treated like this.

I have such a fantastic group of seniors, whether it’s the seniors in Kimberley or the seniors in Invermere, or the ones in Golden who always are giving it to me good and hard, and the ones in Revelstoke as well. They’re fine, fine people, and they’re intelligent people. They look at this. I’ve heard from them. They go — I can’t say that word: “What the h-e-double-hockey-sticks is going on here, Doug?”

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: Well, h-e-double-hockey-sticks. That works just as well.

In any event…. Health care. I know the minister and I have had long conversations. I appreciate and respect him, but travel from Golden to Cranbrook is abysmal. We’ve got eye doctors that come in from Vancouver on Saturdays to the Cranbrook regional hospital to do that, and people can’t get there. There’s nothing in this budget that talks about rural transportation, nothing in this budget that really assists in travel with health.

One of the things that I have spoken at length on with the Minister of Health — and I know that he’s aware of this, and I know he has got his eyes on it; it’s a top priority for him — is the transborder health care issue that we have. The people that live on our side of British Columbia — we’re six mountain ranges and a ferry boat ride away from this House.

Deputy Speaker: I think we are straying…

D. Clovechok: A little bit? Well, yeah.

Deputy Speaker: …a few ferries and mountain ranges away from the bill.

D. Clovechok: I’m going to bring it back, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to brink it back.

It’s a big issue. There’s nothing in the budget that talks about discussions that will be held with the province of Alberta. I’ve spoken directly with, or through letters to, the Minister of Health in Alberta, several times now. He recognizes completely that we have a Canadian health care system, and he’s open to taking our patients. It’s something that I think needs to be looked at inside this budget, and certainly, then, to implement it. That’s what I would say there.

Our seniors, we’ve got to take care of them. We’ve got to take care of them. People are moving back, either back to Calgary or they’re moving from the valley.

I heard from a couple the other day that have been in the valley for over 25 years. They phoned me, and they said: “You know what, Doug?” I won’t say what political stripe they are. “We thank you for all you’ve done, but we can’t afford to live here anymore, and we need to get to Alberta so that we can have access to that health care.” We’re losing people in my riding because of these issues that are not being addressed, and that’s not fair.

My other colleague talked about forestry. I’ve got Downie mill in Revelstoke and a bunch of small mills in between that and in Golden with LP, Canfor in Radium and Skookumchuck mills, just between Canal Flats and Cranbrook. They’re worried. I mean, they’re on the edge. Pulp mills are closing across this province, and so far — touch wood — although we’ve had curtailments, my folks are doing all right. Those are huge employers.

You can’t ask a faller — one of these individuals, women and men — to become a health care aide. That’s not who they are. That’s not what they do. They’re foresters. We’ve got to find ways to protect them and those in the future of forestry, because it’s not a dying industry. There’s nothing in this budget that I can see that will be implemented to help with that.

One of the passions that I have and share with folks in my riding is wildlife management. We have such an incredibly diverse wildlife population in Columbia River–​Revelstoke, from ungulates to bears — you know, grizzly bears, black bears; sheep, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep — that we’re working on a project with the Ministry of Transportation on. It’s going very well, but there’s no wildlife management plan.

[4:30 p.m.]

I and my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie have lobbied the past Forests Minister to look at different models. My colleague from Kootenay East actually put a private member’s bill forward to change the way that we manage wildlife in this province. Not in this budget. There is nothing in this budget or in the implementation of this budget that would speak to wildlife management and the private member’s bill that my colleague from Kootenay East put forward.

You look south. You see programs like this in Montana, very successful. You see programs like this in Wyoming, incredibly successful. Programs like this in Oregon, incredibly successful. The model is there. The implementation is easy, yet there’s nothing in here for wildlife management. It’s a shame.

Where I live, it used to be called the Serengeti of the Kootenays. I’m an elk hunter, and it’s not easy finding an elk anymore, let me tell you. There used to be hundreds of them. That was ten years ago. Those numbers are going down. Without policy and without help, it’s not good.

Health and addiction. My goodness, I’m just about out of time. I hear, in my riding, about decriminalization. People are blown away by it. I get the theory. I get the concept. I do. But it’s got to be more than that. They’re very concerned about how this is going to be enforced.

When you’re sitting on a beach in Invermere with a tourist family or your own family and somebody is cranking H in the park…. The RCMP are actually going out and doing the jobs they’re doing. That’s not good. I hear about that constantly from those folks.

Safety. We have an increasing population in Columbia River–Revelstoke, about 30,000 to 40,000 people between May and October. No mention in this budget of additional paramedics. No addition in this budget for additional firefighters or RCMP members. Our population grows by almost 40,000 people, yet there are no extra resources that recognize that.

With 35 seconds left…. I wish I had a whole bunch more time to deal with this.

There is just absolutely no way I could ever support Bill 10. My constituents won’t support Bill 10. Like I said before, I am their voice, and these are their words I spoke today. Those are their words through my oration.

With that, I’ll take my seat, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity.

B. Anderson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. Anderson: I would like everyone in this House to wish a very happy 100th birthday to Josef Huser. He is turning 100 years old on March 11, 2023.

Josef moved from Switzerland to Canada in 1952 and settled in the Salmo area in 1957, where they raised their six children. He was involved in logging, mining, exploration, farming, mechanics, tram operator, firefighter, avalanche control, rock work, gold panning, fishing and many other things.

He was also an active volunteer in the Salmo area and has dedicated his life to making his community a better place. He is one of the founding members of the Salmo Ski Hill, which is still operating today, and he still works as an adviser with them.

He has spent 73 of his 100 years with his wife, Klara, and they still live in their own home today in Salmo, where there are now four generations of Husers. Joe says 100 years go by really fast.

Will everyone in this House please wish Joe a very happy 100th birthday.

Debate Continued

T. Halford: Happy birthday, Joe. And 100 — that’s a remarkable achievement.

Wishing a very happy birthday to Joe.

Always, every time I get up in this House, it’s a privilege to speak. It’s a privilege to speak today on Bill 10.

[4:35 p.m.]

I will say this. This has been a very interesting week for me for a number of reasons. I think the best reason was, obviously…. I will tie this back to Bill 10. I promise you this. We all celebrated International Women’s Day.

In my house — I say this — it is always International Women’s Day. I have a lot of special women in my life that mean everything to me. I will start with one in particular.

My daughter is eight. I always want to make sure, when she’s at school or when she’s going to bed or whatever she’s doing, that she knows what I’m doing. That’s important. She knows where I am: the building I’m in; the office I’m in, in this place; the hotel I stay in. She realizes what I’m doing. Obviously, right now what I’m doing is…. I’m speaking to Bill 10. She probably doesn’t know that, because she’s not watching this.

I said to her: “Sasha, you’re going to come with dad on Sunday. I’m going to bring you over, and we are going to spend the day together on Sunday and then Monday. I’ll take you back on Monday.”

We did that. We talked about all the different things. We talked about the roles and the responsibilities. She is a big fan of strong women. We have always made sure that there are strong women in her life, starting with her mom, obviously, her grandparents and others, who I’ll get to in a second.

Sunday night came around. It was about nine o’clock. We’d just gotten some ice cream. The lights were lit up in the building. I said: “Sasha, do you want to go see the building? Do you want to go inside of it?” She said: “Absolutely.”

We did that. We came to the House. We came to those gates right there. I said: “That’s where dad sits.” I said, “That’s where the Leader of the Opposition sits,” who she knows. “That’s where the Premier sits. That’s where the Minister of Finance sits.”

She looked at me, and she said: “Okay, Dad, where does Dianne Watts sit?” I said: “It’s a good question.” She’s a big fan. She has grown up with Dianne. Dianne is a special person in our family. I thought that was kind of a funny thing.

I think when we talk about this….

I said: “Just be patient on that. We will see what happens there.”

Interjection.

T. Halford: Are you not entertained?

Anyway, it has been a very, very special week for me.

We talk about Bill 10, and we talk about what it represents. Probably I’ll talk more about what it doesn’t represent. I just talked about Sasha.

We talk about the future. We talk about the future of the province. We talk about investing in that future and how important that is to do, whether it’s infrastructure investment, whether it’s technology investment, whether it’s post-secondary investment. There are investments that need to be made every year. That’s what budgets are for. That’s what they’re to guide.

In terms of when those investments are made or when expectations are met, whether promises aren’t kept, I think it’s our job…. I think you’ve seen that done quite well and executed. It’s our job as an opposition to make sure that people know that. It’s our job to make sure that we come into this place and we hold the government accountable on issues so important, like Bill 10, and when we talk about the budget that was tabled here a few short weeks ago.

The biggest thing in my life…. My grandparents were pivotal in my life, in terms of raising me. I will say….

I had a grandmother. Her name was Beverley. Every year that I can remember, she would sit me down, and she would do a budget with me. We called them Budgets with Bev. Budgets with Bev were basically: how much am I taking in on my allowance? Then: how much am I spending, whether it’s on hockey cards, whether it’s on maybe a Def Leppard CD or cassette or — I don’t know — Guns N’ Roses at the time? They would always be….

She would want to make sure that I wasn’t going into debt and that I was being smart with my money. That was important to me, and that’s something that she has instilled in me. She’s no longer here. When I do a budget, I always think of my grandmother. It’s called Budgets with Bev.

[4:40 p.m.]

I don’t think Bev would support this budget. I know Bev wouldn’t support this budget. I’m confident that Bev wouldn’t support this budget. I’ll tell you why. We continue to see, with a two-term government, “overpromise and underdeliver,” and this budget is nothing short of that.

I’ll speak on a few things. It’s one thing to campaign. It’s unfortunate, when you do that campaigning, if you don’t fulfil an election promise. That’s unfortunate, and voters tend to remember that. It’s really, really bad when you campaign again — not even four years later; I think it was three years later — and you put that promise out again, and then you don’t fulfil it. I think people would call that bad faith.

I can probably…. For the audience at home, I’m talking about the renters rebate, specifically. I’m talking about the fact that in my riding — I’ll zero in on White Rock for a second — White Rock, I think, at last count, was about 9.7 percent seniors.

A lot of those seniors live in rentals, right? They have lived in those rental units for decades. A majority of those seniors — this may surprise people — are on fixed incomes. Some of those seniors go to the food bank, especially right now, because they can’t afford their groceries — as the previous speaker spoke about.

We’ll celebrate success, and we’ll celebrate the fact that, I think, this government got it right, in terms of free contraception. I think that’s something that we all support here. Again, that was something that was campaigned on, and I think we could have done that quite a while ago and still had that support that we would enjoy in this House today.

The frustrating part, for me, and the part that I have a hard time reconciling with constituents in my riding, whether it’s the seniors in my riding or whether it’s the single mom, is that some of them will say: “Trevor, I’m sorry. I actually voted NDP in the last campaign. I voted NDP because I actually thought I was getting a renters rebate. That’s important to me. That $400 — that’s more than I have in my savings account right now.”

They would think, if they’d campaigned on it once and failed to do it: “Oh man, certainly they’re going to…. If they’re going to campaign on it a second time, they’re going to do it. They’re going to get it done, right?” You can’t do it twice and then not do it, because now you’re dealing with a credibility issue here.

You can’t say $400 in 2017 and then, “Sorry, we got busy,” whatever it was, “but we’re going to…. Four hundred dollars in October of 2020. Don’t worry about it. We’ve got you covered. We’ve got your back. Whether you’re a senior or whether you’re a single mom, we’ve got your back.”

No, they don’t have your back. We saw that with the budget. They did not have your back. What they did wasn’t a renters rebate. It’s some kind of tax credit. People are calling into my office, saying: “I’m not going to qualify for it. I’m not getting it.” Twice promised, and it’s a tax credit that people are trying to figure out: “Do I qualify for it?” They kind of come to the conclusion, the majority of them, that they don’t.

Then: “What do I have to do to get it? Do I have to fill out, go online and do all this stuff?” We’re going to help them with that in our office because that’s what we’re there to do. That’s what we all do. That’s what our constituency offices do, and we’ll do it every single time.

[4:45 p.m.]

To campaign twice on a renters rebate and then all of a sudden say: “Oh, well, actually, it’s a renter’s tax credit….” I’m just going to go online and fill it out and do the paperwork, and it’s…. No. What are you doing? That doesn’t…. It’s a credibility issue, at that point.

The free contraception, absolutely. That’s fantastic. But that could have been done a while ago too. It could have been done a while ago. Lots of things could have been done a while ago. But a renters rebate could have been done in 2017. A renters rebate could have been done in October of 2020. Got a majority government. It couldn’t have been that hard to do.

The former Finance Minister, at the time, could have said: “I campaigned on this twice, once when I was the Housing Minister. Now, when I’m the Finance Minister, this is something that we’ve got to do.” A renters rebate is very different from a renters tax credit, where you have to prove your income level and this and that, who you’re living with. That’s not…. Buyer beware, I guess, when you vote NDP. Buyer beware.

It’s the same thing when we talk about different issues, whether it be…. My family, I grew up…. My mom put food on the table with a small business. She had a restaurant. Our family was supported by small business, and that was important to us. I challenge anybody in this House right now to find small business owners to say: “Things are going great. Couldn’t be better.” They’re not coming to my office. I’ve got small business owners coming to my office saying: “We’re on the brink” or “It’s too late. We’ve already closed. We’ve already laid off staff, and it’s too late for us.”

You go down Marine Drive from my office, Marine Drive in White Rock, and you see a lot of closures. You go up Johnston Road; you see a lot of closures. You didn’t see those closures…. The government likes to talk about 2001 and 2016. You didn’t see those closures then. You didn’t, because there was support for small business. But it seems like when this government tables a budget, it’s how many more bricks can we put on the backs of small business until they break? How much more can we put on them until they can no longer function?

I guess that’s just the way it is. It seems that when it comes to the NDP and business, big business becomes small business and small business just goes out of business. That’s the way the NDP operate. We see that within their budgets today. There’s not, if you look at it….

The report card that the NDP got on this budget, well, if my kids came home with that report card, I’d have serious concerns. You’d get disappointed dad at that point. There would be…. That would be a serious dad conversation, saying: “How could we let things get to this point where your report card is like this?” Nobody’s championing this budget, except for the NDP members in this House. Nobody’s saying: “This is great.” Like I said, there are things in here that absolutely we support. Free contraception is at the top of that list.

[4:50 p.m.]

But you know what I don’t support? I’ve spoken to the Minister of Health on this. What I don’t support is going in…. I met with the firefighters of White Rock and Surrey this week. They fundraised for a mental health facility at Peace Arch Hospital. They put their money. They put their name on it. They went and did that fundraising. The Peace Arch Hospital Foundation went and did that fundraising.

You know what we see at that? We see a great…. I’ve been in it. I toured it. It was budgeted. It was part of an expansion at Peace Arch Hospital that was years in the making, and we see a mental health facility at Peace Arch Hospital. So when you’re having a mental health breakdown or issue, you’re not going through emergency. You’re going into the specific unit to try and find you the best outcome possible. It is a beautiful facility, and it has been ready to go — months ago.

It’s locked, shut. You can’t access it. You can’t get in. You want to know why? Because nobody is working there. There’s no staff there. It’s empty. So the firefighters from White Rock and the firefighters from Surrey go and raise funds for this. The community that I represent raises funds for this. It gets built, and it’s sitting empty right now. People are going through the emergency ward.

When we talk about the budget, how is that going to get fixed today? It needs to get…. That’s embarrassing.

When we talk about the ideas of making sure that we have adequate health care and mental health, and that’s something I’m quite passionate about, we come to the realization that investments matter, and it’s true. Announcements happen, and that’s important, but the execution is actually the most important part of it.

I want to know how this budget is going to solve the fact that I’ve got a mental health facility, a mental health ward, that has been built in my riding, in a hospital that my kids were born at, and it’s empty right now. It is completely empty. You cannot access it. This has been something that’s been highlighted to me by both fire departments. It’s been highlighted to me by the White Rock RCMP, by the mayors, and I don’t have an adequate answer. I don’t. That’s troublesome to me.

When we talk about investment, and when we talk about investment in the future…. I brought this up the other day: that there have never been more portables in Surrey than there are today — ever.

Again, we talked about the renters rebate. The former Premier campaigned on the fact that they were going to completely eliminate portables in Surrey. There are more portables there today than there ever have been before, 10 percent more. There are kids that have done their entire elementary school in a portable.

Members of this House on the government side have quoted, have tweeted, that it’s not adequate to get your education in a portable. Now, I think that sometimes portables do exist, and I get that, but the main thing is to ensure that they don’t. But if you’re going to say that they’re not, then you’ve got to back that up.

They can’t keep up with the growth of Surrey, and we’re seeing that. We’re seeing the government fail to keep up with the growth of Surrey. To have that investment, to have that ability to think forward….

[4:55 p.m.]

One of the things we talk about when we talk about this budget…. We talk about this government’s idea to replace the Massey Tunnel — a decade delay, $100 million wasted. We could have had a bridge that would have been opened by now. It would have been able to be expanded for rapid transit, likely, into South Surrey at some point in the near future. That’s thinking forward.

I reserve my right to continue and move adjournment of the debate.

T. Halford moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. I will ring the chimes.

Of course, if you’re here, please remain seated while we await her arrival.

[5:00 p.m. - 5:05 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

 

National Day for Truth and Reconciliation Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2023

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2023

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 5)

Land Owner Transparency Amendment Act, 2023

Real Estate Services Amendment Act, 2023

In His Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these acts.

[5:10 p.m.]

Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates)

In His Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth thank His Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): Thank you so much.

ÍY SȻÁĆEL NE SĆÁLEĆE. As always, it’s wonderful to see you.

I must say it gives me just enormous pleasure, truly, to come and to see all of you. It’s actually something that I look forward to. I very much enjoy the opportunity to be here.

I wanted just to reflect on the fact that we celebrate International Women’s Day this week. It is a time to celebrate the progress that has been made towards gender equity, but it’s also a time to reflect on the work that remains to be done.

I just want to say thank you. Thank you to all of you for the work that you do in your different roles, your different positions and your different ways to continue to advance that vision of a more equitable, inclusive and just society for all. Thank you all so much, and I look forward to seeing you again soon.

Take care.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call continued debate on Bill 10.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2023

(continued)

T. Halford: I want to continue my remarks on Bill 10. I had the opportunity to talk about the fact that this government campaigned twice on a renters rebate. The fact is this government failed twice to deliver on that renters rebate. The fact is there are a number of people in my riding and the ridings across British Columbia that were counting on that renters rebate. I think it’s unfortunate, and I think it comes to the accountability of this government and the accountability to the people that put their trust in a government that’s made commitments that they haven’t fulfilled.

I’m going to talk about something else that is pretty important to me, and it’s something that is very important to my family, and that is autism.

[5:15 p.m.]

I’m going to tie it back to Bill 10, because we’re hearing from other groups, whether they’re advocates of children with Down syndrome that have asked for individualized funding…. It wasn’t in this budget.

I will say this. I’ve always said it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing. But I’m going to say that the year that families have endured, particularly families of children with autism, has been an absolute nightmare. I’ve actually, myself, protested twice outside the Premier’s office with parents, fellow parents of children with autism, to try and fight for something that they fought for and was going to be taken away.

I think the benefit of that is that other families have seen how individualized funding can be effective. I think this was an opportunity, a failed opportunity by this government, to expand that. So we are hearing from parents of children with Down syndrome: “Why not my child, in terms of individualized funding? Why not allow us to make that choice for them?”

It was an absolute nightmare for parents. The anxiety of having a child with autism is high enough. You couple it with such a callous move as to claw that back and to say, “We know better how to parent your child. We’re going to do a hub model, and that’s what’s going to work,” and then stand in this House day after day and hear a minister repeat, line after line after line, that they know better than a parent when it comes to their child….

Finally, common sense prevailed, for now, but that was one of the dumbest things that this government has ever contemplated doing.

Interjection.

T. Halford: We’re on budget. I’m talking about the fact that there are now other groups that are saying: “Why not us?” That’s on budget.

Interjection.

T. Halford: Thanks for the advice. I’m not done my eight minutes.

Deputy Speaker: Let’s just take a breath, Members. We’re getting through today.

T. Halford: The fact of the matter is that we now have people from the Down syndrome community saying: “Why not us?” Why not?

The year of pain that was inflicted by this government was completely unnecessary. It was mean, and it was wrong. It ties into this budget because people have actually said that individualized funding is the way to go. So when you’re speaking with other families of children with neurodiverse needs, they know that, and they’re now advocating for that. This government has failed them in that with this budget. It was an opportunity.

I apologize for my emotion in this. But you know what? Actually, I don’t apologize because it irritated to me to no end. I had parent after parent after parent coming to me, saying: “Why are they doing this?” Now I have parent after parent after parent coming to me saying: “Why not us?”

As a dad, one of the most ignorant things that ever got said to me by a colleague in this House was because they thought that parents that were applying for the money for individualized funding were at a higher income and that other parents weren’t able to access it, so this hub model would actually fix that. That is the most ridiculous thing. I checked myself because I didn’t want to respond the way I probably would have responded.

[5:20 p.m.]

In fact, now we see a government that has come to some form of common sense. But we also see an opportunity, and again this budget failed in that. It failed a lot of people in that. It failed. The fact is, as I’ve talked about….

I’ve talked about small business. I’ve talked about the health care sector in my riding. I’ve talked about the fact that it wasn’t just the autism issue that I was protesting. It was maternity ward closures that I was protesting.

This government talks about a new hospital in Cloverdale, but there’s no budget allocation for a maternity ward, an ICU. We’ve got diversions happening almost daily at Peace Arch Hospital, going to Langley, going to Royal Columbian, going to Surrey Memorial at the last minute.

Surrey is one of the fastest-growing municipalities in Canada. In years, it’s going to be larger than Vancouver in terms of population. Yet there is no foresight, when we talk about the future, to put a maternity ward at a new hospital, not even an ICU at a new hospital. They’re not there.

People can call it ridiculous, but it’s not there. It’s almost the same….

Deputy Speaker: If I could. We’re stretching quite far from the taxation elements that are contained in Budget Measures Implementation Act.

T. Halford: Well, that’s how I feel.

Anyways, I think that there are a lot of opportunities here. I think there are opportunities that have been missed. Like I said before, in terms of the commentary, in terms of the reporting out, in terms of the grades that have been given, I think that it has failed, and we see that quite clearly.

With that, I will take my seat.

G. Kyllo: It certainly gives me a great deal of pride to rise today and speak to Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

The budget before us — record levels of spending but absolutely disastrous results. When we have a look at every measure in our province, whether it’s access to health care, with one in five British Columbians not having access to a physician; when we have a look at the significant increase in crime on our streets…. British Columbians have never felt more unsafe around British Columbia, a hollowing out of many of our communities from a lack of focused spending towards law enforcement. We have a Premier who is soft on crime.

Deputy Speaker: If the member could draw his comments to Bill 10.

G. Kyllo: Absolutely, hon. Speaker.

It is in large part the lack of focus on crime that has caused so much grief and stress and anguish for many businesses and individuals in many communities around the province.

As I mentioned, a record level of spending. The government just recently, through the supplementary estimates process — an initial $2.7 billion of additional funding that they’re trying to shovel off the back of a truck, in short order, when there are many issues that are of great concern to British Columbians….

Deputy Speaker: We did have supplemental estimates debate, so it would be appropriate to discuss that at that point.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. I certainly appreciate your guidance.

However, the fact remains: record levels of spending and ever-decreasing results for British Columbians, whether it comes to crime, to health care, to affordability.

Housing has never been more unattainable. We have the highest housing prices in North America, and efforts that have been undertaken by this current government have failed miserably, as we see an ever-escalating and increasing cost of housing around the province. Rental rates are the highest in North America.

Absolutely, as we have a look at the opportunities and choices that government has, the promises that have been made by this government to try and offset and provide supports for renters and to help reduce housing prices in this province….

[5:25 p.m.]

You know, the House Leader of government also….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, there’ll be no crosstalk. The member for Shuswap has the floor.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The government’s own House Leader doesn’t necessarily have confidence in the housing numbers that were actually part of this government’s budget. It calls into question the concerns that many British Columbians — and, certainly, we on this side — have in government’s ability to actually have confidence in their own numbers.

Skyrocketing housing prices. Rental rates have never been less affordable than they are today. Inflation rates are through the roof. Families are lining up and utilizing food banks at ever-increasing rates. Yet we see record levels of spending with ever-diminishing results. I certainly have many concerns with respect to the budget that’s before us. I think many British Columbians also have those same and similar concerns.

I’d like to actually diverge away from the budget just for a moment to pay an acknowledgment and respect, especially with yesterday being International Women’s Day. For many of us here, the reason we come to this House to do this work is because of our families and those that we care greatly about. Especially with this being the week for international women, I want to convey special respect to my mother, Marianne.

My mom is the matriarch of our family. Sadly, I lost my stepfather just this past year, but I’ve got to say that I’m so very proud of my mom, the work that she has done in raising her family. She has been so active in my daughters’ lives — my four daughters, Sarah, Brittany, Angela and Samantha. She continues to be extremely active, even, in my granddaughters’ lives — Maya, Eve, Kylie, Siddhalee, Nova, Hannah, Journey and Adison. I’ve got many amazing, amazing women in my life.

You know, I think there’s not a member here that doesn’t hold a very special place in their heart for their mothers. My wife, Georgina, I’ve got to say, is a mother that is extremely kind and patient. We’ve been married for over 34 years already. She was at just the young age of 18, and I was only 20 when we got married

I’ve got to say that the women in our lives certainly have made an incredible impact, not just on myself but, I know, on all members here.

I also have a couple of other amazing ladies that provide a lot of support for me while I’m here. They are my constituency assistants, Holly Cowan and Bonnie Gavin. They both do an amazing job. They are largely the face of my constituency office. They provide amazing service to constituents that need work or assistance with different files.

I’ve got to say, hon. Speaker, that my ability to do the job that I do, to be able to come down here and have confidence that the office is well tended to, that constituents are well represented and looked after…. Holly, to you and Bonnie, thank you guys very much for the yeoman’s work that you do in supporting constituents in Shuswap.

Deputy Speaker: With that note, Member, I wonder if you might note the hour and reserve your space, and we’ll have this discussion again — and of course, tributes to families and friends and everyone else.

G. Kyllo: I reserve my place in the debate, and I move adjournment of debate.

G. Kyllo moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We will see you again at 10 a.m. on Monday, March 27.

The House adjourned at 5:29 p.m.