Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 33 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 33 — COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
TO SIT IN SECTION C

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 33, standing in my name on the order paper, which seeks to enable Section C to consider bills at committee stage:

[That the Sessional Order adopted by the House on March 4, 2024, enabling certain proceedings of the House to be undertaken in three sections, be amended by

a. adding the underlined text in section 6, as follows: “Section C be authorized to examine all Estimates and any public bill appearing on the Orders of the Day at committee stage, which may be considered in the order determined by the Government House Leader in accordance with Standing Order 27 (2).” and,

b. adding the underlined text in section 12, as follows: “The Members of Section C be: the Minister whose Estimates are under examination or who is in charge of the bill under consideration and Michele Babchuk, Hon. Adrian Dix, Hon. Mike Farnworth, Hon. Rob Fleming, Hon. Bruce Ralston, Hon. Rachna Singh, Norm Letnick, Coralee Oakes, Tom Shypitka, Adam Olsen and Bruce Banman.”]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call third reading for Bill 25, Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — HAIDA NATION RECOGNITION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Hon. M. Rankin: I move third reading of Bill 25, intituled the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024.

After rigorous debate at committee stage, I encourage members from all sides of the Legislature to vote in support of British Columbia’s recognition of Haida’s Aboriginal title to Haida Gwaii.

The Speaker: Members, the motion is third reading of Bill 25, Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024.

Division has been called.

[3:20 p.m. - 3:25 p.m.]

Members, do we have the agreement to waive the time?

Interjections.

The Speaker: We don’t have an agreement. That’s okay. It’s only 90 seconds left, so it’s okay.

Leave not granted.

[3:30 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 25, Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024.

Bill 25, Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024, read a third time and passed on the following division:

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of Supply for the Office of the Premier.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 27, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act.

In the Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 21, Legal Professions Act.

[3:35 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:37 p.m.

The Chair: All right, Members. Let’s call this committee to order.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $16,754,000.

Hon. D. Eby: I’d like to begin by acknowledging we’re on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən people, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Premier’s estimates with the House today.

I’m joined by several members of my staff. I’ve got Matt Smith, chief of staff, here; Shannon Salter, Deputy Minister to the Premier; Aileen Machell, deputy chief of staff; and Doug Caul, deputy minister for policy and coordination.

The estimates today are taking place in a serious context. Families in Fort Nelson and Doig River have had to flee their homes. The wildfires are serious and ongoing, not just in our province but in Alberta and Manitoba as well, as we see the impacts of climate change.

It is a reminder of the challenges we have faced as British Columbians: climate emergencies, floods, the heat dome, forest fires, the toxic drug crisis, the global pandemic and the impacts that has had globally, including on British Columbians. In times like these, there are tough choices to be made.

Now, there is a group of people who advocate that this is the time to leave people to fend for themselves. It’s the time to cut services, to withdraw services, to turn people over to their own devices and to hope for the best.

We’ve seen what that movie looks like in British Columbia. We’d welcome speculators back into our housing market. We’d increase fees and tolls and the cost of everyday life for British Columbians. We’d slash the health care that people need now more than ever, with an aging and growing population. It’s a risk we can’t afford. The government has to have peoples’ backs.

Over the last year, British Columbians will have seen the actions we’re taking to address the big challenges we face. In the example of housing, we’re turning short-term rentals into long-term homes for people, speeding up permitting to get housing built to respond to the massive population growth we’re seeing in the province, fixing the zoning rules that slow down the development of new housing at a time when our population is setting a record for growth that we haven’t seen for 30 years, a flipping tax to stop speculation in the housing market and using public land to build actually attainable housing for the middle class.

Every step of the way, every initiative we have introduced, the opposition parties, and it doesn’t matter if it’s the BCUP or the Conservatives, have opposed these measures. They are siding consistently with those who are using homes as investments instead of as a place to live. We take a different approach.

[3:40 p.m.]

We’re also acting to ease the costs of daily life. Rising interest rates are impacting British Columbians. This is a global inflationary context that we’re seeing, which is impacting British Columbians.

For our government, supporting people with the cost of daily life, just recently an ICBC announcement: two more years of zero percent rate increases. That brings it to a total of six years, the fourth rebate from ICBC. We’ve saved drivers $2,000 since reforming that Crown corporation.

Cutting child care fees in half for British Columbians. Free birth control, and, starting next year, one round of IVF free in this province.

The B.C. electricity credit — putting $100 back, as a credit, on the invoices that people received from B.C. Hydro, both businesses and individuals.

The climate action tax credit — increasing the amount that we’re sending back to people.

Supporting small businesses with the employer health tax, removing that for businesses with payrolls under $1 million.

Members opposite consistently made different choices. They promised tax support for small businesses, and then, once they were elected, they didn’t implement it. They cut taxes for the top 2 percent but raised fees and costs for everybody else, including tolls on bridges — actions that they still defend today. We couldn’t afford that then, can’t afford it now, and certainly, British Columbians don’t need to see that kind of activity in our province again.

I want to express my appreciation to health care workers across the province who rose to the pandemic challenges. But where we’re seeing significant new challenges in our health care system…. We’re adding 10,000 people to this province every 37 days. These folks need health care.

They’re also some of the health care workers that we need. We’ve recruited internationally trained doctors and nurses and sped up the process to get them approved, resulting in 700 more doctors — family doctors, supporting people in those long-term relationships people are looking for — and 6,300 nurses just last year. We’ve cut our COVID surgery backlog, and 300,000 people visited a pharmacist for support with minor illnesses.

We’re building hospitals across the province, hospitals that should have been built a long time ago. Care homes for seniors and cancer centres right across the province. The members across the way did the opposite. It doesn’t matter which party. If you’re talking about the Conservatives or the BCUP, that is what they did. They cut health care for British Columbians, and the impacts are plain to see.

The good news is that our economy is growing. We’re leading Canada, and we’re doing so well supporting people. We recently got the news: in the last 12 months, 93,000 jobs created for British Columbians, mostly private sector, full-time jobs. Some of the highest wages in Canada. The lowest unemployment rate in Canada.

Our biggest strength is the people of British Columbia, their resilience and their talents. Any time we can bring people together, we will do so, rather than following the example of those across the way who want to drive people apart. We want to deliver a B.C. where everyone can build a good life.

I look forward to the discussion we’re going to have today.

K. Falcon: I want to thank the Premier for that very non-partisan beginning there. My very, very quick, high-level response to that would just be to remind the Premier that as I canvass Premier’s estimates, what he will find is that there will be a theme, and that is the difference between announcements and actual results. I think that the Premier will find that there is a yawning chasm between the announcements that this government likes to make and the actual results we see on the ground.

Very quickly, to summarize some of them…. The Premier is part of the government, after all, that announced — in fact, it was a major part of their campaign platform in 2017 — that they were going to make housing more affordable for British Columbians. In fact, as part of that, they were going to build 114,000 affordable homes within ten years.

So I always say: “Okay, well, here we are, and they’re in year 7 of their government. How did they do?” Well, of the 114,000 promised affordable homes, sad to say that only 16,000 actually got built, with a mere three years left.

The government’s response is that they stopped talking about that promise now, and they renamed the program to BC Builds. Now we are supposed to believe that because they have renamed a program, they are going to get different results. The fact of the matter is that in addition to not building the promised 114,000 additional units, what we have seen is that British Columbia…. This is not just the Leader of the Opposition saying this. These are the actual facts.

[3:45 p.m.]

We’ve ended up, after seven years of this NDP government, with the most unaffordable housing in North America — not just in Canada, but in North America. That’s quite an achievement, but not a good one for the public.

Same with rents. We’ve got the highest rents in the entire country here in British Columbia. Now that, Premier — just to be clear, so you understand it — is called an outcome. You can give all the excuses you want about why that outcome is there. But the fact of the matter is you have to own the outcome, because you’ve been the government that promised that you were going to make housing more affordable.

So too with food prices, with the highest grocery prices in the country. As I mentioned the other day in question period, a $73 random bag of groceries here in British Columbia is 24 percent cheaper when you’re buying it in Calgary. Fuel prices in British Columbia. Again, the highest, not just in Canada, but indeed in North America. We’ll canvass that a little later, too, I can assure you.

But also just the rate of overdose deaths, the highest we’ve ever seen in the history of the province of British Columbia. The Premier’s catch-and-release crime policy has been a disaster for communities across the province.

I would just remind the Premier that a lot of our focus is going to be on results, outcomes, measurables and things that, in the real world, you get held accountable for. I can assure the Premier that in the private sector, you do not get held accountable, and you do not receive your paycheque and any bonuses for the announcements that you make. It’s actually for the results that you get.

If you get really bad results, then you likely are not going to be either employed or running a business for very much longer. I know that’s a bit foreign to this government and these members, but that’s the real world out there.

Now, where they are getting some good results, admittedly, is that they are leading the country in terms of lineups at food banks. That’s not a good result for the people that have to line up for those food banks. A 60 percent increase in food banks usage is…. Well, that is a dramatic increase. It’s certainly not good for the folks that are suffering and having to go utilize those food banks.

We will canvass this in the areas that we intend to cover, but where I want to start off is to visit the issue that I don’t think we’ve had proper conclusion on. That’s the issue of the rampant antisemitism which is rife within the Pre­mier’s caucus, his cabinet, and indeed, his party.

A little backup for the folks that are watching. There’s a history here. The Premier will recall that at the last time that we met last year to talk about the Premier’s estimates, I was talking about the unfortunate pattern that this Premier has of creating a situation where blame is provided to particular identifiable ethnic commun­ities. I used the example of the Premier’s unfortunate, very flawed “study.”

I put “study” in air quotations because it was his own study that he did with one other individual that said, based on 122 homes on the west side of Vancouver, that the majority of them had non-anglicized last names and therefore leaped to the conclusion that the housing crisis is therefore caused by Chinese foreign investors.

That created a huge negative impact on the Asian community in British Columbia and led to a lot of the anti-​Asian sentiment that, unfortunately, has risen to very unacceptable levels in B.C. I asked the Premier last year to at least apologize to the community and do the right thing. The Premier chose not to do so.

But it’s tied to the antisemitism. As the Premier will recall, consistency around how we deal with these kind of issues is very important. When some local First Nation members complained about the treatment that they were receiving in the health care system — there were very serious allegations of racism — the Premier moved appropriately with light speed to deal with that. He immediately called for an independent investigation into the challenges that some of these First Nation folks were receiving, and we applauded that quick response.

However, that contrasts very, very differently to the response that the Premier had when his own senior cabinet minister from his own government made, admittedly, an inappropriate comment with respect to the historical nature of the lands of Israel and apologized multiple times and even offered to the Premier to take an anti-Islamophobia course.

[3:50 p.m.]

The Premier’s decision was to remove her from cabinet in his government. Now, that was a rare moment of action by the Premier, and it was on the heels of multiple examples — which we have pointed out repeatedly in this House — from members of his own caucus, his own party, his own cabinet that have made extremely irresponsible, antisemitic commentary that has been very hurtful for the Jewish community.

Now, when the Premier fired the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville from cabinet, she wrote a letter that outlined and exposed the antisemitism that she’d witnessed and had had to live through in the cabinet caucus and, indeed, spreading throughout the government. Her words were clear, and I quote them into the record here. “Antisemitism is the double standard that we have consistently shown.” She gave multiple examples to back that up.

Even recently with the horrific event of October 7 that took place, within days of that massacre, when that same member, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, sent out an email to her colleagues asking for everyone to stand with the community, which was feeling very fragile at that horrific time, the member for Richmond-Queensborough felt it necessary to respond to all of them by saying: “Well, what we need to do is make a public statement about the plight of the Palestinians.”

The timing of a request like that, within days of that massacre taking place, was certainly inappropriate, according to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. The member for Richmond-Queensborough also, on Yom HaShoah — a day that commemorates Jewish victims of the Holocaust, one of the most sombre days you can possibly imagine, when we had members of the Jewish community here, steps away from this chamber, commemorating that horrific event — felt it appropriate to quote from fringe Jewish groups that excused the antisemitism that was taking place at the UBC campus protests for Palestine, which was deeply offensive to the community.

I could list through all the examples here, but really, what we need from this Premier is an answer to a pretty straightforward question, something that we and members of the Jewish community have been asking for, for many months. That is simply this: will the Premier commit to an independent investigation — as he did, appropriately, in the case of the First Nations racism that I referenced ear­lier — into antisemitism within his own cabinet, in his own caucus and, indeed, his own government? Will the Pre­mier do it, and if not, why not?

[3:55 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This is a profoundly challenging time for the Jewish community, not just in British Columbia but across North America and around the world. We’ve seen a rise in antisemitic incidents. I’ve had a number of meetings with the Jewish community, both pre- and post-October 7. There’s no question that the community is on edge.

I heard a story from a principal at a school, who described coming to school with running shoes on for fear that there would be an attack on her and her students post-October 7. At places of gathering for worship, at community centres that serve the Jewish community, that anxiety is present right now, all around the world. For us here in British Columbia, we know we have a responsibility to support the Jewish community with ensuring that they feel safe in every part of every community.

We’ve taken some actions to that end, specifically post–October 7.

On February 16, we announced a new B.C. prosecution service hate crime policy. The policy includes specific provisions about the wilful promotion of antisemitism. This is the policy that the prosecutors use to guide their decisions about approving charges, a long-standing concern of not just the Jewish community but many community members that for prosecutors, the guidance that they were using to determine whether or not to charge someone with a hate offence was not sufficient to respond to the realities they were seeing in the community.

We made security funding available for Jewish organizations and synagogues. A number of organizations dramatically increased their security post-October 7, taking money from services meant for the community in order to pay for security. The support provided by the province enables them to be able to use that money for its intended purpose rather than for security.

On October 30, we announced at the Jewish Community Centre that we would make Holocaust education mandatory in high schools in British Columbia — one of the first provinces in Canada to do that.

[4:05 p.m.]

At that event, I met with Holocaust survivors who do this work at schools, and they talked about their class visits that they do. But these are quite elderly people, and they won’t always be able to do this work. So ensuring that students in our province have access to and are taught about the Holocaust will be one of the ways we fight against misinformation or Holocaust denial or any other forms of antisemitism.

The racist incident helpline will be established soon in the province. This will be another tool. Sometimes people have one of these incidents, and they just don’t feel like they can come forward to police. They’re anxious about reporting to police, or they just feel like it doesn’t rise to the level, although it’s personally upsetting and deeply traumatizing, that they don’t want to report it to police.

This gives them another way to report these incidents, where there will be counselling and support for them if they wish to come forward to police or just to say: “Look, this happened. I want you to know that it happened.” That will enable us to respond to spikes in hate in different parts of the community.

We also have updated policing standards to help support police investigations involving hate crimes to ensure that police have the tools that they need to address these issues.

It’s important to note that it’s not just the Jewish community that’s seen a spike in hate, and certainly not just British Columbia and Canada. Between, and this is the most recent data we have, ’19 and ’20, the number of police-reported crimes motivated by race or ethnicity increased 80 percent, from 884 to 1,619. The East or Southeast Asian populations saw a 301 percent increase; Indigenous populations, a 152 percent increase; Black populations, a 92 percent increase; South Asian populations, a 47 percent increase.

Members will remember that during the pandemic, we also had a social epidemic of anti-Asian hate crime. The anti-Asian hate crime rose by 717 percent in Vancouver alone, from 2019, when there were 12 incidents, to 2020, when there were 98 incidents.

I don’t think it would be a surprise to any British Columbian to hear that the rise of the far right in the United States and in other parts of the world is contributing to this.

It is our obligation to fight that at every corner in this province, and we continue to do the work. Members will remember that we re-established the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, who we just reappointed today — congratulations to the commissioner, and thank you to her for her work — fully independent of this Legislative Assembly and able to provide recommendations to government about how we can fight hate.

The member mentioned the In Plain Sight report, fighting anti-Indigenous hate in our health care system. The anti-racism base funding — this is funding for community organizations to be able to respond to incidents in community and support people. It’s critically important support. We will continue to do this important work with communities across the province.

We’re coming up, I think, in the next couple of days to the international day of recognition in the fight against hate against the queer community in British Columbia. This is a really important day to recognize the rising hate against that community. I’m very sorry to say that we are seeing that right across the country — the targeting of vulnerable kids, and parents afraid for their kids being safe. It doesn’t matter the community; we’re going to make sure that we’re taking that action.

The member made a number of very serious allegations in his question, and he knows they’re not right.

What I’d like to do, though, is underline for British Columbians from all different communities who are feeling particularly vulnerable right now: we’re going to be there for you, and we’re going to keep doing that work to fight racism in our province. Our strength in this province is us working together and fighting hate.

K. Falcon: I must confess. I am troubled that a very straightforward question about the double standard taking place with this Premier and his government with respect to antisemitism, which is clearly rife within his cabinet, caucus and party and, sadly, seems to be spreading through government, cannot be answered without a large interval where the Premier then stands up and talks about a lot of other issues that are completely unrelated to the question I asked.

[4:10 p.m.]

The Premier mentioned hate from the far right. That’s true, but there’s hate from the far left too. That’s part of the problem that we’re facing. As I talked about in my opening comments, this is another example where results matter, not the promises and commitments that were made but the actual results.

I’ll just use one of the examples he talked about. He talked about a help line. Well, the problem is they promised that three years ago — still no hotline in place for those that are dealing with racist incidents. The Premier needs help on how to set up a line. It’s not that complex. I’m happy to offer assistance. But surely to god, it doesn’t take three years in order to get that done.

Again, the Premier’s not going to answer the question about whether he will do the right thing and call a full, independent investigation, as he did with those First Nation individuals that were dealing with racist incidents within the health care system. He refuses to do that with respect to his own cabinet and caucus and party. That’s unfortunate, because that undermines trust.

I understand that there’s racism against other groups out there. I gave an example of the explosion in anti-Asian racism, sadly in part due to some of the comments that this Premier himself has made that made it very, very challenging for the Chinese community, when people were blaming them, solely, for the housing crisis when that clearly is not backed up by the data.

I’ll try another angle. One of the most important requests, and the Premier has heard this from the Jewish community…. Their number one request is that the Premier will at least commit to having his cabinet and caucus undergo mandatory training that is founded under the IHRA definition, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, for his own caucus and cabinet. That is the number one request that the Jewish community has made of this Premier.

There are six other provinces that have adopted that IHRA definition, including Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, the federal government. Will the Premier at least agree to doing that?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve had a number of opportunities to meet with leadership from the Jewish community. That’s one of the ways that we knew about this issue, about the security funding, and we were able to provide that support. That dialogue continues, and we’ll do all we can to support the community during what is a really challenging time, without question.

To the member’s question, I agree it would be a very good thing for all MLAs to have anti-racism training that includes clear antisemitism training to fight against racism and to recognize ways that we can ensure that this place is welcoming for everybody. That’s why we’re proceeding with a recommendation that was made from the Legislature report on anti-racism for that training for all MLAs that come to this place. It must include content on antisemitism. We’re going to continue those conversations with the Jewish community.

With respect to the resignation of Minister Robinson, at a media availability on February 5, 2024, I said: “The depth of the work that Minister Robinson needs to do in order to address the harms that she has caused is significant, and it is incompatible with her continuing as Minister of Advanced Education, given the volume and depth of the work that she needs to do.”

Members will remember that this was taking place at the time of the discussions with the federal government around international student numbers and accommodation and ensuring that our institutions here in the province were prepared for the changes the federal government was making around that program.

I would like to share with the member some correspondence I received from people who self-identified as being from the Jewish community: “Dear Premier, my name is Gideon. I want to thank you for holding firm on denouncing antisemitism and for making Holocaust education mandatory in B.C. schools. Your actions and your concerns for the safety of B.C.’s Jewish community have shown that you are a sincere friend and supporter. For this, I am very grateful. I was particularly moved by your attendance and speech at the Kristallnacht commemoration on November 9.”

Another letter: “Dear Premier, as expressions of antisemitism are increasing and concerning, it’s more important now than ever to do what we can to ensure all students coming through our schools have well-developed curricula from which to learn. Thank you for your leadership and your clarity on these issues.” From Esther.

Another one. “Dear Premier, I’m writing to express my profound appreciation for your recent efforts to make Holocaust education mandatory in our schools. Your commitment to this important initiative is commendable and reflects your dedication to preserving the memory of the Holocaust and ensuring that future generations learn from this dark chapter in history. Thank you for your commitment to this crucial cause,” and so on. From Daniel.

[4:20 p.m.]

Now, I understand the Jewish community is diverse and that these are just a few individuals. But it’s important for the Jewish community to know that, to the best my knowledge, every single member of this House is committed to their safety, to standing with them in this really challenging time.

We’ll do all we can to make sure that they feel safe in our province and welcome in this province. That’s my commitment to them, and it’s important to put on the record.

K. Falcon: I’ll try again. I’m just trying to get a very straightforward answer. It doesn’t require five minutes of huddling with staff. This is just a straight-up question for the Premier that shouldn’t be too hard to answer.

I’m suspecting it’s because the Premier doesn’t like the IHRA definition of antisemitism. It’s the only possible conclusion I can come to. I know the Premier intervened in May 2022 to prevent the adoption of the IHRA definition in the Anti-Racism Data Act. I’m concerned that this may be underpinning his resistance to answer a straightforward question.

Again, this is not about training for all the MLAs. Thankfully, all the MLAs in this esteemed institution have not been expressing antisemitic tropes or antisemitic language. It’s actually come from your party, your government and your caucus. I don’t have time, but I could go through a long list, and the Premier is well aware of this.

Again to the Premier, will the Premier follow the leadership of six other provinces and the federal government, and use the IHRA definition as the working definition with respect to mandatory antisemitism training for his caucus? Yes or no?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows what he’s saying is not correct. The government has been consistent in our message on IHRA antisemitism.

But first, before I get into that, there was an all-party committee working on anti-racism. One of the recommendations was anti-racism training for all MLAs. The training will be delivered, as I understand from the report — and as members of our caucus support, as part of LAMC — as part of orientation for new MLAs. The content of that training will be developed by the Speaker’s office and by LAMC.

The member knows that all members of all parties sit on that committee — it’s how we manage this place — and determine the content of orientation, which now will include anti-racism training, which will include components related to training around antisemitism.

Our government under Premier Horgan wrote to Nico Slobinsky at CIJA in June of 2022 and said as follows: “We see the IHRA definition as an important, non-legally binding educational tool to help us determine what is and what is not antisemitic, which allows us to work towards a society that is better for all British Columbians.” That was the previous Premier, and that was in June of 2022.

In July of 2023, I wrote to Marvin Rotrand, the national director of the League for Human Rights, B’nai Brith Canada, on a similar topic. The sentence that I used was: “The province of British Columbia is committed to dismantling systemic racism and, as you noted, supports the federal government’s adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism and rejects all forms of discrimination, as outlined in Canada’s anti-racism strategy.”

The context of the letter and the context of a lot of the discussion we’ve had about IHRA — which the members in the opposition party have sought to represent, somehow, as being resiling from government’s obligations around antisemitism, which couldn’t be further from the truth — is the Anti-Racism Act.

The Anti-Racism Act specifically and intentionally does not define the term “racism” for any community. The reason for that was: what we want the courts to do, if it goes to court, and what we want people to do when they read it and understand their obligations, is to understand racism in terms of the community understandings at the time of the application of the law.

For example, during the pandemic, what was anti-Asian racism changed and expanded into a whole new category of discrimination against people who appeared to be Asian, based on pandemic-related issues. Our feeling was, and remains the same, that if we close off the definition of racism for any particular community in the legislation, it will fail to be agile enough to incorporate those changing realities on the ground for different communities.

The support of this government and the adoption of this government of the IHRA definition continues. It was confirmed under Premier Horgan, and it continues under my administration. And members of the LAMC committee that are sent from our caucus will support that being used as a tool for training of all MLAs in this place to understand antisemitism and be able to respond to it here in the Legislature and in their communities.

K. Falcon: I would love to keep canvassing this, but I have to move on. It’s unfortunate, because I still am unable to get clarity from this Premier on some pretty basic issues.

[4:30 p.m.]

That’s unfortunate, because definitions matter. Definitions give us clarity so that we know when we see antisemitic behaviour that we understand what it is, and we all agree on the nature of the definition of antisemitism. That’s why the leadership of the federal government and six other provinces is so important.

Just as I should point out, when I met with the Muslim community, I emphasized how important it is that we have a clear definition of Islamophobia, too, so that again, there is clarity amongst the populace about what these issues are. But I will have to, unfortunately, move on.

The next issue I want to canvass with the Premier is directly related to affordability, and that is the issue around carbon tax. First, some history. I think it’s important because I often hear the Premier and other members of his cabinet, no doubt inadvertently but, nevertheless, providing information that is less than accurate with respect to our position on carbon tax.

A little history. When it was introduced by Premier Campbell, I was, as I’ve said before, very proud to be part of that administration that brought in North America’s first revenue-neutral carbon tax. Now, what does that mean? That means that one of the ways that we got public buy-in and public acceptance of the revenue-neutral carbon tax was when the public realized that all revenue generated had to be returned, by law, to the public in the form of lower personal income taxes and lower business taxes.

In practice, it was a tax shift as opposed to a tax grab, which began when the NDP government got elected in 2017. What does that mean? That means that when the NDP government got elected, they said: “Well, we’ve now decided we like the carbon tax.” Of course, they ran an election against the carbon tax, as the Premier would well know. In 2009, we ran an election in favour of the reve­nue-​neutral carbon tax. We won that election.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

When the NDP got elected in 2017, they changed the law and said, “We are now going to take those revenues all into government,” and they did so. They more than doubled, in fact, the carbon tax. They then increased it again by 23 percent on April 1. Their plan is to more than double it again over the next six years.

Now, I will contrast that with our own approach. When I was the Minister of Finance in 2012, I froze the carbon tax at $30 a tonne. For the viewing public out there, I know $30 a tonne doesn’t mean much, but it was 6.7 cents a litre in terms of fuel tax. That’s about five bucks on filling a typical vehicle.

Under this government, when they changed the carbon tax to no longer be revenue-neutral and took all the money into government, they violated, I believe, the public trust, the pact that we had with the public — that this was not about a cash grab, that this was genuinely about showing leadership in the environment but doing it in a way that doesn’t become what politicians love to do, which is pretend they care about the environment but it really comes down to picking people’s pockets. That’s where you lose public support, and that’s where we are today.

The Premier stands virtually alone as being the only individual out there that continues to believe that the right idea is to punish struggling British Columbians at a time when a national accounting firm that the Premier loves to hire to do lots of contract work for them advises that 50 percent of the population in this province is $200 a month or less away from being able to meet their own family budgets.

In spite of that, in spite of the clear affordability pressures that people are feeling, living in what the media has correctly described as the most unaffordable province in the entire country after seven years of NDP government, you can imagine how people feel when, on April 1, this Premier, with some delight, increased the carbon tax by a further 23 percent and is en route now, over the next six years, to increase it up to 38 cents a litre by 2030 — 38 cents a litre from when it was frozen by myself in 2012 at 6.7 cents a litre.

[4:35 p.m.]

By the way, it was kept frozen by the subsequent Finance Minister, the member for Abbotsford West, and stayed frozen right through until the NDP were elected in 2017.

Families can’t afford these increases. They don’t get the benefit of the inflation increase that the Premier awarded himself that results in a $7,700 annual increase in his salary. At a time when families are struggling just to meet their basic needs, why is the Premier increasing the carbon tax and plans to increase it to 38 cents a litre?

Hon. D. Eby: As we conduct these estimates, people in the northeast of British Columbia are fleeing a wildfire. People right across the province are facing record levels of drought. The Cowichan River almost dried up last summer. It was kept flowing only by the function of giant pumps that were run to ensure that water continued down the river to keep fish alive.

We have, without doubt, been the most climate-affected jurisdiction, in my opinion, in Canada and probably vie for that title with California in North America.

[4:40 p.m.]

The cost, the decimation, of climate-related impacts in British Columbia is huge, just last year $1 billion spent fighting forest fires.

The carbon tax is one of those tools that encourages clean energy and puts a price on pollution. It’s important to recognize that when that’s done, it encourages people to use things that are produced here in B.C., like clean electricity. It creates jobs here in the province and creates opportunity here in the province, but also economically.

The discussion on climate change here is important for us in B.C. We have a huge economic advantage in our province when it comes to the global battle on climate change. We have clean electricity that ensures that the resources and products that are produced here are the lowest-carbon products in the world.

Our aluminum from Kitimat, for example, is the lowest-carbon aluminum in the entire world. But it just gets lumped in with aluminum from places that have no worker protections, high carbon production. It doesn’t get the premium that it deserves.

Well, that’s changing. Europe is in the process of putting a carbon-intensity tariff in place that will promote low-carbon goods being imported into Europe with lower tariffs. The Biden administration in the United States is striking a committee around tariffs connected to carbon intensity, both of which will advantage B.C. products. It’s our moment to take advantage of those economic opportunities.

The member raised the question about his own record on the carbon tax. The member might remember that the main beneficiaries of the carbon tax when he implemented it, just to be clear, in what the member called one of the proudest moments of his life…. The main beneficiaries of the “neutrality” were big companies, who received a tax break worth $450 million.

Well, the outrage that that occasioned on the part of longtime allies of the Leader of the Opposition, supposedly, and his party…. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said it’s ridiculous for an average taxpayer to be told it’s revenue-neutral. Then in 2017, they said again, and this was just before we were elected as an NDP government: “The B.C. carbon tax hasn’t been revenue-neutral for years, because the previous government” — speaking specifically about the Leader of the Opposition that just asked me this question — “had been adding old tax credits to their carbon tax balance sheet to make it appear revenue-neutral.”

The member talks about the recent increase to the carbon tax, about three cents a litre. It’s a federally mandated carbon tax increase. Every province in Canada implemented that under the federal carbon tax mandate.

The member, I don’t know, doesn’t explain how his approach would differ there. But regardless, one of the things that we saw in the Alberta election was that before the election, the leader of the Alberta Conservatives cut gas taxes by ten cents a litre and then, after the election, put gas prices back up ten cents a litre.

The member has been, in the past, very clear that eliminating the carbon tax would result in double-digit tax increases for individual and business taxpayers because of the very system that he designed. His record and the record of the members who sat with him around the cabinet table as they improved budget after budget with this approach was that only 16 percent of carbon tax revenue was given back to people through the tax credit.

In contrast, 100 percent of this year’s increase is going back to low- and middle-income families in the province. I will add that we announced about a week ago flat ICBC rates for British Columbians for two more years, which will be six years.

[4:45 p.m.]

The member who used to be the minister responsible for ICBC is laughing, and I understand why. It’s because when they were on this side of the House, the corporation was losing $1 billion. The idea of a rebate was laughable.

But now ICBC is building their capital. They are back to meeting the minimum capital test. They are projecting — final books are underway — a $1.4 billion profit this year, of which $400 million will go to provide a rebate to B.C. drivers, $110 per policy for both business and personal, and, in addition, six years of zero percent for ICBC basic insurance for drivers.

These are benefits that people in Manitoba and Saskatchewan have been enjoying for 20 years. To fix ICBC, all we had to do was call them up and say: “Hey, what are you guys doing?” They shared their law with us, and then we passed it here. British Columbians could have been enjoying those low rates and those rebates much, much sooner.

We’ll support drivers. We’ll do all we can to keep costs low for British Columbians. We’ll return the carbon tax to them, and we’ll take action to address climate change, because that is something that is important to British Columbians. They are seeing firsthand both the impacts and the opportunity that’s presented as the world shifts to a low-carbon future.

K. Falcon: Just very quickly, the federal government happily just released information last week and shows that, actually, British Columbia has the worst record in terms of GHG emissions in the country. Under the NDP, we saw a 3.9 percent increase in GHG emissions, which contrasts, of course, with other jurisdictions like Ontario, which was down almost 4 percent, Alberta 3.4 percent, Saskatchewan down 8.3 percent. Again, the theme, lack of results. Lots of talk, lack of results.

In Alberta, since the Premier mentioned Alberta…. Well, thank goodness they actually gave some of their public a break on fuel prices. That’s why in Alberta their average gas prices are 50 cents a litre cheaper than it is here in British Columbia. And we wonder why there’s an exodus of people flowing out of British Columbia for the first time since the last time the NDP were in power.

The Premier’s, again, the only leader in this country that continues to defend the Trudeau tax increases that he is quite happily going along with in terms of the carbon tax. Especially painful for folks when they’re not getting that money back as they used to under the revenue-neutral carbon tax.

Let’s look at the Manitoba Premier, Wab Kinew, who reminds us that “the carbon tax is not a silver bullet.” He further says: “Action on climate change means bringing the working person along. We also need to show flexibility and help people who are struggling right now because of inflation.”

The Saskatchewan NDP opposition leader also opposes the carbon tax. Virtually every Premier in the country is opposing the carbon tax, except this Premier. So again….

Oh, by the way, I should mention even his federal counterpart…. And there’s no differentiation, for those that are watching, between if you’re a member of the federal NDP or a member of the provincial NDP too. It’s back and forth. They’re all one and the same. Jagmeet Singh says: “Fighting climate change can’t be done by letting working fam­ilies bear the cost of climate change while big polluters make bigger and bigger profits.” Interesting.

My question to the Premier: why does this Premier choose to exempt large industrial operations from paying the carbon tax, yet is increasing the carbon tax on families to 38 cents a litre in direct contrast to other NDP leaders, other Premiers, including Wab Kinew and Jagmeet Singh?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member made a number of statements that he knows are not correct. The study that he referred to shows that emissions in B.C. have gone down since 2017 and since 2007. This is despite very significant growth in our population.

[4:55 p.m.]

They are still below 2018 levels, despite our economy restarting post-pandemic — 2018, 65 megatonnes; 2022, 64.3 megatonnes.

Keep in mind that despite what the member said — that people are leaving British Columbia, which is completely false — every British Columbian with eyes in their head sees that our population is growing at a remarkable and historic rate. We’re adding 10,000 people every 37 days to the province of British Columbia. Just think about that for a sec: 10,000 people every 37 days. That is a massive population increase. Despite that, our emissions are going down.

Okay, maybe the member will suggest: “Well, the answer for that is that the economy is not growing.” Actually, that’s also not true. B.C. gained 93,000 jobs in the last 12 months. We have the lowest unemployment rate in Canada.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: The member says: “Part-time jobs.” He cannot accept that we are leading Canada economically. It does not fit within his worldview, but it is true. These are full-time jobs.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: You know, members can get up and ask additional questions if they wish. I’ll just try to get through this answer for everybody who’s listening.

The Chair: We don’t need any crosstalk. Let’s keep this civil, please.

Hon. D. Eby: Just last month, our private sector added 23,100 jobs, the largest increase among provinces. Our GDP growth leads large provinces in Canada. Last year’s job creation was four times higher than when the opposition leader was sitting on this side as Finance Minister. B.C. has some of the fastest wage growth in Canada. We are providing support for people with the cost of living.

A list of some ways we’re trying to support people with the cost of daily life…. We have cut the cost of child care in half. When we formed government, the average cost for child care was $53 a day; now it’s $18 a day. I know we’ve got more to do on this, but that is significant for families. We’re saving people an average of $2,000 on their car insurance and providing the fourth rebate from ICBC. Free prescription contraception….

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, one member has the floor, and then we’ll come back to you. We’ll go back and forth. Let’s just let this process happen. Thank you.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is unhappy with this because the story of his time in government is one where he increased costs for British Columbians every year when they put the carbon tax in.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, please. One person has the floor.

Hon. D. Eby: When they introduced the carbon tax, it was not neutral for British Columbians. The Fraser Institute pointed out that they used it to reduce taxes for the biggest companies in the province. That’s why it matters when there’s a government that gives you $100 credit on your hydro bills. That’s why it matters when 100 percent of the carbon tax increase mandated by the federal government goes back to British Columbians.

That’s why it matters for 1½ million renters when their rent, which used to go up based on inflation plus an additional 2 percent, only goes up on the basis of inflation. In fact, we’ve kept it below inflation for many months. That’s why it matters when you get a $400 renters tax credit.

I know that we’ve got more to do to support British Columbians with costs, and we’re going to continue to do that work. It also matters that we’re growing the economy in a way that is low-carbon and that supports families. With the 450 jobs at the E-One Moli plant in Maple Ridge, and Canada’s first fully renewable biofuel refinery in Prince George, we are going to continue to do the work to build our clean economy and ensure that we’re supporting people.

[5:00 p.m.]

The member is raising the issue of taxes. When he was in government, he raised taxes. A family earning $30,000 annually in this province actually used to have to pay taxes in the province of B.C.

They now get $2,400 back in their pocket, since we formed government. A family earning $100,000 with two kids — it’s a tough thing to do — pays 38 percent less in provincial taxes today than they did in 2016, the last year of the previous government. People earning up to $150,000 in B.C. pay the lowest personal income tax in Canada.

We know what would happen if the opposition was re-elected. They would re-impose the tolls. They would re-establish the medical services tax, which was a special health tax just for British Columbians. British Columbians can’t afford that.

K. Falcon: That long, lengthy answer…. I get it. The Premier wants to try and rag the puck so that he doesn’t have to answer questions, but it would be appreciated if the Premier would actually answer the questions that I ask.

First of all, just to educate the Premier, there is a difference between migration and immigration. Migration is the number of people that come into British Columbia from other parts of Canada against the number of people that leave British Columbia for other parts of Canada. What the Premier needs to know is that the out-migration — not immigration, which is separate; that’s international — is at a record level. In fact, the front page of the Vancouver Sun described it as an exodus not seen since the last time your government was in power, 70,000 people that have said: “We’re out of here because this place has become unaffordable under the NDP.”

Now, I don’t know who gives the Premier his information. He seems to think that the economy is doing so well in British Columbia. He’s clearly not speaking to anyone in the business community, I can assure you.

Just for the Premier’s record, to read into the record for those that are joining us, under the NDP, the private sector, which is responsible for over 75 percent of all economic activity, including job creation, has stagnated. The public sector, of course, has seen a massive increase, over 140,000 jobs, while the private sector experienced much smaller growth of just 39,400 jobs.

So 2023 marked the weakest job growth in a decade for B.C. This is from the Business Council of B.C., so I’m quoting directly: “2023 marked the weakest job growth in a decade for B.C., compounded by virtually no job growth in the private sector since 2019.” That’s David Williams, the senior policy analyst for the Business Council, who says there has been “almost no private sector job growth in B.C. since 2019.”

That’s your actual record, Premier.

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

K. Falcon: Getting back to the affordability and the carbon tax, which is what we’re talking about — I had to correct a record, of course, because the Premier strays from the actual question — the carbon tax doesn’t just impact fuel. It also impacts heating costs.

When the Prime Minister gave the Maritimes a three-year moratorium on carbon tax on oil-heated homes, we immediately stood up and said that if it’s good enough for the east coast, it ought to be good enough for the west coast. Happily, because we have a made-in-B.C. carbon tax, we have the ability to provide that relief on all home-heating fuels, whether oil, natural gas or propane. Unfortunately, the Premier doesn’t want to do that.

In fact, in his own words, he stated: “Let me be clear. We will not back down. God forbid, if the rest of the country abandons the fight against climate, B.C. will stand strong.” Well, I can tell you, Premier…

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

K. Falcon: …the public doesn’t share that, through the Chair. The public doesn’t share that.

On March 28, two days before this Premier’s government hiked the carbon tax by 23 percent, I was doing a town hall in Kamloops. I spoke to Eleanor from Kamloops, who said: “We’re obviously paying way too much for the carbon tax. On my recent Fortis bill, the actual amount for the gas was $25. My carbon tax was $37 on this bill. The actual carbon tax on the amount of gas I used was more than the price of the gas itself. This is ridiculous.”

Well, the sad news for Eleanor is that under this Pre­mier’s plan, she’s going to see that carbon tax bill go up to $95 by 2030. Now, the Premier and this NDP government don’t seem to know that many people like Eleanor don’t have an option not to heat their home. How is it fair to her that the Premier’s carbon tax now exceeds the cost of the actual gas they’re paying?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: As fires rage in the northeast and we line up for a long, hot summer, likely with significantly more catastrophic forest fires interrupting the lives of British Columbians, the latest in a long series of climate-related disasters in our province, I stand by that quote. We cannot back down on the fight on climate change.

There are two reasons why. One is that it affects our province more than other places. If not us, if we’re not saying we’re going to fight climate change, then how are we going to convince those provinces and those other places that haven’t seen the same impacts yet?

[5:10 p.m.]

The second is the economic opportunity for our province. Despite many suggestions from the opposition that the CleanBC plan was undermining economic growth in our province, we are leading economic growth in Canada. That is not me saying that. That is Statistics Canada’s jobs numbers coming out.

It is a difficult time economically across Canada and around the world right now, with rising and high central bank interest rates. The design and the intent of central banks in raising those interest rates is to stall and stop economic activity to reduce the impact of inflation. That hits pretty hard here in B.C., and families are really feeling that.

I did write to the Bank of Canada. I pointed out that for British Columbia, the biggest driver of our inflation here is housing costs — not even close, any other category, double-digit cost increases. High interest rates have two big impacts on British Columbians.

One is the mortgage payments that they make when they go to renew. Significantly higher. Also, when we need to build a huge amount of housing for all the people moving into this province, those who would like to build the housing, the homebuilders, to borrow money to build those homes, are borrowing at very high interest rates that make things like new rental housing less achievable.

When I wrote to the Bank of Canada to point those things out, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition opposed that action of advocating for British Columbians. It’s too easy for Ottawa to forget about British Columbia, and I won’t apologize for that either. We’ve got to make sure that Ottawa understands, whether it’s the Bank of Canada or the federal government, that they need to support British Columbians.

Another example of standing up for British Columbians on affordability. The member mentioned the special treatment of Atlantic Canada around fuel costs and support for fuel switching to get away from wildly expensive heating of your home through fuel oil, which is also one of the dirtiest ways of heating your home. It’s expensive, it’s inefficient and it’s carbon-intensive. Well, Atlantic Canada got a special deal from the federal government for people to switch over to heat pumps. These are combination air conditioner heater units that run on electricity. And we said: “Where’s ours? Where’s British Columbia’s?”

The good news is just a couple days ago, we were able to join in an announcement with the federal government to announce rebates of as much as $16,000 for British Columbians to switch from fuel oil to heat pumps and significant rebates for others switching from natural gas and propane to heat pumps. This is a very significant and important program to help people drive down the costs of home heating and home cooling, which is increasingly important in our province.

Now, the member talked about migration. The member talks about so many things, and it’s important for me to do my best to put the correct information on the record here. The member talked about migration numbers. About 70,000 people did move from B.C. to all other provinces last year, but 60,000 people moved from other provinces to British Columbia.

Every single province did lose people to Alberta last year, B.C. included. But we gained people, on net, from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador — people looking for opportunity, choosing to move to British Columbia.

I’m not sure the distinction the member makes between migration and immigration into British Columbia, but the impact and the consequences are the same. Our population is growing at an historic rate. We need to build schools. We need to build hospitals. We need to build roads and transit to accommodate this population growth. And that’s exactly what we’re doing.

It’s important that we at least be able to understand the reality on the ground, because that will assist government in designing responses. When our population is growing, if every British Columbian is aware of that, at a rate we haven’t seen for 30 years, they will understand why we have to have an historic capital budget to build out these things and why it’s significant that the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservative Party want to cut that budget and don’t want to build those things.

This is a legitimate political position to take, but it leaves families in the lurch that need the schools and the hospitals and need us to respond to that growth.

[5:15 p.m.]

The member made a number of claims about private sector investment. Just the most recent month, our private sector gained 23,100 jobs in April 2024. That was the largest increase among provinces. Keep in mind, this is in a high interest rate environment. Blackwater mine is under construction. That’s 825 construction jobs, 450 jobs in operations.

The Bralorne and Premier mines, which were closed for decades, are reopening.

It’s not just the resource sector. AbCellera is establishing a $701 million state-of-the-art biotechnology campus in the Lower Mainland.

In the tech sector, Alkemy X invested $200 million in expanding visual effects operations in Vancouver.

DP World completed their $350 million Vancouver port expansion.

Hexagon Purus, a $230 million battery pack and hydrogen storage system manufacturing facility in Kelowna.

And a visual effects company called Wētā out of New Zealand established their first international office outside New Zealand, a $200 million capital investment in British Columbia. That is a sector that is growing very dramatically.

We know there are big challenges in sectors like forestry, and we’re going to support those workers in those sectors. We have sectors that are doing very well in the province, despite globally high interest rates. I’m very proud that foreign direct investment into the B.C. is up almost 250 percent compared to when the Leader of the Opposition was in power because that investment supports jobs, supports families in British Columbia in building a good life here.

K. Falcon: Boy, where do I start? Okay, well, let’s start with the fact that the average worker, that often this NDP government professes to have their interests in mind, under the NDP’s carbon tax scheme, is now going to be paying $0.38 at the pump. That cost goes through the entire supply chain. All the cost of transporting agricultural products to grocery stores all goes up as a result of the Premier’s carbon taxes.

That adds to the cost of groceries. That’s why you have inflationary pressures on groceries. All of that ends up at the kitchen table with families struggling to pay for this Premier’s determination to be the only Premier in the country that continues to believe that the right way to deal with the climate is to hammer hard-working, average British Columbian men and women. Eleanor in Kamloops is going to see her carbon tax go up from the $37 that she’s already paying on $23 worth of actual gas to $95. That’s an interesting approach, and the Premier can stick with it.

The Premier now talks about major projects. This is interesting to me because the Premier should know that much of the benefit that the economy has received, during virtually the entire time that the NDP have been in power, is the result of three major projects.

Those three projects were Site C, the twinning of the Trans Mountain Pipeline and, of course, the Coastal Gas Link Pipeline and the LNG facility in Kitimat. Those three projects together represent over $100 billion in capital investment, and they represent tens of thousands of very high-paying, family-supporting jobs that support not just the families in Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, but also many of those communities themselves.

All three of these projects are characterized by two interesting elements. The first is that all three were supported, promoted and initiated by the B.C. United government. And all three were opposed by this NDP government. I just want viewers to think for a moment, just to pause and think for a moment: what would be the impact today had the NDP been in power back then, with all three of those projects gone? And just for the Premier’s benefit, in 2019, two-thirds of B.C.’s economic growth was derived from those major capital projects.

The sad tragedy for British Columbians is that there are not three large major projects following those as they all wind-down. In fact, there is not one.

[5:20 p.m.]

I know the Premier has never had the opportunity to work in the private sector, but I’ll tell the Premier that announcements are different than investment decisions. A company may express in an announcement that they want to build a battery plant, but that’s very different than getting board approval to allocate capital to actually make that investment.

What rural British Columbians, in particular, and all British Columbians should be very concerned about is the fact that today, in British Columbia, major capital is not clamouring to come to British Columbia. In fact, they are fleeing elsewhere. Certainly, Alberta and Ontario…. Virtually every other province is laying out the welcome mat. In British Columbia…. It is very clear this is the last place that major projects want to consider.

The question to the Premier, given the Premier likes to go on about cuts…. I will acknowledge that, yes, we do want to cut the carbon tax and remove it from home heating fuels. We do, and we will. We do want to cut the carbon tax and remove it from the agricultural sector, absolutely. We don’t want to see continued pressure, through the supply chain, impacting groceries. Yes, we will continue to fight the Premier’s efforts, along with the federal government, to dramatically jack up the carbon tax, almost tripling it in the next six years. We will definitely cut those things.

The other thing that we’ve seen is multiple cuts in our credit rating as a result of the financial irresponsibility of this government. They’ve now given us…. Not only have they, in seven years, remarkably, managed to double the provincial debt to over $100 billion. They plan on increasing that a further $64 billion over the next three years. They’re giving us the largest projected deficit in the history of the province of British Columbia. Another first. Certainly, that’s a first — not a good one, not one that we want to brag about or talk about.

We’ve seen multiple credit-rating downgrades. That is the record. And this is the saddest part. All that spending and all that debt are tied to the worst outcomes we’ve ever seen, economically, in terms of investor confidence, in terms of health care outcomes, in terms of public safety, in terms of overdose death rates. Virtually every area of provincial responsibility. Worst results.

Biggest spending ever. Worst results. Again, the theme, as I talked about at the beginning, is a lack of results.

Premier, my question to you is….

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

K. Falcon: My question to you, Premier, through the Chair, is…. You opposed all three of those projects. You spent millions of dollars in the case of the Trans Mountain Pipeline and wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money to try and frustrate that project and, very successfully, in fact, were able to frustrate and slow it down.

Although you lost every court case decisively, you did manage to drive the…

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member. The member knows how we conduct our speech in this House.

K. Falcon: …private sector right out of that project and got a budget that started at $7 billion to over $30 billion. The federal government had to step in and try and steer that project to a successful conclusion.

Given that those three major projects that the NDP opposed are coming to an end almost at the same time, can the Premier tell us what he’s going to do to get other similarly sized major projects happening in British Columbia to give some sense of hope to British Columbians that there will be some source of revenue to look after an aging population?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member asked about major projects in the hopper.

These are all projects that are at about the $1 billion or higher level: Roberts Bank 2 expansion; Tilbury marine jetty; Cedar LNG; Ksi Lisims; Fortescue; E-One Moli; Vitalus; POSCO; AbCellera; and in the film and television sector, the filming of Avatar: The Last Airbender and the Percy Jackson series continuation. These are significant. They are a big hit at my house. There’s a lot of excitement that those are coming to British Columbia.

Some of these projects are already under construction. Some are in final investment decision mode. All of them of significant value. All of them private sector.

The member mentioned Site C and the conclusion of the Site C project in his list of projects supporting the economy in British Columbia. We have announced a $36 billion capital plan for B.C. Hydro that will drive economic growth right across the province. This enables us to do things like sell hydro to other jurisdictions like Alberta and Washington state and down the west coast when we’re able to but also to support industry growth in British Columbia. The average is 10,500 to 12,500 jobs annually. We’ll maintain B.C. Hydro’s capital investments as major projects, like Site C, wrap up.

The member did mention LNG Canada but did forget to mention which government delivered that project. That project was delivered….

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: The members are quite derisive.

I remember the promises of the previous Premier that we would have a debt-free B.C. I remember she had a whole campaign bus. I forget what the number was, how many LNG projects she committed to. She didn’t deliver a single one.

[5:30 p.m.]

The piece here that’s important is that we are taking a different approach around LNG than the previous administration, which is: we are ensuring that the projects that are going ahead are going to be net zero by 2030. We’re ensuring responsible development of the resource sector and making sure that those projects that are coming to us…. And, interestingly, Indigenous-led projects like Cedar and Ksi Lisims will be net zero by 2030. That is a credible and electrified approach, and those Nations that are advocating those are rightly proud of the very high environmental standards that they’re bringing with those projects.

The member asked for projects. That’s a list of projects.

The member leans heavily on his record around taxes. I’m not sure I would do that, if I were the member. He may remember, as Finance Minister, that he promised, just like he promised just now, to cut taxes. He promised to cut the small business tax from 2.5 percent to zero percent. But then he changed his mind. Small businesses got one month’s notice that the tax cut that the member had promised wasn’t coming.

Shachi Kurl from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said: “It’s not good enough, from our members’ perspective.” He promised the tax cut, and then he cancelled it, just like in Alberta during the election. The Conservative Party promised an income tax cut for Albertans. After the election, he said: “Sorry, we can’t do it.” The pattern is consistent.

This member is promising, again, tax cuts. “I’m going to get rid of the taxes” that, funny enough, he brought in. “I’m going to get rid of those taxes.” Well, guess what’ll happen after the election? “Oh, I’d love to do it.” But just like in 2012, he’ll back off.

The member mentions credit ratings. We’re the only province in Canada with a triple-A credit rating. We were, indeed, downgraded by S&P, and it’s important to note why. The reason for the downgrade was our capital expenditure budget. This is an important point, because if the member says that he will prioritize the rating agency S&P over British Columbians, that means cancelling school projects, cancelling hospital projects, cancelling transit projects — cancelling the projects we need to respond to the unprecedented growth we’re seeing.

Don’t take my word for it. From S&P: “With the continued impact of macroeconomic headwinds on the cost of living, B.C. has maintained focus on taxpayer affordability. At the same time, with robust population growth, the province is investing in infrastructure at unprecedented levels.”

We have the best credit ratings in Canada. We have the lowest interest rate bite. DBRS confirmed our rating, saying that the credit rating confirmations “reflect the underlying strength and diversity of the province’s economy, its discipline management practices and its strong balance sheet.”

With elections approaching….

Interjections.

The Chair: Member.

Hon. D. Eby: Hon. Chair, the member’s literally…. This question was about credit rating agencies. I’m reading the quotes from the credit rating agencies about our province.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson. Please.

Hon. D. Eby: With elections approaching in October, the New Democratic Party government is prioritizing public investments over austerity in response to economic challenges that households are facing, and that is exactly right. We are prioritizing that, and we will continue to prioritize that. We’ll support families.

There is a debate. Is now the time to pull back, or is now the time when families need support more than ever and communities need support more than ever? We say they need the support. We say they need the schools, the hospitals, the roads and the transit.

That helps grow our economy, and that helps deliver these major projects that I listed, many of which are multi-billion-dollar projects. We can’t have that if there’s no place for kids to go to school, if there’s no housing for those…. The services, the public services that those folks are going to count on as they work on these major projects and at these major projects right across the province….

[5:35 p.m.]

K. Falcon: One of the challenges, of course, and this certainly is duly noted by the credit rating agencies, is that it’s not just that the government has taken us on a debt binge. It’s how irresponsibly that debt is being racked up. I could give examples all evening.

Two important ones, I think, for the Premier: the Cowichan Hospital, which started out as a $600 million hospital. The NDP government, then, in their wisdom, and I use that word loosely, decided to make that what they call a community benefit agreement, which is really a forced unionization that limits the pool of potential bidders. Last time I checked, that hospital is now at $1.4 billion and counting.

We’ve, of course, got the other example of even hospitals they haven’t started construction on yet, like the Surrey hospital, which they’ve been announcing now for seven years — a hospital that is already over $1.2 billion over budget and delayed a further three years, its start date. They haven’t even put a shovel in the ground yet, though they did have a photo op, admittedly, with shovels. But of course, that was just to announce that the project was delayed a further three years, and the cost had gone up over $1.2 billion.

That’s how you very quickly can get to doubling the debt in seven short years to over $100 billion and adding another $64 billion projected over the next three years to where you’ve got $165 billion in debt.

I’m also quoting…. The Premier likes to quote from credit rating agencies. Well, S&P global, which downgraded the provincial debt, and I quote: “B.C.’s budgetary performance will be the weakest of its peers, both domestically and internationally.” Another quote they had was: “We expect that the province’s fiscal performance will materially deteriorate in the next two years.”

Moody’s, of course, Moody’s Investors Service, also issued a negative outlook. The quote there…. There’s a number of them, but I’ll just use one: “We view these deficits as structural in nature, especially given the lack of clarity by the government on a path back to balance.”

Now, B.C. has experienced its weakest job growth in a decade in 2023. As I mentioned earlier, private sector employment has barely changed since 2019. Other provinces saw job growth rates of 3.3 percent to 4.6 percent in 2022 to 2023, contrasting sharply with B.C.’s own 0.2 percent decline.

The government lacks a strategy to replace the $110 billion in major capital projects that were underway as a result of our government: Coastal GasLink, LNG Canada, Trans Mountain Pipeline and Site C, of course.

I’m quoting the senior policy analyst at the Business Council of B.C. again, that by 2027, British Columbia’s GDP per capita will drop to $53,500, a $300 decrease from 2019, described as an “eight-year recession.” That’s, again, the Business Council of B.C. senior policy analyst.

Prof. Trevor Tombe out of Alberta warns that “B.C.’s fiscal future is now bleaker than any other, including Newfoundland and Labrador.” Stabilizing B.C.’s debt would require increasing revenue or cutting expenditures by 4.8 percent of GDP, which would be the equivalent of raising our provincial sales tax from 7 percent to 22 percent.

With B.C.’s fiscal future described as bleaker than any other province, why is this Premier creating a structural deficit that could involve the Premier — God forbid, if they ever got back in government — having to raise the provincial sales tax to potentially 22 percent?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: For those who may be spending their evening watching us instead of doing something else, just to get an understanding of how disconnected some of the things the member is saying are from the situation on the ground….

The Surrey hospital is under construction. He insists that it’s not. There’s not much I can do about that. It’s under construction. I toured the beautiful new St. Paul’s Hospital. It’s under construction. The Cowichan Hospital, I just toured last week. It’s beautiful. It’s going to be amazing for the community. I was up in Terrace. The Mills Memorial Hospital is getting close. It’s very exciting for the community.

There’s no question that costs have gone up since we started these projects, and they would have been a heck of a lot cheaper if they were built when we needed them, which was years ago. But we’ve got to get them built. We can’t rely on our grandparents’ infrastructure at a time when our population is growing so dramatically.

[5:45 p.m.]

How did we get here? There was an opportunity in 2012 to build that hospital for Surrey. The then Finance Minister, who’s asking me these questions, the Leader of the Opposition, announced in his budget speech that he was selling land that he considered surplus, including a site designated for a new hospital for Surrey:

“Our goal is to take those surplus assets and turn them into economic generators across B.C.

“As an example, the province owns a 15-acre site in Surrey just off Highway 10. We were holding on to it in the event the new Surrey Memorial Hospital…needed it. With the almost $600 million expansion of Surrey Memorial Hospital now underway at its current location, the land is surplus. Rather than letting it sit there, costing taxpayers money, we intend to sell it and let the private sector use it to generate economic activity.”

That land sale program that sold off this hospital with such a feeble explanation included $1 billion in publicly owned properties that were sold from 2013 to 2017 under the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservative Party. This is how they used public assets. The Auditor General criticized the lack of planning: “No targets were set and no system was put in place to identify and assess potential economic activity and cost savings.”

Well, there actually was a plan. Many of the sites were sold to developers who had collectively given millions of dollars to the then-governing party that was represented by the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservative Party, including land in Burke Mountain that sold for $43 million under the appraised value. Now, that is quite something.

The Surrey site for the hospital was sold to a group called Fairborne Lands for $20.5 million, despite being appraised at $23½ million. What a deal. Then the president of that company that bought that hospital land, Christopher Philps, later gave the B.C. Liberals a $25,000 donation and gave the maximum donation in 2020 and 2021, understandably grateful.

Many of the sites that were sold are needed for schools, for housing, for essential infrastructure right now. In Surrey alone, 21 sites were sold. Fifty of the properties were sold by the Ministry of Education. British Columbians lost out on $367 million over three years as the property values skyrocketed.

The member says that we’re going to increase the sales tax to 22 percent. It’s false. It’s completely false, made-up nonsense. When he was on this side of the House, though, he gave tax breaks to big companies, the top 2 percent, and paid for it by increasing fees for British Columbians. ICBC premiums up 11 percent. MSP up by 10 percent. That’s a tax that doesn’t exist anymore in the province. We got rid of that. Tolls on the bridges. They cancelled the then existing $14-a-day child care program.

If they are re-elected, they will do the same thing. They will cancel those programs that are supporting families. They will cancel the construction of the schools and the hospitals that we need. They will sell the land and pretend that that is somehow good fiscal management. British Columbians can’t afford that approach. They couldn’t afford it then. They can’t afford it now.

K. Falcon: Where do I start? Well, let’s start in Surrey. The second hospital he talks about — construction hasn’t started. What’s going on there, Premier? I encourage you to go take a look.

The Chair: The Chair, Member.

K. Falcon: The site you’ve chosen is going to require over half a billion dollars just in the soils work that’s going to have to be done before you can actually start constructing that site in Surrey, which is one of the reasons why, by the way, it’ll be delayed for years.

Now, their record of building things needs no explanation. I’m glad he’s excited about the hospital in Cowichan, and we should all be excited about the new hospital, but I’m pretty sure taxpayers aren’t excited about the fact that the cost went from $600 million to $1.4 billion and counting. I can assure you they’re not excited about that.

Now, in contrast, I was the Minister of Health that in 2009 stood up in front of what was then the old Surrey Memorial Hospital and said we’re building a new $500 million tower with over 500 beds and the largest emergency department in Canada.

[5:50 p.m.]

It opened five years later, on schedule and on budget. I’m certainly proud of that record. Same with the Jimmy Pattison outpatient centre that opened a few years later, again on schedule, on budget, another quarter-billion dollars.

It’s not just building things. Yes, you have to build things, but it’s how you build them. God knows I would never want this government touching any capital project I was involved with, for sure.

They love to trot out this issue of me selling what should have been the second hospital. I remind the members — I often do — that it was actually Fraser Health that declared that land surplus to their needs. What did we end up doing? Well, interestingly, we ended up doing exactly what the Premier is calling for in his own housing plan, which is to take government lands and create housing. Imagine that. There are hundreds of people now living there in housing that was delivered very, very affordably, especially in contrast with the highest housing prices in North America that we see today.

Back then people were able to buy beautiful housing for $350,000. Sadly, under this government, those kinds of prices are just a pipe dream. But that’s what we did, and we can be very happy that there are now hundreds and hundreds of families that have benefited from that decision.

Why did Fraser Health declare the land surplus? Well, because they recognized that having another hospital within five kilometres of their current hospital, with very challenging transit, didn’t make a lot of sense. So the government went ahead and chose a site in Cloverdale that, as I say, is going to cost them over half a billion dollars, over $500 million, just in dealing with the soils. They chose some farmland that has very, very challenging soils, that if they had talked to folks in the private sector could have advised them of that.

In the backdrop of this discussion on affordability, where we’ve identified…. Certainly, there’s no argument about those facts: that we do have the most unaffordable housing in North America; that we do have the highest average rents in Canada; that we do have the most expen­sive fuel prices in North America. We’ve heard confirmation from the Premier that they are going to just continue right on there with the federal government tripling the carbon tax for British Columbians over the next six years.

How does that affect seniors? Well, the seniors today are experiencing the worst levels of support in the country. This isn’t me saying this. The former seniors advo­cate said under this Premier, B.C. ranks as the absolute worst in the entire country for supporting seniors. That was the former seniors advocate, Isobel Mackenzie. She said: “B.C. is the lowest.”

We’ve got nearly a third of B.C. seniors who live on less than $25,000 a year, and they’re struggling with basic expenses. Many seniors — I’ve spoken to many of them personally — are having to make decisions about whether they can purchase medication or buy a meal. The stories are endless, and they’re tragic.

Yet at the same time that the NDP government under this Premier is running the largest forecasted deficit in the history of the province of British Columbia, almost $8 billion, the Premier changed the law that we had put in place that would penalize the Premier and the cabinet ministers for running those kinds of deficits. By eliminating that holdback, the Premier gave himself a $10,757.95 pay raise this year, because that discipline is no longer there, which is why they’re happily projecting deficits as far out as the eye can see with no plan to get back to balance.

At the same time that seniors are struggling to just get food on the table or pay for critical drugs, salaries and benefits in the Premier’s office in this budget are increasing by over $700,000. That’s a 5.1 percent increase, more than the rate of inflation.

[5:55 p.m.]

My question to the Premier: at a time when the government is offering seniors the lowest level of support in the country, as confirmed by the former seniors advocate, why has the Premier authorized a 5.1 percent increase in salaries and benefits for his office this year, exceeding the rate of inflation?

[6:00 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll begin with the Surrey Hospital construction. Anyone who’s interested, go to the Fraser Health website and look at pictures of the construction underway at the hospital. The photographs are as recent as May but include work related to the north ramp and ambulance bay and guide walls being formed and poured.

The member says that he didn’t decide to sell the land for the Surrey Hospital. I’ll just read the member’s quote back to him. “Rather than letting it sit there, costing taxpayers money, we intend to sell it….” Wants to blame it on Fraser Health. The member sold the property. We’re not building affordable housing on it because it was sold to a major donor to the B.C. Liberal Party for $3 million less than the assessed value. Appraised value. It’s important to be accurate in this place.

The member talks about building hospitals. St. Paul’s Hospital, new hospital business plan announced 2002 and pre-business plan announced in 2017. Nothing was done. Pre-business plan. That was a new mechanism, I guess. It resulted in an announcement, but it certainly didn’t result in hospital construction. The Terrace hospital site plan was completed in 2011. The construction on the site didn’t start until the NDP formed government.

Specifically on the issue of seniors, which the member raised. If you are a very low-income senior…. The member raised the issue of prescription drugs. If you have $26,000 a year or less in income as a senior, you used to have to pay a $750 deductible towards PharmaCare — medications you need. We eliminated that deductible so that seniors can keep all $26,000 of their income.

Recently — this is front of mind — I shared this with the member in the House. We made an announcement about the SAFER program. This assists seniors with rising rent costs. We increased the income limit for eligi­bility for SAFER from $33,000 annually to $37,240 annually so that more seniors would be eligible for rental assis­tance. We doubled the minimum benefit for seniors on the SAFER program. Rent ceilings are now being reviewed and amended annually.

Also, we’re launching a public awareness campaign to make sure that more seniors are aware of it. I encourage members who are aware of seniors struggling with rent to look into the program, especially seniors who may have thought that previously they didn’t qualify, given that we’ve changed those eligibility parameters.

Other supports for seniors. Over the past six years, government has deployed $4 billion in operating funding to expand and improve the quality of care for seniors in B.C., and $2 billion of that went into long-term care. We have an aging population that needs that long-term-care support, which includes supporting the workers who work in long-term care, as well as those seniors.

And $354 million in this budget over three years is to further strengthen home and community care services. If people can live at home with support, we want them to do that. This almost half a billion dollars will assist with the expansion of that home care that allows people to age with dignity. Separately, we signed an agreement with the federal government in February of 2024, a further $733 million over the next five years, also to expand home and community and long-term care across the province.

[6:05 p.m.]

Finally, we have prioritized renewing and expanding health authority long-term care facilities. We are doing so with major projects across the province.

We have expanded respite and adult day programs for seniors. Where someone in the family is struggling with dementia, for example, having those adult daycare programs can make a real difference — respite care for the families. We’ve also expanded health care assistance in long-term care, supporting seniors there with an additional $25 million in funding.

K. Falcon: You know, the Premier clearly struggles with this concept of results. Instead, he’ll read out a recitation — very slowly, I note — of every program that government has. But what the Premier misses is what the former independent seniors advocate said.

So just for the benefit of the viewing public, this is an individual whose entire job, independent from parliament here, is to look at the situation, all the government programs, including the ones the Premier recites, and say: what effect is that having on seniors? What results are sen­iors seeing?

As I said…. I quote from the independent seniors advocate — again, a result. Now, the Premier may not like the result, but this is what the independent former seniors advocate said: “Under this Premier, B.C. ranks as the absolute worst in the entire country for supporting seniors.” The absolute worst. Not like, “You’re doing really well, Premier, but with a couple of changes here and there, we could be doing better,” but actually said the absolute worst.

The Premier didn’t even touch on the massive salary increases that they’re handing out freely under his reckless-spending government, which is why we are, in part, facing the largest projected deficit in the history of the province of British Columbia. I want to remind the Premier why this matters. Half of seniors in this province make less than an employee working a full-time job at minimum wage, yet they face the same inflationary pressures as everyone else, caused in part by this government’s reckless spending.

As was pointed out by the Bank of Canada and by others, the combination of reckless spending at the federal level and at the provincial level here in British Columbia, especially, has driven inflationary pressures, which impacts seniors. So while I would agree with the former independent seniors advocate, who points out that this is the absolute worst in the entire country — worst government for supporting seniors — they had no problem taking care of NDP insiders.

Last year the Premier approved secret raises for his NDP political staff — up to 17 percent in five months for some of them. The pay for all these chiefs of staff that the NDP have now outstrips the salaries of members of the Legislative Assembly, over $122,000.

So my question to the Premier is a really straightforward one. This shouldn’t take a lot of huddling. Don’t need to answer it with a long recitation of government programs. Just a straightforward question to the Premier.

Why did the Premier approve raises of up to 17 percent for NDP political staff, surpassing the salaries of elected MLAs, while 50 percent of B.C. seniors earn below the minimum wage?

[6:10 p.m. - 6:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member again raises seniors. I confess to some surprise that he would raise the seniors advocate and his record with seniors.

In 2016, under the previous government, 90 percent of long-term-care homes failed to meet the government’s own minimum standards for hours of care per senior. That is somebody to help you take a bath, have some basic dignity. The standard was 3.36 hours per resident-day, and 90 percent of care homes were not meeting that standard. We have fixed that; 100 percent of long-term-care homes in our province meet that standard now.

The member will recall Bill 29, the largest firing in provincial history of public employees, 5,000 long-term-care workers, mostly women, mostly women of colour, replacing them with contracted workers. The long-term-care homes would flip those contracts. This was all pretty technical. Public, private, whatever — contract flipping I don’t understand.

What it meant for seniors was that they had different people looking after them all the time. They’d build a relationship with someone, and then that person would be replaced with somebody else. If you’re struggling with dementia, confusion, having strangers show up regularly in your room to provide care for you is a serious compromise to care in the province, which is why, understandably, when we reversed it, the opposition voted with us to reverse that heinous, heinous action that they took that impacted seniors and workers and denied so many people access to pensions and reasonable wages.

The member talks about out-of-control public spending. Keep that in mind. This is what he means — access to decent wages and pensions for people who look after our seniors, making sure that every senior in a long-term-care home in our province gets the minimum standard of care.

There were some individuals and political staff that did see pay increases for pay equity reasons and/or changes in responsibility.

It is equally true that we are moving to address key recommendations from the seniors advocate, starting in 2017 when we addressed that chronic and ongoing issue in our care homes, and in continuing on with addressing recommendations that she made in her recent report about expanding home care.

Well, that’s what we’ve done in this budget. Expanding respite care, that’s what we’ve done in this budget, and supporting seniors to live with dignity in our province.

Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:20 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 27 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING
AND VALIDATING (No. 5)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Bill 27, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 5) Amendment Act, 2024, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Motions Without Notice

AMENDMENT TO STANDING ORDERS
FOR THURSDAY SITTING HOURS

Hon. R. Kahlon: I seek leave to move a motion.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: By leave, I move:

[That, notwithstanding Standing Order 2 (1), the House sit from 10 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on Thursday, May 16, 2024.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I seek leave to move a motion.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

TIME ALLOTMENT FOR
FAREWELL ADDRESSES BY RETIRING MLAs

Hon. R. Kahlon: By leave, I move:

[That, notwithstanding any provision of the Standing Orders or usual practices of the House, on Thursday, May 16, 2024:

1. The first 45 minutes of Orders of the Day be allotted for Members not seeking re-election in the Forty-third provincial general election to deliver a farewell address to the House, and responses.

2. Beginning at 1 p.m., 75 minutes be allotted for Members not seeking re-election in the Forty-third provincial general election to deliver a farewell address to the House, and responses.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of Supply for the Office of the Premier.

In Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 26, Name Amendment Act.

The Speaker: The House will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed at 6:22 p.m.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 6:30 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order. We are dealing with the estimates of the Premier’s office.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $16,754,000 (continued).

K. Falcon: I want to continue this train of discussion because what we’re seeing here, and what I’m outlining for the public to understand, is that there has been a pay-raise-a-palooza, if you will, within government, particularly for NDP insiders and staffers, which is totally contrary to the reality that seniors are dealing with. I think it is very indicative of government and where they set their priorities that this is taking place.

The budget for political staff working inside ministers’ offices has increased by $12 million from 2017. That is an 85 percent increase from when we were in government. Political staffers, as I pointed out earlier, now make a maximum of $122,100, which is more than the base salary for MLAs that actually work in this very institution.

The April 1, 2023, pay raise was 6.75 percent, or $7,700 annually, with a number of the Premier’s staff receiving a combined 17.4 percent pay raise within five months. The Premier did not address that in his last answer. The pay hikes for those chiefs of staff to ministers were authorized by the Premier’s office, but the information was not even disclosed to the NDP caucus for months.

Another thing that’s concerning is that the salary bands, the amounts that you can pay these political staffers, have increased over 2017, the last year that B.C. United was in power, by 22 percent.

Worse than all this palooza of spending on their in­creases is the secrecy that is characteristic of this Pre­mier and, certainly, this government. As you know, the Canadian Association of Journalists has declared this the most secretive government in Canada.

The NDP made changes to limit the transparency of salaries for those political staff, because they removed the provision, in cabinet orders, what in government we call OICs, to include the salary of political staffers when they’re hired. They removed that provision. So they can hire somebody; you just won’t know what they’re paying them.

Political staffers all would have received another pay increase, just a month ago, on April 1. We’d love to know what that was. If it’s similar to the Premier’s office, it’ll be well above the rate of inflation, 5.1 percent in the Premier’s office alone.

My question to the Premier: why did the Premier in­crease and personally approve a 17.4 percent pay in­crease for chiefs of staff within just a five-month period, and will he immediately reverse his decision to limit transparency regarding the salaries of political staff, yes or no?

[6:35 p.m. - 6:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I got some surprising news during the break. I want to say congratulations to Brad West. Not sure how that’s going to work. Is he going to email his questions to the member and then read them out to me?

Chief of staff salaries. The member mentioned a 23 percent increase. To be fair, the member said a lot of stuff that needs verification, and he wasn’t happy that it took us some time to confirm some of the things that he said. Important to note that that is consistent with inflation over the same period that the member identified. So wages are consistent when…. Pardon me. He said 17 percent. I misspoke. So 6 percent less than inflation.

Wages are actually lower for political staff than when he was in office, in terms of real dollars. And important to note that the band for chiefs of staff in Alberta is $124,000 to $136,000, which means that the lowest-paid chief of staff in Alberta is paid higher than all of the chiefs of staff in British Columbia. One of the challenges that we have, of course, like many employers, is recruiting and retaining staff.

K. Falcon: Again I’m going to ask this question, very short and succinct. At a time when nearly one third of our seniors earn less than $25,000 a year and are struggling to meet basic expenses, why did the Premier approve a 17.4 percent increase for chiefs of staff in his government — these are NDP appointees — within just five months?

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member may not like the answer, but the wages of political staff are consistent with inflationary increases across Canada and in British Columbia, so they are not exceeding the rate of inflation and, in fact, are lower than political staff in Alberta. I did mention ear­lier that some individual staff did see increases to address equity issues — I’ll bsay it again — to ensure that people are receiving an appropriate wage.

One of the key pieces of work that we did to increase pay for people in the province, including seniors and predominantly women, was to increase minimum wage in our province, something that I know the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservative Party advocated against again and again. In fact, they created a special minimum wage that was even lower than minimum wage, called the training wage.

When we formed government, the minimum wage in the province was the lowest in Canada. On June 1, 2024, B.C.’s lowest-paid workers will get a pay raise when the general minimum wage increases from $16.75 to $17.40 an hour. That also is consistent with inflation, 3.9 percent.

It’s important that we recognize that people who are working at these low-paid jobs get the financial support that they need to be able to build a life in this province, something that was profoundly challenging under the previous government. One of the reasons that we were told why government didn’t increase the minimum wage and, in fact, why they decreased the minimum wage with the training wage, was that that would help to build and grow the economy. Well, our unemployment rate is the lowest among the provinces. Our minimum wage is the highest.

We added 23,100 jobs in the private sector just last month. Our GDP growth since 2017 is the highest in Canada among large provinces, at 16.9 percent. Beyond minimum wage, B.C. has had some of the fastest wage growth in Canada after years when wages stagnated under the previous government.

K. Falcon: I’m asking you to stop stalling and actually answer the question. Apparently, the Premier is of the view that an over 17 percent raise in five months is inflation. Well, I got news for the Premier. That’s well above inflation.

NDP math always fascinates me. But I have to point out that an 85 percent increase in their political appointment budget for staff salaries — that’s their political staff that work inside the ministers’ offices — has increased by 85 percent since 2017.

Again, why did the Premier approve…? The Premier personally approved this. Why did the Premier approve a 17.4 percent pay increase for chiefs of staff, who are poli­tical appointees, over a five-month period? Why did the Pre­mier do that?

Hon. D. Eby: The member, in his questions, keeps saying different things. I can assist him with basically the same answer, because that is what the situation is. Wages for political staff have increased consistent with inflation. Like all employers, we need to recruit and retain staff. It has not exceeded inflation.

The band for chiefs of staff, for example, in Alberta, where they also face issues of recruitment and retention, is far in excess of what staff get here. The band for chiefs of staff in Alberta is $124,000 to $136,000, which means that the lowest-paid chief of staff in Alberta is paid higher than all chiefs of staff in B.C.

I notice that the member didn’t address the minimum wage in his continual efforts to depress it and keep people living in poverty while they’re working. But I’m not surprised by that.

K. Falcon: Well, I’m going to keep trying because, again, there has been an 85 percent increase in the Premier’s office budget since 2017. The budget for political staff inside the ministers’ offices has increased by $12 million since 2017. That is an 85 percent increase. Okay?

[6:50 p.m.]

Now, perhaps I can put it in this perspective. I was in Kelowna speaking at a town hall, and Dennis, from Kelowna, said to me: “I’m at a loss, as a pensioner trying to find a place to live today. It’s next to ridiculous because of the prices, and they go up every year, from 2½ percent to 4½ percent. My wages don’t go up; my pension cheques don’t go up. So where do I find the extra money? I don’t know. I don’t get it. My income doesn’t move, yet I have to pay more every year.”

That’s Dennis, a senior in Kelowna, on March 28 of this year.

The Premier can talk about all these unrelated things, but I want to ask the Premier again: how does he justify providing a 17.4 percent pay increase for chiefs of staff, while pensioners like Dennis, from Kelowna, can’t afford the essentials?

Hon. D. Eby: The answer is the same. For Dennis, in Kelowna, I’m not sure how, in that town hall, the member explained his housing plan to Dennis and what his plan is for Dennis’s rents.

In his plan, he opposed us getting rid of the 2 percent additional rent increase that we got rid of. So Dennis’s rent would have gone up a minimum of 2 percent more each year than under our government. He opposes cancelling the speculation and vacancy tax so that people can buy homes and buy condos and leave them vacant, not pay any additional tax and not be required to rent those places out — increasing pressure on the rental housing market.

[6:55 p.m.]

He opposed the renters rebate. He opposed our work to rein in Airbnb and VRBO. He supports people buying up homes and condos to rent out as private hotels, gutting buildings and neighbourhoods, competing with people like Dennis for the housing they’re looking for. He opposes allowing people to turn their single-family homes into multiple units, so that people like Dennis have a shot at renting or maybe even buying one of those places.

I can only imagine the answer the member provided to Dennis, but I suspect he didn’t mention any of those things. It’s important for people to understand what the plan is of the B.C. Conservatives, whose positions are identical to the Leader of the Opposition — who wants desperately to join up with the B.C. Conservatives so that they can have the same positions, formally. They’re not on Dennis’s side; that’s for sure. Dennis’s life would be significantly more expensive.

Dennis is a low-income senior. He would be paying $750 on his PharmaCare. That’s a charge we got rid of. He’d be paying MSP. We got rid of that too. If his income is $30,000 or less, he used to pay taxes. Now he gets $2,400 back in his pocket. It is challenging for British Columbians right now. It’s challenging for people across North America and around the world, with rising global inflation and high interest rates, but our government is supporting people like Dennis.

K. Falcon: Well, the only leader in this entire building that has flipped their condo — making $150,000, days before the Speculation Tax came in — was this Premier. Ironically, he advertised the sale of that condo with an Airbnb concierge in the building. That’s that Premier’s record.

Quite frankly, his answer is totally disrespectful to Dennis, who represents so many other seniors that I’ve heard from that are struggling on fixed incomes. Yet at the same time, we’ve got a free-spending government on some kind of spending palooza that just believes in handing out massive, double-digit wage increases, totally undeserved, to political staff. I’m frankly offended by that. I think a lot of seniors are offended by that, when they’re having to make trade-offs between what they’re going to eat and whether they can get medication. This Premier wants to make light of that. I think it’s appalling.

If political pay raises — completely unjustified and far in excess of what seniors ever see — are not bad enough, now the Premier wants to send these same people on European junkets. Let’s talk about that, shall we? Last summer, the Premier personally approved a six-person NDP delegation to jet to Geneva, including an administrative assistant and a ministerial aide to a minister who wasn’t even present on the trip. No pre-trip announcement, no mention of B.C. anywhere on the agenda, no details on what was achieved during this Geneva jet-setting — nothing.

We do know that four of those six individuals stayed on in Switzerland for a lovely European holiday. Now this Geneva jet set trip was greenlit by the Premier himself. I actually looked at his signature on the travel authorization form. The full cost of that junket still has never been published, but we know that the Attorney General alone chalked up nearly $2,700 in per diems, at a rate of $360 a day.

Again, all this at the same time that we’ve got a third of our seniors earning less than $25,000 a year. Wild pay increases to political appointees, jet set tours off to Geneva — it’s so out of touch, it’s unbelievable.

My question: how out of touch is it for this Premier to approve a six-person delegation, and $360 a day just on meals for the Attorney General, while 84 percent of low-income seniors are running out of money for groceries?

[7:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows the allegations he’s making about my family’s condo that we sold are completely false.

The member mentions the leaders over here. It’s hard to keep track of who the leaders are over there these days.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: It is. Who’s running that show over there?

All right, travel. The member raised the Attorney General’s mission to Geneva in 2023. This was work to profile the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples that was passed into domestic law here in British Columbia. It was an important trip to the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples meeting.

A couple points. One was to profile the work that we’re doing here at the international level, which builds support for our efforts globally, but also to support other countries that are doing similar work and to learn about opportunities and ways to do things better here. It’s a key part of the work that we’re doing.

The member may recall…. He’s done a little bit of travel of his own as a cabinet minister, Minister of Transportation. I wonder if he remembers flying to Germany to throw a $200,000 party for the company that built B.C.’s ferries, even shipped in bison burgers and candied salmon. At the exact same time, ferry fares were going up as much as 25 percent. I’m glad the member remembers that. He spent a lot of money on international travel and events, while raising fees for people here in British Columbia.

The member talks about results for people, and we know we’ve got more work to do. But we’re seeing some encouraging signs out there. I’m hearing directly from people who are living in places that used to be short-term rentals. There are people living in buildings that were up for sale, that were going to be converted.

[7:05 p.m.]

The member recalls his time in government fondly. Of course, he went into the development industry and made a lot of money from the housing crisis that he created. We’re protecting these low-income rental buildings, low-cost rental buildings, in Langley, Coquitlam and Esquimalt with the rental protection fund. And 200,000-plus homes in the province left vacant by investors, like the Leader of the Opposition, are now being lived in, thanks to the speculation vacancy tax that he would get rid of.

Almost 8,000 units open and under construction in student housing at colleges and universities across the province, with thousands more to come. Our new program, BC Builds. Four projects already underway, eight parcels of public land put forward by municipalities, partnering them with homebuilders to get attainable middle-income housing built.

K. Falcon: I didn’t think the Premier would give me a softball like talking about ferries, but since he did, I’ll remind the Premier that those ferries were actually delivered ahead of schedule and on budget, unlike the fast ferries that the NDP government is most famous for, of course. Those were three vessels, none of which worked. The last I heard, I believe one of them is still left. They’re trying to sell it for scrap in Dubai.

That was the NDP’s wonderful contribution to the ferry system, which is kind of renowned, actually. It’s rare that government gets renowned for one decision, but that was one this government was certainly well, well renowned for.

Now, getting back to the European junket. The Premier says it was to profile a decision that the government had made. Well, I can assure the Premier that you can send emails, and you can profile that all you want. But what I’d like to know is: what specific roles did each of those six members in the NDP delegation to Geneva fulfil? Why was it necessary to have an administrative assistant and an aide for a minister who wasn’t even present?

[7:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you for the patience.

There were six people, altogether, who attended. There was the Attorney General; the chief of staff from her office; the chief of staff from the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation; Doug White, special counsel to the Premier on Indigenous relations; and two senior members of the public service that focused their work in this area. They were part of the Canadian delegation to the UN representative on the rights of Indigenous peoples to present on our work in relation to Indigenous people.

[7:15 p.m.]

It’s important work. The member mentioned that some did stay on after. All of that was covered by the individual people from their own personal resources, not from public dollars.

I know the member has a different perspective on the work that we’re doing with Indigenous people in the province. We place a very high value on it. We think it’s part of a core strategy around ensuring that our province is successful, going forward. We may agree to disagree about the emphasis placed on this, but as far as a place to share the work that we’re doing and ensure that there’s international understanding of what we’re doing here in B.C., which is cutting edge in so many remarkable ways, there is no better place than the UN rapporteur on Indigenous people to share that information.

The member gave himself a little pat on the back on ferries, I saw. I should say I heard. He didn’t actually pat his own back, just to be clear on the record. He talked about his trip to Germany for the $200,000 party with the candied salmon and the bison burgers. At the party, he took the time to insult the Canadian shipbuilding industry, saying “nothing like this could have been built in Canada.” In response to both his comments and the party that he hosted in Germany, a Times Colonist editorial described the party as “way over the top” and “a public relations boondoggle.”

As for the ferries themselves, there have been mechanical issues with the drive motors on all three of the Coastal class ferries he purchased. The problems stem from the types of engines in the ferries, which are not designed for use in narrow waterways such as Active Pass because they shake and damage nearby houses and docks. They have forced B.C. Ferries to turn the rotors off and on during each voyage, resulting in premature wear that now requires all three vessels to come out of service for rotor replacement.

These are the three ferries the member was celebrating. They were purchased from a German shipyard by him in September of 2004 when he was Minister of Transportation.

K. Falcon: Although it’s a slight sidetrack, I can’t resist. I love talking about ferries with the NDP.

The member is right; there was an event there. The member forgot to mention that B.C. Ferries also, very appropriately and kindly, invited the Chiefs from the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, the səlilwətaɬ to be present there and help promote not just the ferries but also inviting the world to the Olympics in 2010.

The incredible coverage that was provided because of the attendance of those First Nation leaders was unbelievable. I was there myself and saw it as we canoed over with the Chiefs. You couldn’t imagine the thousands of people that had gathered to watch as we came over with the First Nation Chiefs, along with the federal government that was part of this. One of the best promotions I’ve ever seen for British Columbia, ever.

With respect to the ferries, I just can’t help but…. We are seeing some of the worst results we’ve ever seen. Again, back to my theme of results, not announcements, not the Premier reciting his own cheerleading notes that somehow, in their bubble, convinced them everything’s actually going amazing in British Columbia. It’s just the population hasn’t apparently figured that out yet. It’s great. Every­thing’s great. Ferries are fantastic.

Well, the terrible results are troublesome to me because they’ve got four new vice-presidents, including for public affairs and marketing. That’s important, because God knows if you need to get a positive story out about ferries, you need it now, with salaries of upwards of $519,334 and the creation of three new operating divisions that have only added layers of bureaucracy rather than actually getting solutions for the people that are facing serious affordability challenges, especially our seniors that we’ve been trying to talk about with this Premier.

I’ll try again. The seniors advocate — again, the independent officer who reports to the Legislature — in her 2022 report entitled B.C. Seniors: Falling Further Behind had a pretty straightforward recommendation.

[7:20 p.m.]

The seniors advocate, recognizing that so many seniors, like Dennis in Kelowna that I mentioned, who are struggling on fixed incomes, and the SAFER program, which our government brought in, the shelter allowance for elderly residents….

Isobel Mackenzie, the former independent officer of the Legislature, recommended in her report B.C. Seniors: Falling Further Behind to index seniors support under the SAFER program to inflation. Now, the Premier has had two budgets in which he had the opportunity to follow through on the recommendation of the seniors advocate. In the choices this Premier and this NDP government decided to make, they said no to seniors getting indexed but yes to the spending palooza on dramatic, huge double-digit increases to NDP political insider wages.

Even MLAs get a statutory CPI increase. On April 1, 2024, the increase was 3.9 percent for MLA pay, and that increased the Premier’s annual pay by $8,525. Ministers would have received $6,730 annually, and ministers of state just over $6,000 annually.

My question to the Premier: why did the Premier choose not to index seniors, who are struggling to just meet their food budgets? Why did the Premier choose not to follow through on the recommendation from the seniors advocate and index the SAFER allowance to inflation yet saw fit to increase his own salary by $710 a month on April 1?

[7:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member raised a number of points in his question. He described his $200,000 German party as the greatest public relations event for the province ever, in his recollection. The Times Colonist described it as “a public relations boondoggle.” A different perspective, I guess.

The member says he supports affordable ferries for British Columbians. I’m not sure why, then, he decided to vote against the $500 million that we sent to B.C. Ferries to keep fares low and affordable for businesses and people who live on the Island. But that was his decision, supported by the leader of the Conservative Party. It would have been double-digit fare increases for people.

The member is concerned now about B.C. Ferries executive salaries. Oh, if only he had been concerned when he was in government. And where would we go if he came back?

The CEO of B.C. Ferries earned over $1 million due to bonuses and salaries when he was in government. In that year, 2012, when he was Minister of Finance, B.C. Ferries lost $16 million, had a 21-year low in ridership and was considering cutting night sailings to save money. Again, maybe a difference in recollection, but certainly what we would see again if he was on this side of the House.

The member says he’s concerned about seniors on SAFER. I’m happy to go through, again, what we’ve done on the SAFER program. This is just a few weeks ago. We increased the income limit eligibility for SAFER from $33,000 to $37,240. We doubled the minimum benefit. We are reviewing, annually, rent ceilings to ensure and confirm the amount of rental assistance for applicants. One of the big challenges with SAFER is seniors who don’t know about it, so we’ve also increased resources so that seniors can be told about the program and they can benefit from it.

The member says he cares about low-income seniors. Then why didn’t he get rid of the deductible on PharmaCare, the $750 that people had to pay for their medications, like we did? Why didn’t he get rid of the MSP?

We had a senior call up in a panic. She hadn’t gotten her invoice for MSP, and she was worried that she would be found to be delinquent for not paying it. You can imagine how she felt to hear that we’d gotten rid of the MSP, the same medical tax that the member increased by 11 percent over his time and then voted against getting rid of.

The member has a certain memory of his time in government. The experience of British Columbians is quite different.

[7:30 p.m.]

K. Falcon: Well, I suggest that the Premier get out of his overstaffed Premier’s office once in a while and go talk to real people and see how they’re enjoying their ferry experience. With this reckless-spending government in place that doesn’t focus on results but just loves to….

As I said earlier, they’ve got a spending palooza going on in every part of government, which is, not surprisingly, why we face the largest ever projected deficit in the history of the province of British Columbia. Quite a remarkable achievement, one of the few in this government, but not the kind of achievement that the public will feel good about.

I do want to go back to what I was talking about. The seniors advocate was very clear, asking a pretty straightforward request of this NDP government. Could you please just index the SAFER program supports that seniors rely on to inflation?

The Premier’s response is: “Let’s put together a public information program.” Well, we’ve seen a lot of the NDP’s public information programs. They, generally, are talking about how great the government is. “Aren’t you lucky to be enjoying all these government programs?” What could really help the seniors, in a very tangible way, is just to provide that indexed inflationary increase.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

By the way, for the benefit of the viewers out there, it is important to understand this 3.9 percent salary increase that the Premier voted for himself and his colleagues. The way that those get approved, just so the public knows, is through the Legislative Assembly Management Committee. This is a committee that’s dominated by NDP members but also has representatives from the Green Party, the Conservative Party of British Columbia and B.C. United.

On December 13, 2023, the B.C. United members were the only ones that actually voted against that 3.9 percent increase that the NDP insisted they wanted to push through, and they did. Interestingly, too, the Greens and the B.C. Conservatives also voted with them in supporting that 3.9 percent increase in salary, which for the Premier, as I pointed out, is a significant amount. It represents over $8,500 a year in additional wages.

The Premier, again, no problem giving out 17.4 percent increases to political staffers and NDP insiders. Certainly, no problem in giving himself and his cabinet and caucus a 3.9 percent annual increase in their wages. The only members of this House that voted against it, on LAMC, were actually the B.C. United members, recognizing the struggles that real people were having out there.

Again to the Premier, given that record…. I just want to understand why you felt it appropriate to use your government majority…

The Chair: Through the Chair.

K. Falcon: …along with the Greens and the B.C. Conservatives, through the Chair, to push through a wage increase for yourself of 3.9 percent, while at the same time saying no to the independent officer for seniors, who was asking you to index the seniors’ fixed SAFER program to inflation.

[7:35 p.m. - 7:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The core premise of the member’s question is that we’re not keeping SAFER up with inflation. That’s not correct. In 2018 there was a 42 percent increase to SAFER. The member will recall that from the period 2017 to now, inflation is 23 percent. Even in that 2018 increase, we are well beyond the rate of inflation on SAFER. So seniors are better off now, under SAFER, than they were under the previous government.

Then again, the member will recall…. I walked him through a release that we issued just a few days ago about SAFER where we again doubled the minimum support available under the program, a 100 percent increase in the minimum support under the SAFER program. We are exceeding inflation.

The seniors advocate is saying: “Hey, tag it on to inflation like you did minimum wage so that these increases happen year over year.” And certainly, that’s something that we can look at. But for the member to suggest that seniors are behind inflation on SAFER is not correct. We do understand that there’s more to do in this area, including building more housing right across the province for seniors that’s affordable for them. We’re going to keep doing that work.

I walked the member through his decisions when he was in government about the $200,000 barbecue in Flensburg, Germany; $67 per person for that beer-and-burger barbecue where he insulted the Canadian shipbuilding industry. Then after his time admittedly but in the spirit of the same political party, Christy Clark…. Members will remember her as the advocate that the member dissolve his party and join up with the Conservative Party in the media right now, I guess based on his results.

Private jet visits all over the province. Here’s just one example: taxpayers billed $6,054 for a charter jet trip that included photo op, radio interview and fundraising dinner. These were the days, eh? At the fundraiser in Prince George, tickets were $900 for a table of ten, pretty reasonable. But a pair of seats at the Premier’s table were on sale for $25,000. And a separate ticket offered for $15,000 — taxpayers paying for a private jet to take the Premier to a fundraiser in Prince George. That’s how things used to run in this province under the previous government.

We’ll support seniors with better support through SAFER, through better support for PharmaCare, through getting rid of MSP, B.C. Hydro credits. We know seniors are struggling. All British Columbians are struggling. People around the world are struggling with high interest rates and global inflation. There is a government that has been consistent about providing that support for people in British Columbia, and we’re going to keep doing that work.

K. Falcon: Sticking on the subject of seniors, because we know how dire a situation seniors are facing in British Columbia. We also know that, as I’ve mentioned from the outset, I would be talking to the one issue that this government becomes very uncomfortable about, and that is the issue of results. Because what’s important for the public to know….

[7:45 p.m.]

At the end of the day, all of us in government have to be judged on what actual results and outcomes we get. You know, at the end of the day, you can only do so many spins and so many announcements and reannouncements. At some point, you have to own the results.

Well, this is a government that loves to brag about their housing announcements. Again, announcements, not results. But seniors…. This is tragic. I never thought I’d see this day, but 22 percent of the homeless people in Metro Vancouver are seniors. Just let that sink in.

I want to quote from the new seniors advocate, Dan Levitt, who has replaced the former seniors advocate that I’ve been quoting earlier. The current seniors advo­cate: “I’ve even heard a case where there was a senior who lost their driver’s licence. They were no longer able to drive, and they were in their 80s. And rather than get rid of their car, they kept it just in case they might need it as a place to live.”

Now, I know the Premier will probably stand up and recite a whole list of announcements, but the result that this NDP government has given seniors after seven years is that 22 percent of the homeless people in Metro Vancouver are actually seniors.

My question to the Premier: with seniors being forced to consider cars as potential homes, how does the Premier defend his own salary increases and the 17 percent raises given to NDP political staff?

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Support for seniors is an important thing. The member, again, doesn’t recall the decisions that he made when he was in government. And the leader of the Conservative Party, his partner, in going after seniors…. He maybe remembers removing free ferry travel for seniors. Maybe he’ll remember that it was our government that restored that free travel for seniors in our province.

Maybe he’ll remember that he only dedicated $36 million for home care annually. We significantly expanded that Better at Home program to $132 million to provide support for seniors so they can stay in their homes longer. I wonder if he’ll remember that he had the opportunity to increase the senior supplement, but his entire time in government, not one increase. In 2021, we doubled the supplement, the first increase since 1987.

[7:55 p.m.]

We reached 20,000 more seniors, now supporting over 80,000 seniors. Our B.C. bus pass program. Maybe he’ll remember their government cutting…. Oh, I’m sorry. The member is yawning. Maybe he’ll remember his government cutting the disability bus pass program and being forced to reinstate it. A remarkably cruel and callous act. The B.C. bus pass program helps 55,700 seniors receive a free annual pass. This is a fact, Member. Seniors who earn up to $150,000 pay the lowest personal income taxes in Canada right here in British Columbia.

Now, the member says the housing policies that we put in place that he would reverse don’t matter. Here’s a senior from Surrey: “Hello. I want to thank whoever it was who decided to allow zoning changes to single-family resi­dences. Finally, steps are being taken to address the B.C. housing crisis.” This is a policy that the member opposes.

Another email. “Hello Premier. I’ll just take a moment to say thank you for bringing in changes that open up housing for more B.C.’ers. I know you’ll get a lot of pushback on this, but it’s a really great idea, and I’m proud of you for taking a stand for what’s right.”

Another letter. “Thank you for taking the lack of housing seriously and taking steps to house everyone at affordable rates.”

There’s another policy the member opposes. I notice that the member for Kelowna was cc’d on this one: “Thank you for taking a strong stance to eliminate the use of short-term rentals by investors and speculators in B.C. We have a housing crisis in Canada. Please don’t let the vocal wealthy minority water down this legislation. We need strong changes to tackle the housing crisis, and this is one solution.” The member opposes that policy.

“Hi. You guys probably receive lots of emails about people complaining. This is a positive one. I wanted to send an email commending you for the fantastic changes you’re making to protect the rights of renters in this province. Changes in protections for renters are so awesome. Being a renter myself, I feel an immense sense of relief.”

Over 47,000 households in B.C. are living in homes that exist today because of the actions our government has taken. And it is important to note for all the seniors listening that these are actions that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Conservative Party have committed to reverse if they end up on the side of the House.

Now, how can you hope to make progress on the housing crisis if you’re not building housing? You’re opposing the ability of people to turn their single-family home into more than one unit. If you’re allowing people to buy up the homes that we have and convert them into short-term rentals, it is the same kind of catastrophic logic.

Let’s name the elephant in the room. The member, as Leader of the Opposition, has one job: to ensure the success of his political party. Well, where are we today? It is the exact same series of catastrophic decisions that he is bringing to bear on housing policy: reverse the speculation and vacancy tax, reverse the restrictions on Airbnb short-term rentals, not let people build more than one unit on a single-family lot. An astonishing lack of logic.

Well, it is at any wonder that under our government, we’re setting a record number of rental home registrations? We have 15 times more provincially funded or financed housing underway today than under the previous government. Purpose-built rental construction is up six times compared to a decade ago. We are facing a major housing challenge in this province. It is literally every policy to open up the housing that we have, to build more housing. That member over there opposes all of these measures again and again.

The flipping tax. Well, maybe we could shrink the amount of time so people could flip their homes.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member. Member. Member for Kamloops–​South Thompson.

Interjections.

The Chair: Would the Leader of the Official Opposition…? Member.

Members, we will come to order in this chamber.

Would the member for Kamloops–South Thompson please come to order.

Sorry, member for Kamloops–North Thompson. You were earlier.

Hon. D. Eby: This is the same logic that led the then Finance Minister, now Leader of the Opposition, to cut social housing investments by 75 percent as Finance Minister, from $233 million in 2011 to just $56 million in 2012. Where would we have been had that housing been built?

[8:00 p.m.]

But oh, he didn’t forget. Some people…. He gave a $42,000 HST tax break to people buying a second home in his 2012 budget. Wow, pretty good. Cut the affordable housing budget and give a $42,000 HST tax. You remember the HST tax? Anyone remember that one? This was the member’s….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. You’re allowed to ask your question. The Premier’s allowed to respond in the way….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members. I’d ask you to come to order. I’ve asked you before, and I’d ask you again. Please.

Hon. D. Eby: The member has consistently, consistently had catastrophic judgment when it comes to this place that’s left people outside. But he has done very well. Because he left his job here. He went into the development industry. And he did just fine. Well, this is a government that stands up for people. And we’re going to keep doing that.

K. Falcon: Apologies if, when the Premier’s speaking, we get sleepy over here. But we have to correct some of the facts here for the Premier.

I know it’s hard for the Premier to focus on results. It’s easier to list through speaking points and pat himself on the back for this great job that he’s doing, that has seen us end up, after seven years of this NDP government with, as I’ve said before, the most unaffordable housing in North America and the fact that 22 percent of the homeless people in Metro Vancouver are now seniors looking to have to live in their cars. Great outcome.

The Premier loves to go back about when I was in government 13 years ago. Well, okay. I’m happy to do that. I did work for a development company. The Premier’s correct. Built more housing in one company than his entire government did over the same period of time. One company.

The Premier’s answer to everything, of course: big government to the rescue. Big government’s going to get us out of this problem. Of course, they ignored it for the first six years they were there. All they did was add costs. Then they realized, to their horror: “Uh-oh. What have we done here?” We ended up with the highest housing prices in North America. Better do something about supply.

Well, no kidding. It might have been nice if the government opposite could understand the fundamental, simple economic equation of supply and demand. Maybe it’s his total lack of private sector experience. No doubt that would play part of it. Certainly the fact that he’s never built a house in his life.

But he is a flipper. I do want to point out, I reminded him earlier that he is the only leader in this parliament that actually flipped his condo just days before the speculation tax was brought in and made a $150,000 profit. A condo, which, by the way, was advertised as having an Airbnb concierge. Well, that was certainly helpful for the Premier. Not too helpful now that…. He’s taking care of his situation, but the rest of the province is certainly going to now pay a price.

Well, when I was back in the private sector in 2013, if he wants to take a trip down memory lane, townhomes in Surrey were selling for $350,000 to $375,000. Okay, well, that was actually quite affordable for a two-bedroom, two-bathroom, double-car garage in Surrey. Unfortunately, under this government, those same townhomes are now over a million dollars. That’s their record. That’s their outcome.

Now, sadly, I have to get into more really bad results, because they’re not going to answer questions on the fact that their housing policies have been a total face plant from a results point of view. I don’t need to hear more recitation of announcements that never actually result in housing. So let’s talk about seniors and what they’re facing in terms of crime because here we have, again, more really bad results.

The Premier has overseen a shocking 82 percent increase in violent offences against seniors. So not only have we seen reports of violence against older individuals exploding, but there’s been a dramatic drop in the rate of charges being laid. So at the same time as seniors are being violently assaulted under this soft-on-crime Premier, who famously wrote the book, How to Sue the Police — great contribution to the policing effort In British Columbia — we have seen the dramatic dropping of rate of charges being laid.

[8:05 p.m.]

Let me actually clarify that for the Premier. Under this Premier, the percentage of reported offences leading to charges have nearly been cut in half, from 44 percent when this apparently terrible B.C. United government was in power to just 24 percent in 2022 under that Premier, who, I remind everyone, was Attorney General for 5½ years and oversaw the catch-and-release system that we’ve got happening in British Columbia now, of which every community has seen the terrible negative results.

My question to the Premier: with violent offences against seniors increasing by 82 percent and charges for these offences dropping from 44 percent to 24 percent under the NDP, when is the Premier going to end his catch-and-release justice system and protect our most vulnerable citizens, our seniors?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s no question. Every senior, every person in our province has the right to be safe in their community. Every worker has the right to be safe at work. It’s a priority of our government. People can see the work that we’re doing to address some of the serious issues we’ve seen here in British Columbia, which are far from limited to British Columbia. But we’re showing some good progress on some of these challenges around public safety.

The member will recall that serious concerns were raised about random stranger attacks in Vancouver. We implemented a program that identified, specifically, repeat violent offenders, where police, Crown, prosecutors and probation officers work together to track people through the system so that when they are arrested, all the information is in front of the court. If they’re released, everybody is aware, and they’re able to be prioritized for police attention. This is a program that’s in place across the province now. There are almost 400 people that are being monitored in the program.

[8:10 p.m.]

The reason for this program is that there are a small number of people that have the capacity to cause a huge amount of chaos. I’ll give you just two examples.

There’s an individual in Surrey who used to generate over 100 calls a month to the police — 100 calls a month. Through the ReVOII program, he has access to a support person now who’s helping him keep his life on the right track, and in four months, after being in the program, he generated zero calls to police.

In Prince George, there was a man who was in a cycle of being released, back in custody, released, back in custody, released, back in custody — serving his sentences and then back into the community. When he was in prison, he’d get the medication he needed to treat his mental health issues, but as soon as he was released, he wouldn’t go to the local pharmacy. He believed he couldn’t because of a previous arrest and a no-go order.

He believed that if he went there to try to get his medication, he’d be rearrested, so he’d decompensate in the community, then cause another occasionally violent incident in the community and be rearrested. Through this program, he now has the help he needs to stay on his medication and not cause those disruptions in the community.

I mentioned Vancouver. The random stranger attacks that were causing a lot of alarm, and justifiably so, have decreased by 75 percent between 2021 and 2023. Car thefts are down by 18 percent in the same period.

We’re going to keep doing this work. It does require police to do this work. I don’t know why the members are unhappy that the crime numbers are going down, why they’re upset that this program is supporting people and getting access to medications so they don’t cause chaos in our communities. A 75 percent decrease between 2021 and 2023. Car thefts are down by 18 percent.

Now, we know we have….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, can we have some order, please?

Hon. D. Eby: The members dispute the Vancouver police department data. That’s okay. It’s their numbers. All I’m doing is reading them out to the members.

In order to do this work, we need police. That’s why we have dedicated $200 million to hire — we’re getting close to the end of the day, aren’t we, hon. Chair — to ensure that communities across the province are able to fully staff with RCMP officers, something that the previous government could have done. But, of course, they didn’t do that. That violent offender program used to exist in the province, but the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservative Party, they got together and then cut that program.

I wonder if the member ever reflects on the $360 million in cuts that he made to mental health services in this province as Health Minister. Mental health services right across the province, especially after-hours ones, were lost or scaled down. The Coast Mental Health service called the reduction staggering and incomprehensible. I wonder if he wonders where those people ended up.

Those youth in care who aged out of care with zero supports — I wonder if he wonders where they ended up. I suspect I know: in and out of our jails in this province. That’s why we support youth in care now, to make sure that they get access to education and to build a life in this province. That’s why we changed those policies that their government had. Because prevention, preventing that crime in the first place rather than just responding to it, is certainly just as important.

K. Falcon: Certainly, those are pretty empty words for seniors that have seen an 82 percent increase in violent offences against seniors. Again, it’s the empty words that we always hear.

The Premier goes on about how people have a right to feel safe. Well, the fact of the matter is, they don’t feel safe. They’re not safe. That’s actually called a result, a really bad one — another one — when you’ve got an 82 percent increase in violent assaults against seniors.

I can tell you, it’s pretty tough for the public to listen to the Premier celebrate just what a great job they’re doing, apparently, on fighting crime, when they’re busy dodging bullets in Vancouver and Kamloops. That’s how people feel nowadays under this soft-on-crime, catch-and-release Premier.

[8:15 p.m.]

I’ll come back to this, but I want to talk again about affordability, because I have a suspicion that this government’s up to no good when it comes to app-based delivery services.

Now, we know the government made a splashy gig work announcement last November, but it’s been eerily quiet ever since. That always makes me nervous with this government. I’m always wondering what they’re up to.

Interjection.

K. Falcon: Oh, trust me. It’s the reason I’m nervous. If what’s happening in some of these left-wing U.S. jurisdictions is any indication of what might be going on behind the closed doors of the Ministry of Labour, British Columbians better hold onto their wallets.

In Seattle, a lot of progressives like these folks…. Consumers are now facing $122 charges for food delivery, $26 for go-to coffees — I found that one interesting; I can’t imagine ordering coffee on a go-to basis, but whatever, some people do — because of policy decisions that are being made by some of these progressives that are very much aligned with this left-wing NDP government. At the same time, restaurant demand and courier earnings have dropped by 30 percent.

In Minneapolis, new rates mean that tens of thousands of residents won’t be able to afford ride-share. Up to 8,000 drivers are apparently going to lose their ride-share jobs because of bad policy decisions by these fellow travellers of the NDP.

So my question is…. I want a clear answer on this from the Premier. In the midst of an affordability crisis in this province, how much more is this government going to make British Columbians pay for their DoorDash, Uber and Lyft?

Interjections.

The Chair: If members want to have a debate or discussion, they can do that outside of this chamber.

Hon. D. Eby: The economy increasingly, globally, is leveraging so-called gig workers. These are people who do piecework through either apps or online, and often with no labour protections, often below minimum wage standards.

[8:20 p.m.]

In B.C. and for our government…. We believe that gig workers deserve to be treated fairly. If they are injured at work, they deserve to be protected by WorkSafeBC. If they get a tip, they deserve to know how much it is and then get to keep it. If they get suspended or terminated, they deserve to know for what reason. They want transparency on what they’re getting paid and the destinations they’re getting sent to.

Happily, this is something that people across the prov­ince support. And of course. Certainly, my impression, from the work that the Minister of Labour has been doing to bring some of these companies along…. They support these principles too.

We’re doing our best to work with the sector to make sure that we’re not putting unnecessary burdens in place that don’t provide benefits. But we do have standards, which we expect to be met for all workers in British Columbia, around safety, around compensation, around fairness.

I am not surprised that the member is siding with the big Silicon Valley billionaire companies burning through venture capital over the workers of British Columbia. This has been his orientation again and again. Here’s your choice: between somebody looking for a home and somebody buying a home as an investment. “Who am I going to choose?” Again and again, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservative Party choose the investor, the speculator, the app company over the worker.

You can see it in the decisions they made before. Here is the minimum-wage record in British Columbia: 2001, $8; 2002, no increase; 2003, no increase; 2004, no increase; 2005, no increase; 2006, no increase; 2007, no increase; 2008, no increase; 2009, no increase; 2010, no increase. Just in time for the Olympics.

Every single time the member and the leader of the Conservative Party have a chance to make a choice, they do not choose people in British Columbia. They choose, at the time, their major campaign donors, those big companies that are trying to get them together in an arranged marriage.

The good news is that there’s a different government. We’re supporting workers, including the most vulnerable gig workers, often new British Columbians, making sure that they have enough money to be able to cover the costs of doing the work itself and then, if they get injured, that they are looked after.

If the member wants to get a cheap coffee on the back of workers in British Columbia, then he better get working on getting himself elected so they can cut worker supports. He can order cheap coffee and have someone else subsidize it. That’s not our government’s priority.

The Chair: Leader of the Official Opposition.

K. Falcon: Thank you, Mr. Chair, through to the….

Interjections.

K. Falcon: Okay, children.

The concern we have is…. We choose consumers. We are asking a very straightforward question to the Premier.

We know that the agreements that, at least, are publicly…. We don’t have any particular problem with…. Drivers and couriers will make 120 percent minimum wage for trips and deliveries and get WorkSafe coverage. Okay. No big argument from us on that point.

The concern is: what else? What other regulations are being included? What impact will that have on the cost for consumers? What impact will that have for that consumer? Many are low-income folks who rely on these food delivery services and, I think, have a right — so do the drivers, who are concerned about the impact it’s going to have on their employment prospects — to understand how much more it is going to cost them.

[8:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: For our government…. We’re finding a path forward, where we’re doing a couple of things. There are lots of issues where we’re trying to find this balance.

One is making sure that workers are protected and safe at work. They earn a decent wage. They’re not finishing their shift further in the hole than they started it.

The other is affordability for consumers and support for restaurants. It was our government that put the restrictions in on these delivery businesses during the pandemic to make sure that restaurants were supported and that they weren’t having to give away huge chunks of their proceeds to these companies. We stood with those small businesses and recognized that those companies were providing a very valuable service that British Columbians appreciated.

We’re doing the same thing right now. We’re working with the companies. I think there’s a high level of alignment. The Minister of Labour will work on it. We can do these things. We can achieve these goals of ensuring that the service is available to British Columbians, that the workers are protected and that the workers are not subsidizing big multinational companies with their labour and, instead, are fairly recognized. That’s the approach that we’ll take.

Again, the member says: “Oh, we’re okay with this. We’re not okay with that.” The member’s record speaks for itself. He never…. He had so many chances to support workers who were struggling, working at minimum wage year after year after year after year after year after year after year with no increase. In fact, their government introduced a training wage that was actually less than the minimum wage.

I guess he would have us believe, if he was on this side of the House, that he would be worried about gig workers and their working conditions and their payment. I don’t believe it. He never was, and he wouldn’t be if he got elected now to govern.

British Columbians want people to be safe at work. They want them to be properly paid. They don’t want their deliveries to be delivered in a way that exploits people in this province.

It doesn’t have to be that way. That’s why the Minister of Labour passed the law. That’s why he’s engaging in the work right now, with the companies, to make sure that workers are protected and consumers are protected. We’re finding that balance.

K. Falcon: The concern we have, of course, is…. The track record of this NDP government always involves new taxes, increased taxes, increased costs.

They’ve already introduced or raised 32 new and increased taxes since they’ve been in power in the brief seven years, pulling in an extra $22 billion in annual revenues. All of which are being spent recklessly and still giving us the largest deficit ever, in provincial history, to get the worst outcomes we’ve ever seen. It’s rather remarkable. So understandably, people are concerned about what they’re up to here.

We don’t have any argument with the 120 percent of minimum wage or the fact that there’s going to be coverage provided by WorkSafeBC. No concern at all.

What we’re concerned about, Premier, is there’s a lot of discussions that are happening in the Ministry of Labour that are not being shared — not surprisingly, not transparently — with the people that are going to be impacted.

These are exactly the same talking points we heard from some of their fellow travellers in Seattle, New York and Minneapolis. In reality, the gig workers there, after their changes, are making less money or even losing their ability to make money altogether.

[8:30 p.m.]

Struggling restaurants are being hit hard, losing much-needed orders.

At a time when people are already struggling with the highest inflation in the country right here, in part because of this Premier and this NDP government’s reckless spending to achieve the worst results we’ve ever seen, you can understand why they are concerned if the Minister of Labour is working in the back rooms, coming up with additional regulations beyond the two which we’ve said we support — the 120 percent of minimum wage and making sure that they have coverage under WorkSafeBC. I think those British Columbians deserve an answer to a pretty straightforward question.

The Premier just this…. I’ll make it easy. Will the Premier commit today that British Columbians will not see any further fee increases on ride-share or delivery? Simple one.

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows these companies, unless we pass legislation to cap fees from the companies, which we did do during the pandemic, set their own fees. So the member wants me to guarantee something that legally is not possible in British Columbia — that we’ll set the fees for these companies. That’s not the case. We’re not currently able to do that. I haven’t seen his private member’s bill on that. I think he knows it’s a silly question.

What’s not silly is affordability for restaurants, consumers and support for workers. This is another one of those scenarios where we do hear the opposition from time to time. They think up an issue that doesn’t exist, and they say: “Oh, this is definitely going to happen.” Then it doesn’t happen, and life just goes on.

I’ll give you a couple examples. The cruise ship industry, we had question period after question period. The NDP government is going to destroy the cruise ship industry. People aren’t going to stop in British Columbia in the cruise ships. It’s going to go off a cliff. They’re all going to go to Alaska. They’re going to drive right past us. You know what? We set a record for cruise ship stops last year, and we’re on track to set a record this year.

[8:35 p.m.]

Another alarmist rhetoric: CleanBC. CleanBC is going to kill the provincial economy. CleanBC — they still believe it. They still believe it in the face of every piece of economic data. You would expect, if it were killing the economy, that we would not have the best GDP growth in Canada from 2017. But in fact, we do have the best GDP growth since 2017. You would expect that we wouldn’t be leading Canada in job creation. But in fact, we are leading Canada in job creation — 23,100 jobs last month alone in the private sector. You would expect that our unemployment rate would not be one of the lowest in Canada. But in fact, our unemployment rate is the lowest in Canada.

The members do this. Now here we have the member again saying: “Oh my gosh, you’re going to protect the workers. There’s going to be $26 coffee in British Columbia.” Well, we can protect workers. We can have a high minimum wage and a low unemployment rate. We’ve proven it, because that’s what we have right now: the highest minimum wage in Canada and the lowest unemployment rate.

We can support workers, and we can support restaurants, and people can enjoy the convenience of these delivery services, which I certainly do. But I want — British Columbians want — the workers who deliver these goods to them to be properly treated, to not finish a shift further in the hole than they were when they started the shift.

That’s a goal we have here, and I hope it’s a goal that every member of this House would support. But unfortunately, the record of the Conservative Party and the Leader of the Opposition is that they are quite indifferent to those workers.

K. Falcon: Well, let’s just check and see if that’s true. I actually quite like my record of predictions. It’s very easy with this government, of course, especially when you’re predicting how they’re going to do on budget outcomes.

Let’s start with…. I don’t know. Let’s start with FIFA. When they announced it was going to be $250, I predicted…. You can go look. I did a video for you, Premier, just to make it easy, saying: “Actually, it will end up costing more than double. That’s my prediction.”

And what happened? Oh, they quietly released on Friday…. What are the new, updated numbers from the FIFA budget that taxpayers are going to have to pay? More than double. I’m pretty happy with that prediction. That went pretty well.

What about short-term rentals? I warned them. I said: “Okay. I know it’s hard, but you people don’t know what you’re doing, and there are going to be unintended consequences.” I will just give you an example.

Interjection.

K. Falcon: Okay, you didn’t like me calling you “people.” Okay.

The left. The left didn’t understand the unintended consequences of the decision they were making. I pointed out that just in the Parksville-Qualicum area, there are going to be dramatic negative impacts. They’re going to have to fix it. I predicted that. It’s on the news. You can see it. You can see the quote. And what happened? Oh by gosh, they had to come up and make amendments and changes, not even months after they introduced the bill.

I also warned them that when they have major events that come to the city, whether it’s FIFA or Taylor Swift, guess what’s going to happen? When there’s a limited number of hotel rooms and you’ve got a big supply of people coming…. Because they don’t understand fundamental supply and demand. I’ve tried to educate the Premier and the NDP on this, but they never get it. They don’t get it in housing. They don’t get it in gas prices. They don’t get it in short-term rentals.

What’s going to happen? Well, we’ve got a couple from Florida that found out that to stay a night at the Days Inn was over $2,000 a night. That’s what we get from these folks. When folks are coming from the north to get medical treatment in Vancouver, they’re going to discover that they’re going to be paying over $1,000 a night this summer. You watch what happens. I predicted it. You’ll see it happen. Then they will be jumping around and trying to point fingers and trying to pretend it wasn’t them. Well, that was another one that we called correctly.

How about Bill 12? We warned them about Bill 12. We said: “This is a disaster.” You’re bringing in something that exposes and expands the liability cost, and the impact will be massive across every business that tries to do business in the province of British Columbia. What did they do? That’s something that gets withdrawn the day after the Attorney General stood up and said there were going to be no changes made to that bill. Well, there’s another one.

I could keep going. CleanBC. Well, I love CleanBC. I call it kill B.C., of course, because that’s exactly what it’ll do. But CleanBC. This, again, not me. This is their own economic analysis. They actually paid a company and said: “Tell us what these wonderful plans we have are going to do to the province.” So they did. They said it would shrink the GDP by 10 percent, cost over 200,000 jobs and massively, massively impact any future investment in the province of British Columbia.

[8:40 p.m.]

Well, we called that one. I think that’s a pretty good record, but I do want to get back to the issue of seniors and crime, because of course, the Premier didn’t answer the question about what the impact…

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members.

K. Falcon: …is going to be on British Columbians when they try to order food. I can’t wait to see the rest of the regulations.

Back to the crime issue. Now, just to correct the record…. I know the Premier likes to talk about the pilot project that we brought in, called the prolific offender management program, that ran for two years and informed the best practices to be utilized in the justice system.

Now, this Premier likes to go after us on that successful pilot program, trying to imply that we cancelled it — cancelled. But I want to remind the Premier what he said about that when he was head of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. So between writing his book How to Sue the Police, he had an interesting comment on the prolific offender management program. He said, on October 25, 2011, in the Vancouver Sun: “We have serious concerns with the results of this program and are continuing to investigate the aggressive policing tactics.”

Well, that’s consistent with the sue-the-police mentality, always blaming the cops and the police. But the fact of the matter is seniors are still seeing a dramatic increase in crime — 82 percent increase in violent offences against seniors.

I want to share a story for the Premier. A 70-year-old victim was waiting for the SkyTrain at the Granville Station when he heard yelling behind him. Now, the senior, being a senior…. Unfortunately, over the last seven years, there’s lots of yelling and chaos and social disorder happening, so it’s easy for people to get used to people just yelling and screaming. But the senior stood there, and a stranger grabbed him from behind and violently pushed him.

According to police: “The force of the push caused the victim to hit the train head-first and fall to the ground.” After this horrific assault, the 70-year-old man was taken to the hospital with head and facial injuries which required surgery.

Now, the prolific offender, coming back to this Premier’s catch-and-release program, was a gentleman named Tyler Meetoos, who was arrested and then promptly released back into the community. Meetoos was already facing charges related to possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose. He had already been released from custody three times before this latest attack.

So a question for the Premier: why was Tyler Meetoos, a known offender, released multiple times before committing yet another violent crime against a defenceless senior?

Hon. D. Eby: The member has a checkered record of accuracy during these estimates. But I’ll agree with him on this: one attack against a senior is too many. And this horrific attack on this individual is beyond awful.

[8:45 p.m.]

I’ll get the details for the member, I’ll be better prepared to advise him to the best that I can on the specifics the next time we’re here, as I understand we’re going to seek leave to sit again.

I don’t take any comfort from the fact that violent stranger attacks are down 75 percent in Vancouver. That means people are still facing attacks, and we won’t rest until people are safe in the city to the best of our ability. It’s why we went to Ottawa, with Ontario, and pressured the federal government to fix the bail rules to make sure that violent repeat offenders wait for their trials behind bars.

It’s why we established the repeat offender program — the member can explain all he wants, but he cut the program — that tracks individuals that are causing an outsized amount of chaos, ensures that when they’re in front of the court, the full information is there and, importantly, recognizes that for a lot of these individuals, mental health is a key driver. If we can intervene, we can get them out of that cycle of committing an offence and back into jail, committing an offence and back into jail, and help them build a more productive life in our community, which is an important goal, I think.

Now, the member listed a whole pile of things that he felt he was right about. FIFA — he said the costs were higher. He’s right. Costs were higher than we originally projected. There are a number of reasons for that, including the celebration that we’re adding additional games in British Columbia, which is great news for soccer fans. And the renovations we’re doing at B.C. Place are being scoped to ensure that it can be used afterwards to expand convention space, which we’ve seen a huge demand for under our government.

The member says he was right about short-term rentals. Well, the member says that he has a better vision for short-term rentals, which is that people should be able to buy up strata buildings and buy up homes in neighbourhoods and rent them out as hotel rooms. He opposes our short-term….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: I can tell the member is sensitive about it because he starts heckling as soon as I mention this. He is very clear about his intention, which is that people looking for homes will be competing with those looking to buy places to use as short-term rentals.

If we hadn’t put those provisions in place, we wouldn’t be where we are now with 1,400 hotel rooms under development in Vancouver alone. Those 1,400 hotel rooms are where tourists should be staying, not in residential strata buildings in units that used to be a place for people to live but are now an unaccountable hotel room.

The member says he was right about public harms. Well, he’s right that he opposed that bill. And the commitment that I made to Carson Cleland’s family was that we would take every measure possible to hold these huge, multinational social media companies to account for their lack of accountability in terms of the online platforms they operate, where children gather — the lack of safety for kids like Carson.

We would not be where we are today at a table with the biggest Internet companies in the world, the biggest app companies, announcing things like expedited intimate image takedowns for British Columbians. No other province has that. Why do we have it? Because of Bill 12. The member opposed it. We wouldn’t have it if he was sitting on this side of the House.

The member talks about taxes. Here are the taxes that the member opposes. The new flipping tax to discourage speculators from driving up prices. The tax increase on big companies in the top 2 percent of income earners. He wants to cut their taxes. A luxury car tax. He wants to cut the luxury car tax. Tax on vaping products to discourage youth from vaping. The tobacco tax to fight smoking.

Here’s the situation for families in British Columbia when it comes to taxes compared to when he was in government….

The Chair: Noting the hour, Premier.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Chair.

A 38 percent net reduction for families with incomes of $100,000. A 56 percent net reduction for families with incomes of $80,000. A 98 percent net reduction for families earning $60,000. And for those $30,000 or less, who used to pay taxes, well, now they’re getting $2,420 back in their pocket.

Thank you, hon. Chair, for your patience with that.

I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:50 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — NAME AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2024

Bill 26, Name Amendment Act (No. 2), 2024, reported complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Now, hon. Speaker.

Bill 26, Name Amendment Act (No. 2), 2024, read a third time and passed.

BILL 21 — LEGAL PROFESSIONS ACT

Bill 21, Legal Professions Act, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Now, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: The question is third reading.

Division has been called.

[8:55 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.]

Bill 21, Legal Professions Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9:04 p.m.