British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, February 19, 2020, p.m., Issue 309 (41st Parliament, 5th Session)
20200219pm-House-Blues
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Fifth Session, 41st Parliament
(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 309
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
Routine Business
Introductions by Members
Introduction and First Reading of
Bills
Bill 7 — Arbitration Act
Hon. D. Eby
Statements (Standing Order 25B)
Positive Living B.C. society
S. Chandra Herbert
B.C. Winter Games in Fort St. John
D. Davies
Primary care network in Burnaby
R. Chouhan
Early hearing program
L. Reid
Maxwell Johnson Sr.
J. Rice
Seatbelts on school buses
L. Throness
Oral Questions
Response to protests supporting Wet’suwet’en
Hereditary Chiefs
S. Bond
Hon. M. Farnworth
Parliamentary secretary purchase of training from
Organize B.C.
M. de Jong
Hon. M. Farnworth
Government action on climate change and economic
plan
A. Olsen
Hon. G. Heyman
Response to protests supporting Wet’suwet’en
Hereditary Chiefs and role of Environment Minister
J. Johal
Hon. M. Farnworth
Response to protests supporting Wet’suwet’en
Hereditary Chiefs and NDP position on LNG development
E. Ross
Hon. M. Farnworth
Hon. S. Fraser
Orders of the Day
Budget Debate
(continued)
S. Bond
A. Olsen
T. Stone
Hon. M. Mark
M. Bernier
N. Simons
M. Morris
Hon. L. Beare
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2020
The House met at 1:36 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: N. Letnick.
Introductions by Members
Hon. A. Dix: Today is, in fact, B.C. Care Providers Day, as was referred to in such
a beautiful way by the member for Kelowna–Lake Country. We have guests here
from the B.C. Care Providers Association, and over the lunch hour, many
people on both sides of the House, all sides of the House, met with the care
providers.
I want to introduce today my friend Aly Devji, the board president of
the B.C. Care Providers Association; Daniel Fontaine, the CEO; Mike Klassen,
the vice-president, public affairs; care aide Jill Huckin, who is here — we
were acknowledging the extraordinary work of care aides and community health
workers; Terra Munro, a community health worker; Nicole Conley, a care aide;
Lisa Mackenzie, a care aide; and Cathy Szmaus, the vice-president,
operations, of the B.C. Care Providers Association.
There are three pharmacists, believe it or not — Parm Johal, Jason
Cridge and Greg Wheeler — who all came to join me, and all work in the
sector as well.
I hope everyone in the House gives our guests a great welcome
today.
T. Wat: It is a great pleasure to rise in the House to welcome my daughter
Tin, my son-in-law Terry and my two lovely and adorable grandsons Andre and
Ashton to this House.
This is the first time that my daughter’s family is in Victoria. We
spent Family Day walking around beautiful Victoria, looking at Chinatown, at
the Legislature. They’re going to be here until tomorrow, and they will go
back to Vancouver and then back to Asia, where my daughter is now, and where
my son-in-law is working. I wish to share my joy with you — the pride of
being a grandma of two. I’m so proud of Tin and Terry for raising two such
healthy and lovely grandsons for me.
Family brings love and joy, and they will be there for you during the
good times and the bad times. I wish…. Every one of us, I’m sure, agrees
with me that family is most important. That’s why we are here, all working
so hard day after day — because we all want to put family first.
Please join me in welcoming Tin, Terry, Ashton and Andre to this
House.
L. Reid: On behalf of the official opposition, I’d like to recognize some
individuals representing B.C. care providers. To Aly, to Michael, to Daniel:
it is a quality of life that seniors are offered in our province, and we’re
ever so grateful to have them with us today. Thank you.
I. Paton: Today I actually have three introductions. One has already been
mentioned by the Minister of Health. My good friend and my neighbour Aly
Devji is here today representing the B.C. Care Providers.
[1:40 p.m.]
On another note, I have a group of lovely ladies from south Delta that
are here today. They belong to a club called the Newcomers club, which is
right across Canada. They represent Ladner, Tsawwassen and Point Roberts.
They welcome new people into the community, and they meet with them and fill
them in on different things in the community. They’ve taken a bus trip today
to the Legislature.
Thank you for coming, and enjoy your lunch in the dining
room.
Finally, I noticed — I’m not sure why he’s here — a prominent dairy
farming family in Abbotsford. Mr. Bud Dykshoorn is here with his
wife.
Welcome, Bud.
Please welcome all my guests today.
Hon. R. Fleming: All members will join me in recognizing that Science World plays an
incredibly important role for the teaching profession in British Columbia,
for inspiring young people right across British Columbia. It’s helping to
open doors and expand the hopes and minds of young people to pursue advanced
education and careers in science and technology.
Joining us in the gallery today are three community leaders from
Science World. Janet Wood serves as interim president and CEO of Science
World, where she’s focused on driving Science World’s mission to expand
STEAM learning throughout our province. With her are Nancy Roper and Nolan
Charles. Nancy is the vice-president of development, at Science World. Nolan
Charles is a board member at Science World and has served as a council
member for the Musqueam Indian Band for the last 22 years.
I would ask the House to make these three individuals most welcome
here today and to welcome them into the precinct.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 7 — ARBITRATION ACT
Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the
Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Arbitration Act.
Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time
now.
I’m pleased to introduce the Arbitration Act. This bill repeals
and replaces British Columbia’s domestic Arbitration Act. It will
modernize British Columbia’s domestic arbitration regime and achieve
greater harmony with the International Commercial Arbitration Act,
benefiting business parties, legal counsel and arbitrators.
British Columbia’s domestic Arbitration Act has not had major
revisions in more than 30 years. Many of its provisions are outdated and
no longer reflect best arbitration practices.
In 2017, government requested recommendations for domestic
arbitration reform from a group of leading arbitration practitioners —
the then Attorney General’s arbitration advisory group. We continued
that work, and I would like to thank this group for the many hours of
work they put into this project. This bill is based on their
recommendations.
Family law arbitration has some similarities to commercial
arbitration, but there are significant differences. The provisions
related to family law arbitration are being moved into the Family Law
Act. Generally, the policy underlying family law arbitration is being
retained using updated language that aligns with the new Arbitration Act
provisions. A separate advisory group of family law arbitrators and
practitioners has provided recommendations to government regarding the
move.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second
reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 7, Arbitration Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to
be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the
House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
POSITIVE LIVING B.C. SOCIETY
S. Chandra Herbert: It was a time when silence equalled death. It was a time when you
had to act up. Otherwise, you’d be forgotten. It was a time when this
Legislature was debating quarantining people living with HIV/AIDS,
primarily gay men. The remark at the time was: “Put them away on an
island to die.”
Out of that time came remarkable things, remarkable people
standing up to make incredible differences. Out of that time was born an
organization which is marking its closure this year, sadly, but also
marking its closure with pride because they fulfilled their
mission.
I speak of what began as the B.C. Persons with AIDS Coalition,
which became B.C. Persons with Aids Society, which became Positive
Living B.C. This organization, started by Kevin Brown and a team of
volunteers and true, active community supporters, first found
themselves, out of AIDS Vancouver, working together.
[1:45 p.m.]
They faced such hatred and discrimination, including from their
own government, that they had to be more active. They had to step out of
the confines of AIDS Vancouver and find their voice as people living
with AIDS. Their mantra, “Nothing about us, without us,” has, of course,
been taken by so many to find change and really has changed our health
care system that we see today.
They were the founders of some of the first major fundraising
walks, the AIDS walk, which for a long time was the place to be to find
solidarity, to raise money, to support those living with the horrible
illness that HIV/AIDS was at the time.
They were the founders and the advocates who put the pressure on
governments to change how they treated people living with HIV/AIDS. That
led to the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and the incredible
work of Dr. Julio Montaner, which has changed the face of AIDS across
the entire world and, in some ways, has led to the upcoming closure of
Positive Living B.C. Because AIDS has changed, there are now people
living full, supported lives as healthy individuals embraced by their
communities.
I want to thank everybody who put their time, their life, their
money behind Positive Living B.C., BCPWA. You made a difference. You
made a better world. Thank you.
B.C. WINTER GAMES IN FORT ST. JOHN
D. Davies: I’m very excited, as are the constituents of Peace River North as
well as the host community of Fort St. John, to be welcoming the 2020
B.C. Winter Games, set to start tomorrow. The B.C. Winter Games date
back to 1978, when the first winter games were hosted in Penticton,
bringing together athletes to one grand event in the name of sport and
competition. The games would continue to be hosted every year until
1997, when it was changed to every second year.
In March of 1984, Fort St. John was also honoured to host the B.C.
Winter Games in our community. The opening ceremonies took place at the
North Peace Rec Centre, as they will again tomorrow. It consisted of the
parade of athletes, coaches, officials, torchbearer members and the
official opening by the then Premier, Bill Bennett. I was honoured to be
a much younger volunteer at those games in 1984. I might have even had
hair.
This year Fort St. John is again making history for the first time
in the B.C. Winter Games. Long-track speed skating will be included as
an event in the 2020 games. Generally, long-track speed skating is held
outdoors on speed skating ovals, and unfortunately, due to the
unpredictable weather, they are never included in the games. But this
year, due to the only indoor speed skating official track in the
province of British Columbia, history is being made by hosting this
event.
As a volunteer myself again, proudly wearing this lanyard today, I
would like to take time to welcome all of the athletes that will be
arriving, starting today, into Fort St. John, as well as quickly thank
the board of directors. Of course, these games could not be carried out
without their incredible dedication. The president, Darren Snider,
supported by Dee-Ann Stickel, Pat Lang, Tony Zabinsky, Margaret May,
Patricia Sagert, Lynette Cordonier, Kendra Delitche, Judy Neumeier,
Jennifer Moore, Neil Evans, Stephanie Giesbrecht, Heather McCracken,
Curtis Redpath, Angela Telford and Cindy Dettling, as well as the
thousands of volunteers that are making these games an event to remember
for all British Columbians.
PRIMARY CARE NETWORK IN BURNABY
R. Chouhan: Last Friday my colleagues from Burnaby North, Deer Lake and I met
with three doctors: Dr. Baldev Sanghera, Dr. David Wong and Dr. Lindsay
McCaffrey. They are the leading doctors who spearheaded the
establishment of the primary care network and the urgent primary care
centre in Burnaby.
A big thank-you to our Minister of Health for his vision and full
support for this project.
Given the time constraints, today I will talk only about the
primary care network. Burnaby was one of the first five communities to
take on developing a primary care network. Burnaby’s model is unique in
several ways. It is strongly focused on bolstering and improving access
to high-quality longitudinal care and wellness. In this project, the
community is a true partner. It has equal decision-making roles at the
Burnaby-wide governing tables.
Planned incubator clinics in each neighbourhood are intended to
bring new physicians to Burnaby, train them to practise in a team
environment and work in partnership with the community agencies. In the
relatively early stages, Burnaby’s primary care network has developed a
chronic disease management program that targets mild-to-moderate stages
in a way that hasn’t been done before.
[1:50 p.m.]
Its mild-to-moderate mental health program provides patients in
Burnaby with access to services that have been identified as critical
for ongoing health and crisis prevention at an early stage by family
doctors and agencies in the community.
Its patient attachment mechanism is actively finding family
doctors for people identified through the urgent primary care centre,
through community agencies and through family doctors and clinics in the
community.
These are just some of the highlights of this great project.
Thanks to our doctors and the community partners for their hard work and
vision to take care of the residents of Burnaby.
EARLY HEARING PROGRAM
L. Reid: I was delighted to celebrate a significant milestone on February
7, 2020, with the original steering committee of the B.C. early hearing
program, comprised of Laurie Usher, Ann Marie Newroth, Susan Lane, Janet
Jamieson, Anne Caulfield, Fred Kozak and Dr. Dana Brynelson.
The program announcement that they made that day was that 5,000
British Columbia newborn babies have been successfully screened. This
world-class program has done remarkable work. Please join me in thanking
these amazing professionals for the work they do to support B.C.
families.
The room at B.C. Children’s Hospital was an exciting place to
recognize this wonderful achievement. I can share with many ministers
back in the day that to see a program that you were, in fact,
responsible for come to life and actually have a huge milestone to
celebrate warms my heart.
The B.C. early hearing program is a provincewide program for early
hearing screening and intervention. Babies start to learn speech and
language from the moment they are born. If your baby can’t hear well, he
or she may have problems learning to talk and to develop language
skills.
About one of every 300 babies is born with hearing loss in one or
both ears. This number increases for babies who require special care at
birth. It is not easy to identify when a young baby has a hearing loss
by simply watching his or her behaviour. Without early screening, many
babies with hearing loss go undetected.
While you’re in the hospital, you’ll be offered hearing screening
for your baby. A trained hearing screener conducts the test. The test
uses quick, simple and safe methods to check the hearing of a newborn
babe. If your baby is not screened in the hospital, screening can be
done at your closest public health screening clinic.
For information about the B.C. early hearing program, visit the
website at www.phsa.ca/earlyhearing or call 1-866-612-2347. The babies
of this province deserve our care.
MAXWELL JOHNSON SR.
J. Rice: I want to talk about a good soul, a general all-around good guy:
Maxwell Johnson Sr. Maxwell is someone who stands up to care for those
who have no one else. He looks after his two grandchildren full-time,
and he recently adopted his grandnephew to keep him out of provincial
care.
Community members describe him as kind, generous and funny. He
cares deeply for his community and First Nations people. He has suffered
a lot of trauma and mental health issues, but he perseveres despite all
that to be in service to and advocate for others.
He grew up with his grandmother, but she never spoke about their
Heiltsuk culture. “She was quiet about it,” he says. People were scared
of going to jail, because they were not allowed to talk about it. In the
’90s, Maxwell started learning about his culture, and he discovered art.
Today he is a cultural leader who has dedicated many years to
revitalizing Heiltsuk art, songs, dance and ceremony.
“I teach my kids and grandkids to never be ashamed of where you
come from. Never be ashamed of who you are,” he says. He told me: “I
don’t want to be in the forefront. I was taught to be in the background.
I don’t like the attention.”
What a shock it must have been to be put in the forefront of a
recent controversy around racial profiling. Maxwell was handcuffed along
with his 12-year-old granddaughter after trying to open a bank account
with an Indian Status card. Today in Bella Bella, hosted by the Heiltsuk
Tribal Council and the Heiltsuk hereditary leadership, a traditional
purification or washing ceremony will be held for Maxwell and his
family. He didn’t deserve this treatment. But sadly, it’s still all too
common for Indigenous people today.
Today I want to raise my hands up to this kind and selfless soul,
to a person who exemplifies leadership, commitment to family and
community — qualities we all value.
Today I just want to say: “Maxwell, I see you.”
[1:55 p.m.]
SEATBELTS ON SCHOOL BUSES
L. Throness: Recently I introduced a private member’s bill to require seatbelts
on school buses beginning in 2021. But good things are happening right
now.
Last week the federal government announced a pilot project to
install seatbelts in school buses in three communities across Canada,
including one yet to be named in B.C. That’s an improvement, but in the
Fraser Valley, we’re already way ahead of the federal government.
Several months ago school district 78, part of which is in my riding,
purchased three new school buses equipped with seatbelts. I want to
thank Doug Templeton, director of facilities and transportation,
for giving me a preliminary report.
The district explored the cost of retrofitting buses and, for
reasons related to warranty and cost, decided to put them only in new
buses for about $17,000 more per bus. After some site demonstrations and
notices to parents, the new buses went into service at the end of
January. The implementation has been seamless, because students are
already familiar with the mandatory use of seatbelts in every other
vehicle they travel in.
In addition, seatbelts tend to keep students from moving around
from seat to seat while the bus is operating, which helps to minimize
risk and reduce concerns about supervision. The district has not heard
one complaint from passengers or parents to date or any negative
response to the seatbelts. In fact, a bus driver on another route has
asked why his bus doesn’t have seatbelts.
With or without a law, the Fraser Valley is lighting the way
toward the highest student safety at lowest cost. I’d like to
congratulate the board of trustees of district 78 and superintendent
Karen Nelson, who, sadly, will be retiring this fall, for bringing this
historic improvement to school bus safety to our province.
Hopefully, other school districts in B.C. — and who knows, maybe
even the federal government itself — will follow our lead.
Oral Questions
RESPONSE TO PROTESTS SUPPORTING
WET’SUWET’EN HEREDITARY
CHIEFS
S. Bond: Day after day, we continue to watch as illegal blockades are
having a devastating impact on the livelihood and lives of British
Columbians and Canadians. In fact, we’ve just learned that, as we speak,
there is a blockade on a rail line near Spruce Grove, Alberta, stopping
all rail traffic west to Prince Rupert and Vancouver.
Yesterday the Sierra Club of British Columbia issued a statement
in solidarity with “resistance and blockades.” This is an organization
that the Minister of Environment knows well. Not only is he their former
executive director, but he’s met with them regularly over the past two
years.
With that in mind, will the minister stand up today and denounce
those that promote and participate in the illegal protests that are
wreaking havoc across our province?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. This is a serious issue here
— not just in British Columbia but, in fact, right across the country —
that our government and the federal government, along with other
provinces, are trying to resolve in a way that gets the trains moving in
this country and eliminates rail blocks wherever they are.
As we have also said, people in this country and this province
have a right to peaceful protest. We support that. We do not support
illegal protests. We do not support illegal blockages. That’s the
position of this government, and I would hope that would be the position
of the opposition.
I think I’ve made it really clear, Member. We do not support
illegal demonstrations, illegal blockages. That’s why our government is
working closely with the federal government to bring a resolution to the
dispute, not just here in British Columbia but, indeed, in the other
parts of the country.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a
supplemental.
S. Bond: I appreciate the comments from the Solicitor General. I just want
to reassure him that our position on this matter has been very clear
from day one.
What is at question today is the relationship between the Minister
of Environment, who has an opportunity to stand up and to make a comment
today, and an organization of which he was the executive
director.
Let’s see what else the Sierra Club….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, if we may hear the question.
[2:00 p.m.]
S. Bond: Let’s see what else the Sierra Club had to say. Yesterday they
described the B.C. Supreme Court decision to extend Coastal GasLink’s
injunction order as having “perpetuated violence against Wet’suwet’en
people.” Last week they repeatedly tweeted out #shutdownCanada. These
statements in opposition to the court and the rule of law are simply
wrong.
The Minister of Environment has a chance today to stand up and
send a message to the people he meets with regularly. Will he denounce
the Sierra Club and those who are seeking to maximize the disruption of
B.C.’s economy and daily life?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ve got to say that I find it really fascinating that the
opposition, at a time when this province, other provinces and the
federal government are trying to find a peaceful resolution to what is a
very serious issue in this province and across this country, wants to
try and cast aspersions on a member of this government who has done
nothing since his arrival here but to protect the interests of this
province.
This government…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order, please.
Hon. M. Farnworth: …has been clear from the beginning and speaks with one voice.
While we support the right of peaceful protest, we do not support
illegal blockages. That’s why we continue to work with the federal
government. That’s why we work with other provinces. That’s why we work
with First Nations — to ensure that we can bring a resolution to this
issue that works for this province and all Canadians.
PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY PURCHASE OF
TRAINING FROM
ORGANIZE B.C.
M. de Jong: I think it is a sad day when a minister of the Crown, the Minister
of Environment, refuses to denounce the activities of a group that is
showing a blatant disrespect for the rule of law simply because they’re
political friends of his.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
M. de Jong: Organize B.C. is another group dedicated to the training of
ongoing blockades. One of their trainers was an organizer of last week’s
activities here at the Legislature and the subsequent attempt at a B.C.
government shutdown. Another individual trainer is a former NDP
candidate from Ontario who is actively organizing actions with
350.org.
That, apparently, is not all they do. Apparently, they also
provide training, at taxpayer’s expense, to the Parliamentary Secretary
for TransLink, the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale, or her staff.
That’s what the receipt shows.
Can the Minister of Housing, to whom the parliamentary secretary
presumably reports, explain why her parliamentary secretary is using
public money to get training from a group that seems dedicated to the
disrespect of the rule of law and grinding the Canadian economy to a
halt?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: For that specific question the member asked, I will take that on
notice.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.
M. de Jong: The Minister of Environment has already made it clear that he
refuses to denounce friends of his who are showing a disrespect for the
rule of law.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
M. de Jong: The Minister of Housing doesn’t want to, apparently, discuss her
parliamentary secretary’s involvement with another activist organization
that’s up to its eyeballs in promoting a blockade and disrespect for the
rule of law.
[2:05 p.m.]
Look, if members opposite want to be activists, then leave this
place and go back to being an activist. But when you’re here, maybe you
can do your job, do your duty and show some respect for the rule of
law.
Again, to the member…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the question.
M. de Jong: …to whom the parliamentary secretary, the member for North
Vancouver–Lonsdale, presumably reports, how much public money has been
spent and provided to this organization that is today, apparently,
dedicated to the disruption of the entire Canadian economy and putting
thousands of British Columbians out of work, and will she stand up and
do a relatively straightforward thing and announce unequivocally that no
more public money will be sent to this organization?
Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said a moment ago in response to the member’s first question,
we’ll take that on notice and get the appropriate information for
him.
I have to say that I find it deeply, deeply disturbing
that…
Interjections.
[Mr. Speaker rose.]
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order.
[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: …at a time in this province and, in particular, this nation, when
this province, other provincial governments and the federal government
are trying to find a resolution, a peaceful resolution to what is a
serious situation which we have seen all too often in the past in this
country can lead to extremely unfortunate and violent situations
sometimes…. To find a peaceful resolution….
One would expect that the opposition would understand that their
role, while, sure, is to criticize, is not to try and inflame a
situation, is not to cast aspersions on people who are doing their jobs,
their sworn oath in upholding the rules of this province, in this
House.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Instead, they might want to be part of the solution as opposed to
the problem in this province.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CLIMATE
CHANGE AND ECONOMIC
PLAN
A. Olsen: Budget 2020 had some interesting things to say about
competitiveness, specifically: “A key goal is to ensure that B.C.’s
leadership on climate change does not materially impair B.C.’s business
competitiveness.”
For many B.C. industries, this might be a good policy, as long as
we are making strategic investments in innovation. However, this
argument falls completely, entirely apart when this government uses it
to justify LNG and oil and gas sector expansion in our province. Another
way of saying that we won’t “materially impair” competitiveness is that
we will ensure that the oil and gas sector in B.C. is able to
expand.
My question is for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Strategy. How does the government reconcile its legislated requirement
to meet its GHG reduction targets with policies that promote the
expansion of the oil and gas sector in British Columbia?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, if we may hear the response.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Heyman: To the member from Abbotsford, that’s not a bad idea.
[2:10 p.m.]
I thank the interim Leader of the Third Party for the question. I
think the member knows well that we have a leading, if not the leading,
climate plan in North America, and the member knows that because we
collaborated with the Green caucus in its preparation.
A fundamental underpinning of the CleanBC plan is to invest in
people, to invest in clean energy, to invest in emission reduction in
industry and to invest in a range of things that make life better for
British Columbians, more affordable for British Columbians and cleaner
for British Columbians.
Budget 2020 put an additional investment of $419 million, for a
total investment of $1.3 billion over a four-year time frame. That’s
significant. But as I believe the member knows, we all understand that
moving toward a net-zero carbon future in the world, in British Columbia
and in Canada is a process of transition.
It is not helpful…. That is why the member knows that we focused
on helping emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries to do everything
they can to reduce emissions so we don’t simply displace B.C. jobs with
greater emissions in other jurisdictions.
Our CleanBC incentive program for industry does that by rewarding
companies and industries that have world-leading low-carbon-intensity
processes. Our industry fund also invests in diversifying B.C.’s tech
sector and applying that to reducing emissions throughout B.C.’s
traditional industries as well as creating technologies that can be used
here in B.C. and exported elsewhere, helping to build B.C.’s economy and
diversify it.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
A. Olsen: Yes, absolutely, the B.C. Green caucus was very happy to
participate and provide ideas for CleanBC. Unfortunately, it should be
the program that we’re using going forward rather than being used to
provide the basis for the expansion of the fossil fuel
industry.
That’s exactly what my questions are about. Building a low-carbon
innovative economy won’t happen overnight. It also won’t happen if we’re
not aligning the types of policies that will support the type of
innovation that will get us there.
We can’t do both things. We can’t say that we’re in a transition
while also investing taxpayer money into LNG. This is especially true
with programs like CleanBC’s industrial incentive program, which the
minister mentioned. When it’s used as a loophole that allows the fossil
fuel sector to actually expand in this province, we’re moving further
away from the transition, not closer.
To the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, how do we
justify policies that subsidize fossil fuel development in British
Columbia by returning a share of their carbon tax when this is actually
allowing them to expand their operations in British Columbia?
Hon. G. Heyman: To the member, I’ve explained the principle behind the CleanBC
industrial incentive, whether it applies to the gas industry, the
metallurgical coal industry, the aluminum industry or the pulp and paper
industry. We don’t see a successful climate plan in B.C. being one that
sheds jobs while not creating new jobs and diversifying our economy.
That is at the fundamental root of the incentive program.
I don’t need to talk to the member about carbon leakage, because
he understands that climate change is a global issue.
I won’t leave it to the member or to me to make the final
determination. That’s why we introduced amendments to the Climate Change
Accountability Act. That’s why we established an independent council,
which has recently been appointed, to both give us advice about how we
can reduce emissions while promoting a healthy economy and reducing
emissions in B.C.’s traditional resource industries and also to comment
independently to the public on how we’re doing every single
year.
RESPONSE TO PROTESTS SUPPORTING
WET’SUWET’EN HEREDITARY
CHIEFS
AND ROLE OF ENVIRONMENT MINISTER
J. Johal: On January 30, 2018, the Environment Minister attended an
anti-pipeline strategy group meeting on Bowen Island. In attendance were
Karen Mahon, Mike Hudema, Sven Biggs and Tzeporah Berman of Stand.earth,
all who today are encouraging illegal blockades to “shut down
Canada.”
[2:15 p.m.]
Two years ago the minister refused to answer this question. Will
he now disavow the statements of his friends that support conflict and
illegal activity?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the response from the Solicitor
General and Minister of Public Safety.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Once again, I find it really surprising that an opposition, at
this particular point in what’s facing us right now as a nation — not
just here in British Columbia, right across this country — wants to try
and drag people and wants to try and tear down individuals. They’re
saying: “Oh, you once worked with this organization. You once worked
with this group.” Well, it’s kind of interesting that they’re doing
that.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d like to remind them, because they asked the questions…. They
talked about the Sierra Club, and I’d like to remind them that they
worked with the Sierra Club. They worked with the Sierra Club in
December 2016 for new regulations about the Great Bear Rainforest. They
worked with them in 2016 on new legislation on forest
management.
They clearly didn’t have any problem working with an organization
back then, but now, because they think that they can try and somehow
score cheap political points, somehow that’s okay. The double
standard…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: …of that opposition is beyond belief, and we see it on issue after
issue. On one day, it’s: “Let’s get rid of ICBC. We need private
competition.” The next day they’re saying: “Oh my god. Condo owners are
having a problem. Get in and interfere with the market.” That’s why
they’re sitting there. They bring nothing positive to the debate
in this chamber.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a
supplemental.
J. Johal: I want to remind the minister that these radical activists have
blocked B.C. Ferries. They’ve blocked this Legislature. They’ve blocked
rail lines. They’ve blocked companies. They were sitting outside of the
Premier’s home just yesterday as well.
We will stand up for law and order — unlike that side.
It’s a very simple question to answer.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, order, please. We shall hear the question. Thank
you.
J. Johal: This is a very easy question to answer. The minister will not get
up and answer.
Let me remind the minister of the Bowen Island strategy group
document that we revealed to this House two years ago. It describes a
structure of hives and swarms that are “organized to seize a specific
political moment and support mass popular resistance.”
For two years now, the Environment Minister normalized discussions
with radicals who want to shut down Canada’s resource industry. Will he
now explicitly denounce this mass resistance and declare support for
Coastal GasLink’s project?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll take no lessons on standing up for law and order from the
party of Basi and Virk, from the party of triple delete. I’ll also
tell….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall have order, please.
Hon. M. Farnworth: When it comes to law and order, I will also remind the member that
the police have a very difficult job to do in this province. I will
trust their judgment in dealing with these situations as opposed to
having an opposition that would, on the basis of their statements,
direct and tell how law and order should be done.
Interjections.
[2:20 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We have made it clear. We have made it clear as a government that
speaks with one voice. Lawful protest is tolerated. Unlawful protest is
just that — illegal. That’s also why….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, I really do find it fascinating that at a time when the
Prime Minister and the federal government, the Premier of this province
and our government, Premiers in other provinces, First Nations, the RCMP
are trying to find a way to deal with a very complex situation that
impacts this province and this country, all we have is an opposition
that wants to try and score cheap political points. We’re working to fix
things. They’re working to stay on the other side of that
aisle.
RESPONSE TO PROTESTS SUPPORTING
WET’SUWET’EN HEREDITARY
CHIEFS
AND NDP POSITION ON LNG DEVELOPMENT
E. Ross: Inflame the situation. It’s too late for that. Members on that
side already did it. We’re not the ones that signed anti-LNG
declarations. That side of the House did it. We’re not the ones that
made comments to destabilize elected band councils in B.C. Members on
that side made those statements. You helped this issue, and now you
claim to be the ones to fix it.
Right now there are activist organizations that want to keep
Indigenous people below the poverty line through misinformation and
manipulation. Nobody has gone to meet with these elected band councils
to hear their story.
Illegal protests are aimed at shutting down opportunities that my
band has fought for since 2004. In fact, it was my band that brought the
LNG opportunity to this Legislature. It was Christy Clark that finally
listened to us and said: “Okay. We’ll look at it. We’ll follow up for
you.” But all we get is posturing and politics from a government that
historically has been playing both sides of this issue, and stuck in the
middle are average Aboriginals.
My question is to the Environment Minister. Will he denounce the
eco-colonialist actions of these radical groups and get Canada back on
track?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. Nobody on this side of
the House supports illegal demonstrations or blockages. We have made
that clear. And the police are doing their job on that.
I’d also like to remind the member that it was this side of the
House that brought that project to fruition. It’s this side of the House
that brought that project. From the very first day….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: From the very first day that that project was successfully
announced and delivered by this government, that side of the House did
not like that one little bit.
We recognized the opportunity that it brings to that member’s
riding. We recognized the opportunity that it brings for northern
British Columbia, to create training for Indigenous peoples, to create
apprenticeship opportunities, to create business opportunities. We want
it to succeed. That’s why we are working with the federal government,
other provinces, the RCMP, First Nations.
The Minister of Indigenous Relations was up in Wet’suwet’en
territory for….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, that attitude is exactly what is not needed. If we are
to find a solution, that means having dialogue with everybody involved
to get a resolution to that. We’re committed to that. They’re clearly
not.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Skeena on a supplemental.
[2:25 p.m.]
E. Ross: It’s true. Your government brought this to fruition, but you did
none of the heavy lifting. In fact, in the 15 years of consultation and
accommodation on all the LNG projects in B.C., you aligned yourselves
with the environmental activists. It’s in Hansard . All your
statements that you made in an emergency debate in the summer of — what
was it? — 2015…. Everything you said is on the record.
You also mentioned going out to meet with the Hereditary Chiefs. I
asked this question the last time: how many of you, at the same time,
went to visit elected Chiefs — who are not bad people, who have been
demonized in the press, who have been destabilized because of remarks
that came from that side of the House? Now you want to try and fix the
situation. What was the remark that was said? You’ve got…. It’s
important to remember that elected band councils are “a construct of the
Indian Act meant to annihilate the Indian.” Who said that? Put your hand
up.
For the first time in our history, communities like mine can make
decisions for ourselves to deal with our own issues on our own terms.
Instead, all we get are condescending platitudes from the likes of
Tzeporah Berman and other activist friends of the Environment
Minister.
This time it’s going to be a simple question to the Environment
Minister. Whose side are you on?
Hon. S. Fraser: Of course, we are facing a very serious situation in…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. S. Fraser: …this province, in this country. As has been mentioned already, we
support the right of peaceful protest, but the disruption of the
country’s rail systems and infrastructure has a serious impact on the
economy and on people’s lives. We all get that, and we all need to be
working together.
There is a project that has received its permits and has its
environmental assessment process in place, spanning two governments. The
project is underway. We are working to try to de-escalate the issues
that are before us.
It was mentioned that I’ve travelled up to meet with the
Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs. It’s more than once.
I’m working closely with my federal counterpart, Minister Bennett.
I met with her on Monday. We’ve offered up both of ourselves to be there
at the drop of a hat to de-escalate, to deal with these issues. We were
able to work with the Gitxsan Hereditary Chief, Norman Stephens, who had
made that wonderful offer which we accepted. Through dialogue, we were
able to de-escalate the rail blockade near New Hazelton, and I
want to thank Hereditary Chief Norman Stephens for that show of good
faith.
That’s the kind of work we need to do to overcome these serious
issues, not the acrimony that’s going back and forth and trying to cast
blame where there may be no blame.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call debate on the budget.
[2:30 p.m.]
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Budget Debate
(continued)
S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to continue making some remarks about the
budget that the government tabled yesterday. As designated speaker, I don’t
plan to take hours to continue this discussion. I know there are lots of
people….
Interjections.
S. Bond: I really appreciate my colleagues’ enthusiasm across the way. Not so
much on my own side. Did you hear that?
I want to begin again. We’re going to take a little bit of time to
reflect on what was announced yesterday and, probably more importantly in
many ways, what was not captured in the budget.
This is the time in the Legislature where people have the opportunity
to stand up and express their views. There will be very different views
about the budget that’s been presented for British Columbians. We have very
strong views about the approach that was taken, and I’m sure the members
opposite will stand up in large numbers to support and defend their budget.
That’s what one would expect.
I wanted to, on a more personal note, mention again my appreciation to
the minister. I think one of the things that I’m always surprised about in
this Legislature is that no matter how long you’ve been here, you often
don’t really know very much about each other.
I appreciated the Minister of Finance and how she characterized her
speech remarks. She talked about her family. She talked about the kinds of
values that shape and drive the decision-making that she has. All of us
bring with us those values that shape the thinking we do.
The minister reflected on the fact that she’s a mother and a
grandmother. So am I, and I can tell you, when I look at the speech and the
budget that’s been tabled, that while we’re looking at exactly the same
document, we come away with very different feelings and impressions about
what that means for the future of British Columbia. I think that’s an
important part of what we do in this place. I do, however, recognize that
those values result in differences in opinion. Budget 2020 is a very good
example of an approach that we have very significant concerns
about.
As I noted yesterday, British Columbians need to be asking themselves
a pretty critical question. This is a government that’s talked, consistently
and regularly, about affordability. I don’t think there’s an elected
official in this House that doesn’t think that British Columbia needs to be
more affordable for families.
As I said yesterday and today, most people have no idea that a budget
has been tabled in this province. But it’s going to have implications for
them. Most people are just trying to take care of their family, just trying
to find a way to make things a little bit easier. I think we owe it to
British Columbians to actually take a hard look at the budget.
I know that at times it gets uncomfortable in this place, but let’s be
clear. Our job is to look with a critical eye at what has been presented to
British Columbians and to ask some hard questions. That’s what we’re going
to do. Not just today and in the days of debate that lie ahead, every critic
is going to ask ministers of the Crown exactly what they intend to be doing
in their ministries. A little bit later, I’ll go through a bit of a
list.
One of the untold parts of the story that the Minister of Finance left
out of her discussion yesterday was that there are ministries, and a large
number of them, that have had their budgets cut or frozen.
[2:35 p.m.]
We heard about the big spending plans — and there is some big spending
going on — but we didn’t hear about the ministries that, in fact, will have
their budgets cut or frozen. I think British Columbians need to know that
side of the story as well.
Yesterday the minister laid out the story of how this budget is going
to help families, help British Columbians. Let me share the story of one
British Columbian who responded almost immediately after the budget was
tabled yesterday. I’ll tell you this: I don’t know this British Columbian,
but I was pretty compelled by her story.
It was a story that CBC News told. I quote from that article, because
I think it’s time we had an honest conversation about the whole
affordability agenda of this government. Here’s what the
article says:
“While government MLAs clapped and thumped their desks in Victoria during
the budget speech Tuesday, many facing affordability challenges said there
was little to cheer about.”
We didn’t hear any reference to the fact that there was little to
cheer about. Here’s what one New Westminster mother said: “For our personal
expenses, I don’t see a huge difference for our family.” Child care and
strata fees take a big bite out of this mom’s bank account. She said: “Life
is becoming less affordable.”
I don’t know her. I don’t know her name. I don’t know — she lives in
New Westminster — but here’s what she said. This is exactly why detailed
questions are important, because this government has had lots to say about
child care. You know what? Perhaps they should go and talk to some of those
families that it’s impacting on the ground.
Here’s one. This mom, who’s 37 years old, lives in New Westminster and
says that life is becoming less affordable. Here’s why. Last year the
daycare that this mom’s three-year-old daughter attends “qualified for
provincial funding that reduced fees by almost 10 percent.” Now, I’m sure
members opposite would be celebrating this story to that point, but the
story goes on: “But this year the daycare is upping its fees by 15 percent,
meaning that we’re going to be paying about $1,000 a month. So that’s more
expensive.”
Pretty straight mathematics. I use the story only to illustrate the
point of standing in the Legislature day after day — whether you’re in the
House or outside — and talking about affordability for all British
Columbians when, in fact, for many British Columbians, that is simply not
true.
She also goes on to say that she’s very disappointed that there’s “no
relief for strata homeowners in the budget. with news of big hikes to
insurance.” In this mom’s building, the price of insurance has nearly
tripled. That means her strata fees are going to go up $100 a
month.
Yesterday when we listened to the Finance Minister deliver her budget,
there was not a single word — not a mention — about the crisis related to
strata in British Columbia. Not a word. The
article goes on to say that this
mom is not alone. Here’s another quote: “Critics say many ordinary families
trying to keep their heads above water won’t get much help from this
budget.”
Members opposite may want to dismiss my words, and they often do. This
is a mom trying to figure out how she’s going to pay for her strata
increases and trying to figure out how the child care plan that was promised
by this government has disappeared. They can argue and try to capture it
however they want. I’ll talk, in just a couple of minutes, about child
care.
Perhaps the biggest concern I have….
[2:40 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the record today. Yesterday, in my
initial response to the budget, I said that there were 23 new and increased
taxes; there are actually 24. I want to make sure that the record is
correct, because I was amazed that from the time it took me to leave the
Legislature after my original remarks to get to my office, guess what. They
discovered a new tax, one that was just one of those little sneaky ones. You
see, I was actually quite surprised when I discovered the Netflix tax. Who
knew? Who knew that in British Columbia, British Columbians who enjoy using
Netflix are going to face the PST?
I definitely want to correct the record. What this government has done
since it has been sitting on that side of the House, about 2½ years or more
now…. They’ve increased or introduced 24 new taxes. Yesterday we didn’t even
hear about all of those taxes in the Finance Minister’s comments. So let’s
take a look at two of the taxes that…. You know, they’re just those little
ones that get tucked in the budget.
Let’s talk a little bit about the tax that’s been fondly dubbed the
Netflix tax. I can assure you…. I know that my colleagues on this side of
the House are hearing about it. I can virtually guarantee you that members
on that side of the House are going to hear about it. We look forward to a
bit more clarity about this tax during the estimates debate, but as we
understand it, a 7 percent PST will come into effect on July 1, 2020, for a
wide range of online media services. So to be fair, it’s not just about
Netflix. I don’t know about you, but certainly, as a grandma, I know that
Disney+ gets a lot of viewing in our house.
Let’s just look at some of the services, the video platforms, that
might be included: Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, Apple TV, Crave TV,
YouTube Premium. Oh, and we didn’t stop there. They didn’t stop there. It
includes music platforms as well, like Spotify and Google Music. So while I
was busy with my colleagues sorting out the 23 new and increased taxes,
there are actually 24.
I really look forward to the minister explaining her expectations
related to the other new tax that will be applied to all British Columbians.
It was called the carbonated sugary beverages tax. It’s not a new concept.
It’s been discussed and debated in British Columbia for a long time. The
most important question should be the efficacy of a tax. Does it work? I
look forward to the minister providing us with whatever best information she
has that would demonstrate that this tax is going to actually make a
difference other than taxing carbonated sugary beverages to gain revenue to
balance this minister’s budget.
Let’s look at the definition of the now fondly dubbed pop tax. Let’s
just see what that covers. Well, as we understand it, PST at a rate of 7
percent will be expanded to include all carbonated beverages that contain
sugar, natural sweeteners or artificial sweeteners. It applies to soda
drinks in both can and bottle form — including those purchased in stores,
kiosks, cafés, restaurants and vending machines — as well as soda drinks in
dispensable forms, such as soda fountains and soda guns. Think about those
small mom-and-pop organizations suddenly faced with another tax.
Today we’re not going to debate the merit of the health impacts of the
tax. We’ll wait to hear from the minister about what kind of homework she
did before looking at the revenue side of this equation. But let’s be clear
about one thing. The reason I raised those two taxes…. First of all, we need
British Columbians to recognize that the total number of taxes in 2½ years
that are impacting British Columbia’s families and businesses is 24 new or
increased taxes. That has a significant impact on the economy of this
province.
[2:45 p.m.]
Despite the lack of any credible economic strategy that deals with
growth in this province, this government continues to rely on the back
pockets of hard-working British Columbians to raise revenue. We should be
clear that this government would have zero as a surplus if it were not for
the new taxes they’ve introduced. Let’s think about that for a moment. Lots
of clapping and desk thumping about a balanced budget.
Interjection.
S. Bond: Well, thank you very much to the minister. I look forward to her
explaining to British Columbians how that budget…. Let’s be clear, four new
taxes required to balance the budget. Without that tax revenue, zero
balanced budget. Let’s take a look at that, just so…. Maybe the members and
the minister opposite haven’t had a chance to delve into the tax budget
revenue page. But let’s be clear.
Interjection.
S. Bond: Oh, it’s nice to hear the member speak up on something over there.
Good for him.
Interjections.
S. Bond: Lower taxes? Wow.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
S. Bond: I look forward to the member’s speech.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
S. Bond: Obviously, he hasn’t looked up the revenue generation page.
Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s have one speech at a time, please.
S. Bond: Oh, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let’s be clear. Together, the taxes introduced in this budget raise
$850 million over three years. Now, the member…. I would challenge him to go
and add up the surpluses for the next three years. Isn’t it incredible that
the taxes that this government introduced yesterday actually result in the
surpluses that they’re adding up over three years?
The minister may want to thump her desk all she wants. It’s $850
million in additional taxes over the next three years in order to balance
this budget. The government is projecting cumulative surpluses during that
period of time of $780 million. Figure that out. They’re going to have
surpluses that add up to $780 million, and they’re collecting new tax
revenue to the total of $850 million.
Just do the math, and then ask yourself how British Columbians can
possibly be better off when at every turn, they’re being taxed. Whether it’s
their Netflix account, their Disney account, whether it’s the carbonated
beverage they’re going to have, whether it’s through the employer health
tax, the taxes just keep on coming. That is the only way that there is a
surplus that this government is touting over the next number of
years.
Yesterday we walked through some of the challenges that British
Columbia is facing as a result of the budget that’s been tabled. We know
that by 2022, total taxation in British Columbia will have increased by
almost $4,700 per household at the same time that this government continues
to talk about affordability.
The challenge we face is that there would be no need for those taxes
if government spending wasn’t basically out of control. This government
would rather rely on the pockets of British Columbians to make ends meet.
Let’s listen to what MSP Task Force chair…. Let’s just walk back in time for
a moment here. Dr. Lindsay Tedds was actually chosen by this government to
lead the MSP Task Force that was going to look for all of that lost revenue
when they got rid of the MSP premiums in British Columbia. What they did, of
course, was transfer it to a new tax called the employer health
tax.
Dr. Tedds and her team actually laid out a plan for government. Do you
know what government did? When she came to government with an interim report
and said: “You know what? You’ve got to do some things. But I advise you not
to do it this way….”
[2:50 p.m.]
I think you know what’s coming. Do you know what the government did?
They did it in precisely the way that their handpicked chair said not to do
it: “Most importantly, don’t double-dip. Make sure there’s some transition
time. Take care of small business owners in British Columbia.” They ignored
that.
Let’s hear what Dr. Tedds said yesterday about the financial decisions
of this government. And let’s be clear: I don’t know who Dr. Lindsay Tedds
is. But apparently, the government did, because they handpicked this person
to be the chair of their MSP revenue replacement task force. Here’s her
quote: “It is a lazy Finance Minister that first raises taxes as opposed to
making sure that the leaky budget is plugged first. There are many ways B.C.
could plug the leaky bucket.” No ally of ours. Not my words. Their very own
handpicked MSP Task Force chair.
What did the government do when they were looking for more revenue?
Just as Dr. Tedds pointed out, the first choice they made was to dig into
your pocket, British Columbians’ pockets: “Let’s add some more taxes.” We’re
up to 24. We were 19 before this budget was increased. We’re up to 24 new or
increased taxes.
The really sad part, when you think about what’s happened, when you
think about the massive increase of taxation revenue…. The ministers can
sit, and the members across the aisle can go and look up the numbers. It is
billions of dollars of taxation revenue every single year — $5.8 billion a
year — and that’s going up. Spending is going through the roof as
well.
You know what’s really disappointing about it all? It actually has
provided precious little gain for average British Columbians. You heard that
from the mother in the
article at the beginning of my discussion. She said:
“You know what? There was a little bit of benefit in my child care last
year. But guess what. It’s disappearing, and the costs are going up. My
strata insurance is going up. The budget has very little benefit for me and
my family.” But no recognition, none whatsoever, from the members on the
opposite side about that.
The question British Columbians are asking themselves today, before
and after this budget discussion, and that they should ask themselves: “Am I
better off as a result of Budget 2020 or not?” We know the answer. The
answer is short. It’s no.
Let’s talk about one of the reasons why. A telltale indicator of the
health of an economy is business — small businesses, medium-sized
enterprises — and how they struggle to get by. One of the things that we
heard loud and clear after yesterday’s budget was tabled was the fact that
British Columbia is facing some pretty challenging times. The global economy
is softening. We’re starting to see issues develop in terms of business
confidence as taxes are increased and profits decrease.
Real business investment in British Columbia is down. It’s down from
10.5 to 4.1 percent. Retail sales are barely holding their own, even with
population growth. So we see business investment dropping. Retail sales are
flatlined. And we watch as countless small businesses across the province
struggle with increasing property taxes. But this government has taken zero
action to remedy that situation.
[2:55 p.m.]
Let’s look at some of the things they could and should be working on.
Split assessment would be a considerable help to thousands of small
businesses, but this government would rather increase taxes than give vital
small businesses much-needed relief. We watched as the businesses struggled.
The time frame that was dubbed “double-dip year”…. As much as the members
opposite want to celebrate the fact that they transferred a tax…. Yes, the
words “MSP premiums” are gone, but they’ve been transferred to another tax:
the employer health tax.
To think or suggest for a moment that those taxes don’t impact British
Columbians…. The letters “MSP” may not be attached to those challenges, but
believe you me, when a small business gets hit with an additional tax, how
do you think they cover those costs? Well, there are a number of ways, and
we’re seeing it all across the province. They either lay off staff or they
increase costs to consumers. So in the end of the day, there will be a cost
to taxpayers, and there’s no recognition of that. There’s no sense that the
taxes, the 23 new and increased taxes, are going to have a direct impact on
British Columbians.
I think one of the biggest concerns that we have is the fact that the
NDP are failing to grow business confidence in British Columbia. As I spoke
earlier, I talked about how we may share some of the same values. We want to
care for vulnerable British Columbians, and we want to make sure that we
have top-quality education. All of those things are important. The question
is: who’s going to pay for them, and how?
Where we differ with this government is that we actually recognize
that you have to grow and strengthen the economy. You can’t simply rely on
the 23 new and increased taxes. In my enthusiasm, I gave the government 24.
It’s 23 new and increased taxes; four in this budget. But to suggest that
that isn’t going to make a difference in British Columbia is a significant
problem.
Yesterday we heard from job creators in this province. Yesterday’s
news release from the B.C. Business Council…. I think everyone in this House
has a great deal of respect for Jock Finlayson. Here’s what he had to say.
He is the chief policy officer for the B.C. Business Council, and here’s
what he said, “Since 2013, the B.C. government has added more than $5
billion in incremental tax costs on B.C. businesses” — $5 billion. He goes
on to say: “These trends make it harder to do business and to scale up our
companies. The government has much more work to do if it wants B.C. to
remain an attractive place for investment, entrepreneurial ambition and top
talent.”
Well, I think the members opposite need to take a moment and actually
think very seriously and carefully about those words. Let me say them again.
Let me read this part again. “The government has much more work to do if it
wants B.C. to remain an attractive place for investment, entrepreneurial
ambition and top talent.”
Why does that matter? It matters because you need to grow the economy.
You need to grow the revenue-generation side of the books. There was none of
that in this budget. Here’s what there was: “Let’s tax more, and let’s spend
more.” In the end of the day, the people who are going to be paying for that
are British Columbians, hard-working individuals and families who are just
trying to get through the day and make life a little bit easier.
You can’t ignore the revenue-generation side in a budget. That’s
exactly what happened yesterday, and it happened last year. It’s not radical
thinking. It’s not overly critical of the government. It’s just the facts.
This government, the current one, has a history. It’s a pattern. They
believe in tax and spend.
[3:00 p.m.]
We believe that you need to support small businesses and medium-size
enterprises in British Columbia, that you need to have a competitive tax
regime, that you need to be a place where investors want to come and that
you certainly cannot be an island of your own when it comes to
competitiveness.
Yes, we’ll grant the government the fact that the word competitiveness
was in their budget. But guess what. There was nothing to back it up — no
action, no plan, no recognition that British Columbia cannot continue on
this course, which is tax and spend without a recognition that we need to be
paying attention to the loss of B.C.’s competitive edge. There is damage
being done, and this government needs to stand up and take some
responsibility for it.
We should actually take a look at some of the quotes from job
creators. These are people who create jobs in British Columbia, who help to
grow and strengthen an economy. Let’s hear from a few of them.
Greg D’Avignon from the B.C. Business Council said: “The budget is
virtually silent on the agenda, let alone the implementation of a
sustainable economic plan.” One would think that’s probably a pretty core
fundamental part of anyone’s budget. He goes on to say: “We needed a budget
that recognizes the province is operating in an increasingly competitive and
uncertain global economy, and we must up our game on productivity. The
budget falls short.”
Jock Finlayson goes on to say, “The budget does not pay sufficient
attention to the storm clouds facing us due to slower global growth and
escalating tax and regulatory costs at home,” and then: “The budget fails to
address the eroding competitiveness of some of B.C.’s largest export
industries due to the design of the province’s carbon pricing regime, rising
property taxes, the PST system and previous increases in the corporate
income tax rate.” The list goes on.
There is significant concern in the province of British Columbia about
this government’s ability to continue to attract investment and to grow the
economy in a sustainable and strong way. But it doesn’t seem to matter,
because we’ll just tax and we’ll spend.
We do need to spend a couple of minutes talking about the whole
premise of this government’s time in office, and that’s about the issue of
affordability. We all care that British Columbians have the best
opportunities that they can for their families. We want them to live in a
province that’s affordable, allowing people to consider purchasing a home or
those important things that they make tough decisions about.
Let’s take a look at what’s happening in our province right now. Gas
prices — among the highest in the country. Netflix taxes. Pop taxes. When
you think about…. We might all smile when we think about a streaming tax on
streaming services, but the government is going to take in $11 million as a
result of that sneaky little tax. Sugary carbonated drinks — we look forward
to hearing more definition about what that means — will bring in $27
million.
I know government members recognize that that applies to all British
Columbians. So while we’re busy talking about affordability, we’re ramping
up taxes on people’s ability to watch the Disney Channel and to drink a
carbonated beverage in British Columbia. These kinds of taxes are a far cry
from making life more affordable.
We need to raise the issue, as well, of the creation of a new tax
bracket. I know we’re going to hear lots of comments on the other side of
the House about the top 1 percent and all those rich folks. There is also an
important consideration to be made. When we’re talking about the tech
sector, as a perfect example, and other places where we want to attract
exceptional professionals to British Columbia, I can assure you that one of
the first things they look at is the tax regime in the province they’re
being recruited to.
[3:05 p.m.]
The more we layer it on, the more difficult it is going to be to
attract the kinds of professionals we need to have a strong, growing,
innovative and creative economy. We’ll look forward to having a discussion
with the minister about that, but we should be clear. This tax rate will now
be 20.5 percent if you earn above $220,000 a year. The previous rate was
16.8 percent. This alone will add $216 million in tax revenue.
Let’s just make the point one more time. When you look at the new tax
bracket, you look at the pop tax and you look at the Netflix tax, guess what
the number adds up to. The surplus. So to suggest that this is balanced on
anything but the backs of hard-working British Columbians is
inaccurate.
Let’s talk a little bit about one of the foundational pieces of this
government’s plan for affordability, and that’s child care. I am the first
to admit it’s a complex file. It’s hard. You have to figure out: how do you
provide support to families? How you do that in a way that encourages and
supports families who, perhaps, want two parents or need two parents in the
workforce? How do you find ways that meet options — families who have shift
work and need care in the morning and late at night?
It’s expensive. It’s hard. But make no mistake about it. This
government was incredibly clear with British Columbians in 2017. There was
no mistaking the promise that was made by this government. Today we’re going
to hear all kinds of things about how we’re still on track and all of those
kinds of things. We know that is not the case. The budget simply does not
allow for that promise to be met.
Let’s be clear. What did this government tell British Columbians in
2017? They told them that there would be a $10-a-day child care program for
whoever needed it and wanted it. Well, if anyone listened to the throne
speech, that promise was significantly walked back, because the words that
were missing were “whoever wanted it.”
From my perspective, when you’re talking about a universal $10-a-day
daycare program, that means everyone. That is not what this government is
now delivering, and the budget backs it up. Don’t take my word for it or our
exceptionally good critic’s, who manages the data and the file. Look at the
budget.
[S. Gibson in the chair.]
Here’s what we know. They have abandoned their promise for
$10-a-day child care. They are very far behind on the promised spaces. Let’s
look at what the budget tells us. Six years into what was purportedly going
to be a ten-year program, there will only be one-third of the funding in
place to accomplish the promise they made to British Columbians.
I can be very candid about this. Before the election in 2017, we
talked to lots of young families who live in northern and rural communities.
One of the things they said repeatedly was: “We like that promise. We like
that we’re going to have $10-a-day child care. We like the fact that
everyone will be able to take advantage of it.” Well, guess what. That
program is no longer the program that this government promised. It is one
big signature broken promise.
You know, families have every right to feel let down. This government,
this Premier, made a promise, and they’ve abandoned a universal $10-a-day
daycare program for all parents who need or want it. As I said, the throne
speech backed away from universal child care, saying subsidies for child
care will be based on need rather than need or want.
[3:10 p.m.]
Do you know what’s even more challenging? Right now the $10-a-day
daycare program is a pilot program. It’s a temporary program. I don’t know
if the members opposite have gone and actually talked to families. It was
like winning a lottery if you got to be in one of those programs.
We experienced it in Prince George. Two families who live next door to
each other — both of them with young children, both of them excited about
the possibility of $10-a-day daycare. Well, guess what happened. One of
those families…. Their children went to the pilot site for $10-a-day
daycare. They got the $10-a-day child care benefit. The other family didn’t.
So big promise in the window. Big promise to British Columbians. Big promise
to families. Then what? Well, let’s pick winners and losers across British
Columbia. Let’s pick some families, a few spaces here and there.
Now what we see in this budget is that there is absolutely zero
intention and, more importantly, there are no dollars in place to deliver on
a program that this government stood before the people of British Columbia
in 2017 and promised that they would be able to benefit from. Families have
every right to feel let down, and they’re not the only ones.
This government also promised a renters rebate. Now, I don’t know
about you. Maybe you haven’t done the Google search yet through the budget
document. There is no renters rebate. Disappeared. Do you know what — I
heard the rationale from the minister the other day — one of them was? The
Green Party wasn’t comfortable with it. They didn’t like it. Well, I want
the members opposite to know that maybe the Green Party members didn’t like
it, but British Columbia’s renters certainly liked it. And guess what. Just
like $10-a-day daycare, it’s gone. No promise to deliver that now or in the
future.
We continue to go through the budget, as we look at the impact of what
the numbers on the pages mean for British Columbians.
Let’s talk about infrastructure projects. Budget 2020 fails to give
any assurance that important and necessary infrastructure projects will
actually be completed. Over $1 billion in infrastructure projects that were
announced in 2019 have now been delayed. The budget is missing funding for
important projects that are needed to clear congestion. There is no money
for the George Massey replacement project.
The throne speech went out of its way to dangle the prospect of
commuter rail for the Fraser Valley. Yet guess what. No money in the budget.
No money set aside. But it’s not just commuter rail that has been given no
funding. There are no meaningful plans for improving or expanding transit in
other areas of the province, including Vancouver and Surrey. So where are
the Surrey MLAs? Oh, nothing.
Let’s hear what Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart…. Now, I can imagine
that the ears will be perking up on the other side of the House. I can
assure you that I’m sure Mayor Kennedy Stewart is more closely aligned with
that side of the House than with this one.
Let’s hear what he had to say yesterday after the budget. Vancouver
Mayor Kennedy Stewart commented on the failure to address transit to UBC,
saying: “Until we see a signal from the government of B.C. that they intend
to connect UBC to the rest of the region, congestion and long travel times
along the second-largest business and innovation corridor in the province
will continue to be unresolved.” Vancouver — no mention. Improvements to
this and other transit corridors would make a big difference in the rapidly
growing Lower Mainland.
Let’s talk about another important promise that this government made.
Let’s talk about housing. Because if you’re going to talk about
affordability, you actually need to have a thoughtful analysis of child care
and housing and transportation and taxation.
[3:15 p.m.]
Take a look at all of those things in totality. We’ve seen that the
promise around $10-a-day child care has morphed, and it is no longer what
this government promised. We’ve seen the $400 renters rebate
disappear.
Let’s talk about housing. The NDP are so far behind on their housing
promises. Here’s what we know. Only 2,400 units were actually opened by this
government as of its own latest housing report. So before the catcalls start
and the criticism, it’s their own report that points out that only 2,400
units were actually opened by this government.
We continue to see a target, and it’s a lofty one: 114,000 new housing
units. It’s done absolutely nothing about the pace at which the housing is
being built. You can promise all you want, 114,000 units. At the rate this
government is going, it will take more than a hundred years for the
government to reach its targets — at the current rate.
Not only that…. This is a serious issue. We hear lots about the
housing plan and the strategies and the reports. Well, guess what the budget
tells us. Go to the document. Look it up. Housing starts are going down. Not
just this year — a whopping 22 percent. They continue to go down in the next
two years. I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that if
you don’t have more supply, if you don’t have more housing being built,
guess what happens. The price of available housing goes up. So much for the
affordability argument.
There are no plans and no measures being put in place to deal with the
issue of how quickly that supply will take place. In fact, it is a missing
element of the housing strategy. You have to unleash the private sector. You
have to look at how you are going to increase supply in the market if you’re
going to deal with the issue of affordability. We heard concerns yesterday
being expressed about the lack of housing affordability, about the fact that
this government has done very little to actually deal with those significant
issues. In fact, until there’s a serious approach to looking at the issue of
supply, nothing is going to change.
Yesterday we looked. There’s no mention of measures being considered
or discussed to deal with the growing crisis in strata insurance. This issue
will have impacts, serious implications, for thousands of British
Columbians. Yet what do we hear from this government? “That’s an
affordability issue.” You heard that from the mother that I talked about at
the beginning of my remarks. Her strata insurance is going to cost her an
additional $100 a month at the same time that her child care costs are going
up.
We saw yesterday that one of the things that seems to have taken a
lesser profile for this government, certainly one they talked about an awful
lot, is related to the environment, and stakeholders are starting to take
notice. Yesterday, a quote from BCBC. I hope that members opposite will
listen and share this with the minister. It’s pretty
discouraging.
“For more than a year, we have been working with the province to fashion
a CleanBC plan that both reduces emissions and keeps our natural resource,
manufacturing and transportation industries competitive. Unfortunately,
Budget 2020 falls short of what we were expecting. Many of B.C.’s biggest
export products and commodities have half the carbon intensity of competing
jurisdictions, but these industries — vital to middle-class jobs in rural
and urban regions — are now operating at a unique global and North American
competitive disadvantage. Regrettably, our collaboration with the province
on this important file appears to have hit a wall.”
[3:20 p.m.]
After working in good faith for more than a year, suddenly they read
the budget and realize that all that effort has been, basically, ignored. So
for a file that was once so celebrated by this government, it’s odd to see
it secondary to so many other issues.
As we look at the rest of the budget, we hear comments from the mining
sector, from all of the many resource sectors across British Columbia. We
heard it on the lawn yesterday, as hundreds of families and individuals came
from a long distance to express their view to British Columbians. But what
we see is a decided lack of support for mining, resource industries in this
province. There is nothing for them in the budget.
Let’s see what the Mining Association had to say. “We’re very
disappointed,” said Michael Goehring, president of the Mining Association of
B.C. in an interview. “The mining industry is at a crossroads in B.C., and
we were hoping to see a solution in this budget.” However, I would argue
that a lot of industries feel forgotten, probably none more significantly
than the forest industry in British Columbia.
It was very hard to stand back and watch as the crisis unfolded in
rural and northern communities in particular, but communities on Vancouver
Island and elsewhere, when workers and companies and communities asked this
government for help. It took months of curtailments and closures and
families who were in stressful situations, communities that didn’t know what
to do. The NDP failed to provide a struggling industry the assistance that
they needed. Unfortunately, this budget is just more of the same.
Of the $13 million that is going toward forestry, supposedly, in this
budget — I know our critic and my colleagues will certainly delve into this
further — all of the money is previously allocated. There is nothing — no
new money, no new funding, no new help. For a sector that, for generations,
has been part of the core industries in this province — nothing. The amount
that’s included and the approach will do little to nothing to help those
communities.
As noted yesterday in my remarks, there is no mention of the rural
dividend fund. Maybe if the members don’t live in a rural community or see
the benefits, they don’t understand, necessarily, the impact of what that
decision made. When you’re talking about billions of dollars, maybe that
amount doesn’t seem significant. But I can tell you as an MLA that saw, on
the ground, firsthand — and I’m surrounded by many of my colleagues who saw
those benefits — that it made the difference between starting a program and
keeping a job. It gave communities hope. It gave them a chance to be
creative and thoughtful with just such a small amount of money.
What happened? That money was ripped out of the rural dividend fund to
fulfil some other funding announcement that this government made, and it’s
just not right. We even tried Google search.
There was a commitment made to restore that program, and I can assure
you that we’re going to hold the government accountable. That program made a
difference every day on the ground in northern and rural communities. This
government needs to honour its pledge to put it back.
When we look at the budget, forestry revenue has fallen nearly 40
percent since 2018. It should be so obvious to this government that forestry
is an industry that needs a comprehensive recovery plan. But instead, hard
hit communities are given nothing more than lip service. It’s just not
right.
[3:25 p.m.]
From my perspective, when you look at the budget numbers, when you
look at the fact…. And I will look forward to an explanation, because as I
said earlier, the minister didn’t talk about the ministries that were cut or
frozen. I’m sure there will be a lot of discussion about this.
Guess what one of the ministries is on the cut list. Forests, Lands,
Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development is on the ministry hit
list. Not to mention most of the other job-creating ministries — all of them
are on the cut or the frozen list.
So let’s spend. Let’s tax British Columbians, but let’s cut the very
ministries. Let’s see a reduction in Agriculture; Energy, Mines and
Petroleum Resources; FLNRO. Here’s an interesting one: Indigenous Relations
and Reconciliation. I looked long and hard with my colleagues to find the
monetary support for the processes related to UNDRIP. Guess what — none. Not
that we can find. We’ll look forward to the debate. Happy to be
corrected.
Guess which other ministries are being cut: Jobs, Economic Development
and Competitiveness. We’ve just heard from job creators in British Columbia
that one of the most significant issues impacting British Columbia is that
we are becoming an island that lacks competitiveness. Lots going on south of
the border. But one of the things they are concentrating on is creating a
competitive tax environment, a focus on competitiveness.
Guess what’s happening next door to us as we go to the east. They’re
starting to look at how they can become more competitive. Why does that
matter? It’s so you can attract investment and create good-paying private
sector jobs. You know what. Zero attention is being paid to that. Absolutely
zero.
This is a government that likes to talk about: “We’re going to
transition to a technology-based economy or a knowledge-based economy.”
Well, I would think that innovation and technology are a pretty key part of
that. So why don’t we look at what the B.C. Tech Association had to say
about the budget? One would assume that if you’re moving away or looking at
a decline in the natural resource sector side of the budget, and you’re
talking about innovation and technology, there would be significant support
in the budget for the technology sector.
Well, let’s just take a look at what the B.C. Tech Association said on
February 18, 2020: “Budget 2020 included no new spending for technology and
innovation.” So let’s get this straight. We see little support, if any, for
the natural resource sector, but there’s no new spending for technology and
innovation either. Exactly how do we expect to grow the economy of British
Columbia?
Let’s go on to see what else they said.
“On the surface, it may appear that all is well in B.C.’s tech sector,
but a closer look at the data”— the homework, all of the work that should be
done — “reveals our twin challenges. Other tech sectors in places such as
Ontario, Colorado and Washington state are now growing tech GDP faster than
B.C. And B.C. Tech’s analysis of Stats
Canada business count data shows
little to no growth in the number of scaled-up technology companies with
200-plus employees, the size needed to anchor sustainable companies that
provide good jobs to thousands” — and get this part — “and tax revenues for
government.”
Think about it. There’s another way this government could have looked
at actually generating tax revenue: by encouraging and supporting innovation
and creativity and the tech sector. Even the tech sector could find very
little good to say about the budget yesterday.
Let’s talk about the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. What did they
have to say? Here’s another quote from the CEO. “There was nothing here to
make our region a more competitive region.” Given the cumulative tax
increases, the business community is feeling thoroughly tapped
out.
[3:30 p.m.]
Overall, the budget offered little in the way of providing a vision
for job creation and regional competitiveness. There was little to no
mention of the contributions small and large businesses make to support
everyday working families and revenues contributing to social
programs.
When we look at the premise…. When we look at the major tenets of a
budget that this government has provided, it’s pretty straightforward.
There’s one revenue source, and it appears to be hard-working British
Columbians and taxes — 23 new and increased taxes.
Businesses in British Columbia are feeling tapped out. They are
feeling that they are losing their competitive edge, yet this budget
provided absolutely nothing in terms of any sort of assistance, support,
even mention. As we consider what the budget said yesterday to British
Columbians…. I certainly recognize that people in this House bring
different views and different values, but what we care about is making sure
that British Columbia has a strong, growing, thriving economy.
We care that, yes, British Columbians have every opportunity. And what
we saw yesterday were squandered opportunities, lost opportunities. We saw
tax and spend. We saw very little recognition that this government
understands that in order to continue to pay for those important programs,
you have to grow a strong, thriving economy in this province.
I know that as we work our way through the comments of members
throughout the Legislature, we’ll hear…. And very shortly, we’ll actually
hear from the members of the Third Party. I want you to know that I listened
carefully to their comments, because of the dynamics in this legislature as
we speak. The coalition partners of the government actually said that the
throne speech was underwhelming and backward-looking.
I will be incredibly interested to hear what the interim leader of the
Green Party will have to say, because yesterday they actually had some
interesting things to say. Here’s what they said: “I don’t see how there is
a strategy here” — this is related to the budget — “for getting us where we
need to get to.” In another quote, the House Leader: “This really is the job
of governments. It’s the role of government to look ahead and say, ‘Where do
we want to be in ten, 50 and 100 years from now?’” This budget feels like:
“Where do we want to be a year from now?” And that’s not good enough in the
world that we’re in today.
Here’s what the interim leader said: “We absolutely have to take
appropriate steps in building a sustainable, resilient economy for the
future, and that’s not what I saw in this budget.” Once again, from the
House Leader. This is a really interesting quote: “It’s time to make
smarter, more courageous choices for the future of B.C. We’re here to offer
those choices up.”
British Columbians are going to be watching the choices that the
leader of the Green Party offers up, because there’s one choice that’s
pretty clear. The leader of the Green Party can continue to stand in the
House and outside of the House and be critical of the throne speech and
critical of the budget speech. Let’s talk about courageous
decisions.
Time will tell, because this is a Green Party that, to date, has
chosen to support their coalition partners on virtually every single issue
that’s been brought to this House. Yet when it comes to the validity and the
credibility of this budget, let’s just see how courageous the interim leader
of the Green Party is. It’s one thing to criticize a budget; it’s another
thing to demonstrate some action to British Columbians.
[3:35 p.m.]
If this leader doesn’t believe this budget has merit and doesn’t
result in a sustainable, resilient economy, then I know there’s one thing
for sure that they should consider doing, and that is vote against the
budget. That would be a courageous decision. But I have every reason to
believe that that won’t happen. It’s very easy to stand up and make the
YouTube video and criticize the budget.
Let’s be clear. Let’s talk about courageous steps that the government
could take. I think there’s an important and compelling reason that there
are some other courageous steps that could be taken.
We look at a budget plan. It basically has three years of taxation and
spending. We know that British Columbia is facing a global economy that is
softening. The other thing that concerns us deeply is the fact that all of
the measures that demonstrate the strength of an economy are heading in the
wrong direction.
We look at employment numbers. Do you know that over the last eight
months, more than 34,000 jobs have been lost in this province — 34,000? More
than that over the last eight months alone.
We see retail sales, so critically important in British Columbia…. We
are a consumer…. We rely on consumer spending in this province. Consumer
spending has flatlined. We look at investment trends; they’re dropping. The
pace of growth is slowing. All of those things….
Exports. We’re a small, open trading economy in British Columbia.
Exports matter. In fact, there are programs in place…. I’m thankful they’re
supported by the members opposite. We talk about export navigator programs.
Why does that matter? We’re helping small businesses and medium-size
enterprises figure out how they can capitalize on the export markets. What’s
happening? Exports are down. Retail sales stagnant. Housing starts, 22
percent down in the first year of this budget plan.
We know that a plan has to look at business confidence. It has to look
at how you grow a sustainable economy. You simply cannot continue to
download the costs of your spending plan onto the backs of hard-working
British Columbians. That’s exactly what this budget has done.
We see no plan. We see haphazard spending and increased taxes. This
kind of budget cannot continue for much longer. If you listen and look at
the quotes from many of the job creators in British Columbia…. The entire
budget critique that this government must be hearing — the B.C. Business
Council, the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade….
You look at organizations called Abundant Transit B.C., Canadian
Taxpayers. Generation Squeeze talked about the housing issue. Here’s what
they had to say about this government’s housing strategy. This is Paul
Kershaw of Generation Squeeze. “They’ve committed now to producing almost
2,500 fewer units of affordable housing over their first four years than
they initially promised.”
In 2017, this now government stood before British Columbians and asked
for their support. They did that based on some pretty significant promises.
This budget fails to deliver on the most key of those promises: $10-a-day
child care for those who want it and need it. Gone. Renters rebate. Gone.
Housing starts dropping. The number of units completed — far fewer than were
promised by this government. British Columbians do deserve the opportunities
to get ahead, to have life feel just a little bit easier for
them.
[3:40 p.m.]
I know that today, as we begin to unpack what’s included in
this budget, there is much, much more to come. British Columbians are pretty
smart. They’re going to realize that despite the promises and the rhetoric,
the exponential increase in taxes, 23 new and increased taxes, they’re no
further ahead than they were three years ago.
I look forward to the debate, to the discussion. I look forward to the
opportunity to ask the really tough questions that British Columbians expect
us to ask. After all, that’s the reason they sent all of us to this place. I
look forward to the continued dialogue and comments by other members in this
House.
Thank you for the time this afternoon.
A. Olsen: I’m pleased to rise and take my place in the debate on Budget
There are elements of this budget that I’m proud to stand behind.
We’re seeing some positive incremental investments in our shared priorities
with government. Some of these elements include increased CleanBC funding,
the implementation of revenue-sharing with First Nations and the
introduction of the B.C. access grant, which will make post-secondary
education more accessible. I’ll speak to some of these accomplishments in
greater detail later in this response.
However, while I fully support much of what is in this budget, I must
say that it falls short of what is needed from the government at this point
in history. It isn’t enough to just try to make life more affordable. The
B.C. Greens have been consistently urging the government to think bigger, to
think about how our economy is serving the needs of people and to drive an
ambitious, modern, viable economic strategy as we respond fully and
completely to the climate emergency.
In this budget, I see a government attempting to deliver on
contradictory agendas. For example, they’re increasing investments in
CleanBC yet, at the same time, entrenching our economy’s reliance on
non-renewable resources like LNG. By pursuing conflicting agendas like this,
the government’s ability to achieve long-term prosperity for our province is
seriously limited. While there are important investments in programs and
policies that matter to people and that do make life more affordable, there
is no coherent economic strategy for our times.
In this budget, CleanBC received over $400 million of new funding on
top of the $900 million announced last year. This is a substantial
investment that we can all be proud of. The B.C. Green caucus team continues
to work closely with the government on CleanBC. This plan provides a long
overdue climate strategy that puts us on the pathway to meeting our 2030
climate goals.
CleanBC will always be limited in what it can achieve as long as the
government is still attempting to expand LNG, the fossil fuel economy of the
last century. This budget makes clear that this government is still treating
CleanBC solely as an emissions reduction tool, and the economic activity
that this government is incentivizing through massive tax breaks to LNG is
the single biggest barrier to meeting our climate targets.
This doesn’t make any sense. The real economic opportunity for B.C.
lies in using CleanBC as an economic driver so that not only do we meet our
climate targets through regulation and policy measures like the carbon tax,
but we also create huge numbers of local, high-quality jobs in the clean
economy. We can do this, but it requires a deliberate, strategic approach to
supporting the clean economy and growing innovation. We should be
positioning local B.C. companies to develop and deliver the resources and
technologies needed in the transition to the clean energy
economy.
For example, we’re home to the majority of the minerals needed in
solar panels. A thoughtful approach to development, including harnessing
technologies that significantly reduce environmental impacts and putting an
emphasis on local manufacturing, could see us as a global leader in
supplying solar panels both at home and abroad.
[3:45 p.m.]
Similarly, the government can play a catalyzing role in creating
centres of excellence that bring together industry, academia and various
levels of government to develop new technologies. We have a willing partner
in the federal government, but the province needs to be at the table putting
forward a clear vision.
The fact that the budget makes no significant strategic investments in
innovation is a missed opportunity. Instead, the largest portion of new
spending in CleanBC is allocated to a program that reduces the carbon tax
paid by heavy-emitting industries without any guarantees in their overall
emissions reductions.
My riding is the source of a significant amount of economic activity.
About $1 billion each year is generated on the Saanich Peninsula. Businesses
there are excelling in manufacturing and innovation, in
particular.
Over the past few years, I’ve been visiting businesses to learn more
about them. Business attraction, growth and retention are very important to
the sustainability and resilience of our communities in my riding. As such,
it’s important to know why the entrepreneurs, innovators and change-makers
have chosen to establish and invest in the Saanich Peninsula.
In visiting many of these businesses, I hear consistent themes. What
is needed is more affordable housing and transportation options for workers.
Many of the people who work on the Saanich Peninsula can’t afford to live on
the Saanich Peninsula, and the transportation options to the region are
limited. I’m thankful for the investments that have been made by this
government and local non-profit rental housing societies to increase
accessible and more affordable housing options in my communities, yet we
remain challenged by the limitations of transit options.
While I recognize that there is an ongoing comprehensive
transportation study for southern Vancouver Island, it is no secret that
Highway 17 is a major transportation corridor that could be enhanced to
provide a more robust transit service to the Saanich Peninsula. Frankly, it
could start with targeted investments at major crossings, like Mt. Newton in
Central Saanich, where there is no opportunity to get on an express bus that
regularly passes through our community.
Another need I hear from the businesses is the need for more skilled
trades training. To that end, one very positive aspect of this budget is the
introduction of the B.C. access grant. This is a needs-based, upfront grant
to students starting post-secondary studies. This investment will help
remove barriers in education and training and help young people develop the
skills needed to secure high-quality jobs.
It’s not just the manufacturing sector that is in need of workers,
though. There is a critical shortage of front-line workers in the retail
industry, care aides and many other sectors.
There is a significant shortage of affordable rental housing options
on the southern Gulf Islands. While limited relief has come to Saltspring,
there is still a tremendous need there and on every Gulf Island for housing
options so the workers delivering critical services to those communities can
live and work in those beautiful communities.
In this budget, the government is continuing to implement affordable
early childhood education for young families across British Columbia.
However, we share the concerns of advocates that the investment plan is not
ambitious enough.
We cannot stall investments in this vital area. Young families need to
be able to rely on high-quality and affordable early childhood education
options. By striving to create a universally accessible child care and early
childhood education system, we are creating a critically important public
good, but it must be done right and done with care. Any limitations we
introduce at this point will worsen as the system grows. I believe we must
start from the principle that prioritizes spending public money on public
goods as much as possible.
We will continue to urge the government to move the Ministry of State
for Child Care from the Ministry of Children and Family Development to the
Ministry of Education. The early learning years are as or more critical as
the later years. The Ministry of Education is best suited to fostering that
educational continuum. In addition, early childhood educators are more than
just babysitters. They are critical in establishing the excitement and joy
of learning in our children. They are as important as our teachers and
should be compensated as such. I’m happy that we are taking steps in the
right direction, but there is still a long way to go.
[3:50 p.m.]
I’ve had many parents and interested stakeholders reach out to me for
assistance in developing a discussion locally in my riding about child care
and before- and after-school care in the communities in Saanich North and
the Islands. I’m grateful that the three municipalities on the Saanich
Peninsula have received funding to assess the needs and gaps in child care
and that the minister responsible is open to having this important
discussion in our community.
It is important that we look after our children and ensure that the
investments we are making in their care are targeted to fill the needs and
to close the gaps. This is more than just making life more affordable. While
that is important, many parents that I know not only want space for their
child, but they also want and need choice. There is nothing more
disconcerting than the concerns that a parent has in the back of their mind
about the quality of care that their children are receiving when they’re at
work. Where there is a lack in supply and options, parents must accept any
spot that’s available. That is definitely not the ideal
situation.
This budget also delivers funding for a public inquiry into money
laundering. Money laundering has had a staggering financial impact and human
cost on our province. It has played a role in our opioid crisis, and dirty
money flowing into our housing market has worsened the housing crisis,
pushing affordable homes further out of reach for British Columbians. That
is why we began pushing for the government to launch a public inquiry over a
year ago. We pressed this government day in and day out for weeks to move on
an inquiry. I welcome the funding to support their commitment to a public
inquiry in Budget 2020.
British Columbians deserve a full and complete account of how we got
to where we are, how money laundering was allowed to go on for so long and
reach the scale that it did. There needs to be accountability for the
decisions made by individuals and regulatory agencies that contributed to
the scale and severity of the impacts in our communities. A public inquiry
into money laundering in B.C. removes the investigation from partisan
influence, protects the public interest and will help us restore the
public’s trust that has been broken.
Another change that we see in this budget is the decision to
remove the PST exemption from sugary drinks, including diet and regular pop.
This type of policy can be a part of a shift to emphasizing preventative
health measures with the potential for significant health
outcomes.
We spend the vast majority of our resources in the Ministry of Health
and a substantial portion of the provincial budget in treating people when
they are sick. Of course, we need a top-notch health care system to treat
people and return them to good health. But what we need far more of is a
proactive approach to wellness that helps people lead healthy lives. A key
part of keeping people well and supporting them to live healthy lives is
ensuring they have access to primary care.
In the majority of my riding and in communities across the province,
there continues to be a concern about the lack of access to primary care. I
understand the government’s announcement of new agreements and the creation
of urgent care facilities. I must raise the concerns I have heard for months
now about the impact urgent care facilities are having on the ultimate goal
of attaching people to a team of health care professionals who work together
to deliver high-quality community care.
The development of a super-clinic model to ease the immediate issues
with backlogs for people in getting in front of a health care professional
is posing other challenges. What British Columbians want is a health care
provider or a team of providers that they can build a relationship with,
that know them and that they can build trust with in some of the most
private, sensitive and vulnerable interactions that we have.
It is worth noting that this is the third full budget introduced in
this minority government. Early on, each major piece of legislation, each
budget and throne speech was met with a great deal of speculation about
whether this government would survive or if we’d pull them down.
Many commenters tried to stir up uncertainty, claiming that this
government was unstable. Now in the third year of this joint endeavour, this
sort of commentary and speculation has died down.
[3:55 p.m.]
I think this is something that we can be proud of. We decided, when we
signed our agreement to support the government, that we shared a
responsibility to try to make this work. I don’t think it’s my job to look
for opportunities to pull government down and send British Columbians back
to the polls.
Instead, I clearly see my job as threefold. First, it’s my utmost
responsibility — the reason I was put in this place, with this seat — to
represent the needs of my constituents. I’m directly accountable to them for
the work that I do here. Second, it’s my job to work with government,
through the confidence and supply agreement, on the issues that we have
jointly identified as priorities for making B.C. a better place to live.
Third, it’s my job as a member of the opposition party to hold this
government accountable on areas where we think they’re taking the province
in the wrong direction.
We have seen significant disappointments. There are areas where we
strongly disagree with the direction this government is choosing to take.
The decision to double down on LNG, talked about often, and to construct the
Site C dam to power the industry are the most notable.
We’ve also made substantial progress on many shared priorities,
including removing the corrupting influence of corporate union donations;
tackling money laundering, speculation and fraud in our housing market;
being the first jurisdiction to pass the declaration on the rights of
Indigenous peoples; and moving to deliver affordable, quality child care to
young families in our province.
It is my responsibility and my privilege to balance the roles that I
fill as a local representative, minority partner and opposition member in
the day-to-day work in this place. We continue in this chamber because our
allegiance is not necessarily to this government but to the issues that we
committed to in the CASA, the confidence and supply agreement.
While this budget falls short on providing the economic vision that is
needed for B.C., issues that we’ve continued to raise with the government,
it does continue to implement the commitments that we’ve made on many
important issues. On that, I will be supporting Budget 2020.
T. Stone: It does give me a great deal of pleasure to rise today to speak to
Budget 2020. We’re being asked here today, as part of this debate, to
reflect on what we believe this budget will actually do for our province,
for our constituencies, for the people that send us here to represent them.
I have been reflecting on this budget, and I have been talking to a number
of constituents back home and, obviously, colleagues and so forth. I’m going
to offer my observations today on what I believe are the key takeaways from
Budget 2020.
Before I do that, however, I want to acknowledge the exceptional work
of the official opposition’s Finance co-critics, the member for Prince
George–Valemount and the member for Surrey South, both of whom have done a
tremendous job working with a number of our fellow colleagues to really dive
deep into this budget, really scrutinize it and understand what’s here. And
I do want to acknowledge my constituency staff back home in Kamloops and the
tremendous work that they do.
I believe that this budget reflects, at the highest level, a
government that has abandoned a whole bunch of major commitments, major
promises that it made to British Columbians. I believe that this budget
reflects a blueprint that the government is bringing forward that is devoid
of an economic strategy. It’s devoid of a jobs plan.
It was initially refreshing to hear the interim Green leader just
mention moments ago…. With respect to the budget, he said he’s disappointed
that it’s lacking in a “coherent economic strategy.” Those are the words of
the interim Green leader.
[4:00 p.m.]
Unfortunately, as I then listened to his remaining comments, he
indicated that he intends to vote for this budget nevertheless — very, very
disappointing.
I think the key question that British Columbians always ask themselves
when a government brings in a new budget is: “Am I going to be better off?
Am I going to be better off as a result of the measures that are in this
budget?” And I think, fundamentally, the question is: are British Columbians
better off after 2½ years of the NDP being in government? I think British
Columbians are asking themselves that question. They’re asking themselves:
“Is life more affordable for me and my family and for my friends and my
neighbours?”
I think the answer to that question is a resounding no. This budget
does not contain the $10-a-day daycare commitment that this government ran
on. I’ll have more to say about that in a moment.
There is no mention of the promised $400 renters rebate. There is no
plan to deal with congestion. No plan to replace the George Massey Tunnel in
the Lower Mainland. There’s no money for commuter rail in the Fraser Valley.
There’s no money for Surrey SkyTrain.
As I mentioned, the budget doesn’t contain a jobs plan. There’s no
help in this budget for forestry workers and their families and communities
that have been impacted by the significant downturn in forestry. Housing is
no more affordable today than it 2½ years ago.
There’s no new money in this budget for the opioid crisis or mental
health. There’s no new money for technology and innovation, which is ironic
considering this government, in part, as they try to address the situation
in the forest sector, points to innovation and technology and says, “This is
the economy of the future. This is what we need to transition to,” and then
there is no strategy to do it. There’s no money in the budget to facilitate
that transition.
I mentioned housing. Housing is certainly not more affordable. The
budget projects for a significant decline or decrease in the number of
housing starts. All the while, the price of housing has begun to go up again
and is projected to continue to escalate through the next three fiscal
years.
The carbon tax increases. We’ve got residents up in the Interior and
the north who continue to be exasperated when they open up their natural gas
bill and they find out that the carbon tax they’re paying on it is more than
the actual cost of the gas.
We continue to have the highest gasoline prices in North America here
in British Columbia. ICBC rates will continue to escalate, notwithstanding
what the government is saying about a freeze on rates this year and a
promise of a rate reduction in an election year, next year.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Small businesses are reeling from skyrocketing property taxes on
unused airspace. I introduced a private member’s bill in this House last
fall to address that issue, to provide municipalities with an optional tool
that they could use to very deliberately focus on specific streets and
neighbourhoods and areas within their communities to bring down the property
tax burden — certainly, the property taxes on unused airspace. The
government has not taken us up on that, and there has been no forthcoming
action to address that challenge.
We have recently raised questions in this House about skyrocketing
strata insurance costs. Premiums are going through the roof. Deductibles are
going through the roof. The monthly strata fees that people have to pay are
going through the roof.
Interjection.
T. Stone: The member from Surrey can laugh, but there are 30,000 strata
corporations in this province. Fifty percent of the residents of Metro
Vancouver live in a strata unit. And you know what? They’re facing increases
in their insurance premiums, the strata corporations are, of between 50
percent to 400 percent — even higher. We are hearing stories every day of
deductibles that are going from a $25,000 deductible on water damage to
$250,000 to $500,000 and, in some cases, even higher. We are even hearing
stores of strata corporations that can’t get insurance.
Then you talk about the unit insurance that the strata owners have to
have, and those costs are going through the roof. But, of course, no comment
in this budget about what can be done to provide some relief, what can be
done to take some action, with affordability first and foremost in
mind.
[4:05 p.m.]
I haven’t got any constituents who have come up to me and have said to
me: “You know what? Life is more affordable today than it was 2½ years ago.”
Nobody is saying to me: “Thank goodness that the NDP have come to my
rescue.” Nobody is saying to me any of that.
What they’re saying to me is: “Life is hard, and we’re struggling to
make ends meet. Our rent is going up. Housing costs are going up. Gasoline
is going up. Our taxes are going up.” Twenty-three new and increased taxes,
to be exact, since this government came to power — $5.7 billion, on an
annualized basis, of increased taxes in only 2½ years.
The NDP have raised tax revenues by over $3,025 for each household in
British Columbia. They sit here and champion the decision to eliminate MSP
premiums. They do that, and then, on the other hand, they increase all these
other taxes and these other fees. If you look at the net of it, British
Columbians are worse off, to the tune of $3,025 per family since the NDP
came to power.
Interjections.
T. Stone: I know that the truth hurts, but by 2022, total taxation in B.C. will
have increased by almost $4,700 per household under the NDP. Last year the
government was only able to balance its budget because of its double-dip, in
charging both the employers health tax and the MSP. That’s the only
reason.…
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
T. Stone: That billion dollars they received from that double-dip is the only
reason they were able to balance the budget last year. If it was not for the
four new taxes that are contained in this year’s budget, totalling about
$260 million, this year’s budget wouldn’t be balanced either,
right?
We’re going to have a new tax on sugary carbonated beverages. I’m not
sure how this is going to work. It has been tried in a number of other
jurisdictions, and it has failed miserably. You’re going to pay a tax on a
Coke Zero, but you’re not going to pay tax on a double-double from Timmy’s.
How absurd is that? How is this going to be tracked? I perhaps shouldn’t
have said that because the NDP has never met a tax hike that it doesn’t like
and that it’s not willing to put in place.
We’re going to be that jurisdiction in Canada that’s going to impose a
tax on streaming video services. So if it’s not bad enough that British
Columbians can’t afford, under this government, to go out to a movie…. They
stay at home. They make some popcorn at home, make a snack, get the kids all
set up. They put Netflix on or the Disney channel. Or maybe, like I do
occasionally, I have my dad over, and we put on an NHL game via streaming
video service. Guess what. British Columbians are now going to pay a Netflix
tax. A Netflix tax is coming to British Columbia under the NDP.
Every single economic indicator that tells you where a province is
going is going in the wrong direction. This is right out of their budget.
Employment is projected to continue to decline. This province lost 32,800
private sector jobs over the last eight months…
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
T. Stone: …and 7,700 jobs lost in December alone. Resource revenue is declining,
most notably in the forest sector.
Can you imagine forest communities and forest families, upon being
advised of what’s in this budget…? Imagine their reaction when they’re told
that forestry revenues are going to be down by 40 percent between 2018 and
the end of the fiscal plan — 40 percent. The once mighty and proud forest
industry in this province will be a shadow of itself under this government,
a 40 percent reduction.
Retail sales are stagnating. Net interprovincial migration is down.
Exports are declining. Consumer confidence is declining. On and on the list
goes. Every indicator is suggesting that this province is heading in the
wrong direction.
[4:10 p.m.]
Let’s talk about housing for a moment, shall we? I’ve been quite
enjoying the role of official opposition Housing critic, because I’ll tell
you, there are few areas und