Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 210

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

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Black History Month and Henry Houston Scott

M. Hunt

Comox Valley Therapeutic Riding Society

R. Leonard

Rural B.C. environment and consultation on caribou protection

M. Bernier

Men’s health promotion

M. Dean

Public trust in government and Legislative Assembly

A. Olsen

Wounded Warriors fundraising run

S. Malcolmson

Oral Questions

Softwood lumber negotiations and trade with U.S.

J. Rustad

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Tegart

Call for public inquiry into money laundering

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Eby

Softwood lumber negotiations and trade with U.S.

M. de Jong

Hon. J. Horgan

Compensation to guide-outfitters for moose hunting reduction

D. Barnett

Hon. D. Donaldson

Assistance for case of flooding and water contamination

T. Stone

Hon. D. Donaldson

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 3 — Committee of Supply to sit in two sections

Hon. M. Farnworth

Petitions

J. Sturdy

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

S. Bond

Hon. M. Mark

Hon. C. James

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2019

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the member’s gallery is Ms. Trinh Tu Lan, the consul

general of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, based in Vancouver. The consul

general was appointed in December 2018. I first met with her shortly

thereafter.

Today is the consul general’s first visit to Victoria, and she’s

scheduled to meet a number of government officials throughout the day. Would

the House please make the consul general of Vietnam feel very

welcome.

Hon. J. Darcy: I have two special guests I’d like to introduce today.

Lori Larson has been an administrative assistant in the Ministry of

Mental Health and Addictions, doing amazing work in our office, also having

to field very, very difficult calls, often from people who are in crisis and

who reach out for help. She’s done an amazing job. Prior to that she was a

banker for over 28 years. Her daughter was a page, also attended Reynolds

Secondary School. Next week the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture is

very lucky to have her as the new administrative assistant there. I’d like

you to give a warm welcome to Lori Larson today and thank her for her

service.

Carly Morgan is just beginning this week as an administrative

assistant in the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. She recently

graduated from the University of Victoria in physics and astronomy and is

now beginning her work in government. I’m sure that her physics and

astronomy will be helpful in whatever role she plays here in government.

She’s also the niece of Lisa Oldham, the administrative coordinator for

Minister Popham.

Welcome, please, today to Lori Larson and Carly Morgan.

Hon. K. Conroy: I have a group of guests here today who are here for an announcement

that we have this afternoon. Jayne Wilson is here, the executive director of

the B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Associations, as well as Carol Madsen,

the executive director of the Parent Support Services Society of B.C. With

Carol from the society is Christina Campbell, who does kinship care; Jane

Bouey, communications; and Louise Costello, a board member. Would you please

all join me in welcoming them to the House.

Hon. J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is an employee in the correspondence

branch in the Premier’s office, Allegra Wolansky. Allegra, of course, sees

question period fairly frequently. She’s joined today by a resident of Grand

Forks, her soon-to-be mother-in-law Susan Blair, who hasn’t been here to see

question period since the Barrett era. I just wanted to let her know that

decorum is much better today than it was then. The humour is not quite as

good, but we’ll do our level best to make it entertaining. Would the House

please make them very, very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

AND HENRY HOUSTON

SCOTT

M. Hunt: Today I rise in honour of Black History Month, a time for us to

celebrate the accomplishments and stories of black Canadians. In

particular, I’d like to tell the House and the people of British

Columbia about a former Surrey resident and his family.

In 1912, Henry Houston Scott emigrated from the United States with

his wife, Amy, and three of their ten children. They were drawn to the

fertile lands of the Fraser Valley and purchased the farm upon arriving.

Henry grew hay on his orchard until his passing in 1934, when his son

Jesse took over running the farm.

Henry’s other son, Roy, had a varied career working both in the

lumber mill as well as being a porter for the Canadian Pacific Railway.

His daughter, Benola, managed the family farm for almost 30 years after

her parents’ deaths, before she passed in 1971.

[10:10 a.m.]

Henry Scott no longer has any living relatives in Surrey, yet his

family’s former farm continues to be recognized for its importance to

the city of Surrey. On February 18, Surrey city council passed a

resolution to have the park where the Scotts once farmed renamed Henry

Houston Scott Park in honour of Henry, Amy, Roy, Jesse and

Benola.

The Scott family story is the first and currently the only of its

kind to be identified and researched in Surrey’s history. There is no

doubt, however, that there are many more like it throughout British

Columbia.

Would the House please join me in honouring the Scott family, as

well as all other British Columbians whose stories we reflect upon

during Black History Month.

COMOX VALLEY

THERAPEUTIC RIDING

SOCIETY

R. Leonard: There is a beautiful, sandy network of trails along the bank of

the Tsolum River in Courtenay-Comox that lead into a forest that’s

blanketed in fawn lilies and trilliums in the springtime. Adjacent to

this little piece of paradise is our exhibition grounds, with an

unassuming barn that houses a most amazing program.

Between September and June, out of that barn and into the natural

elements come children and adults with diverse abilities riding

specially trained horses and ponies surrounded by trained volunteers.

Now in its 33rd year, the Comox Valley Therapeutic Riding Society serves

about 100 children and adults with the invaluable help of 150

volunteers. Qualified therapeutic riding instructors teach riding and

working with physical challenges, and other staff come with experience

in facilitation and working with youth.

Volunteer coordinator and program scheduler Hilary Doucette brings

all the pieces of the puzzle together so that everyone succeeds.

Referrals come from doctors, therapists, schools, and even family can

directly refer their children to this program that changes

lives.

The program has traditionally served people with physical

challenges, but more recently the vast majority are children with

autism, ADHD, anxiety, depression — children who are lacking skills to

manage their feelings and behaviours. Executive director Nancy King

explains how the horses mirror the feelings of the rider, and that

feedback helps the children to learn to self-regulate, gain physical

coordination and confidence.

Julie McLaughlin shares how the therapeutic riding helped their

adopted boys and how barn buddies helped their youngest son gain social

strength. Volunteer Anne Lawrie describes how it’s the most gratifying

volunteer job she’s ever had, watching the transformation of the

children on their gentle ponies.

Big thanks to the volunteers, horses, staff and funders.

Congratulations to all who benefit from the therapeutic riding

program.

RURAL B.C. ENVIRONMENT AND

CONSULTATION ON CARIBOU

PROTECTION

M. Bernier: When I look at the reasons for living in rural B.C., the list is

long. The MLA for Peace River North, the rest of the rural caucus over

here — we know this all too well. It’s an amazing place to have a good,

balanced quality of life. It’s a great place to raise a

family.

One of the main reasons so many people want to live in rural B.C.

is our province’s incredible opportunities for hunting, skiing,

snowmobiling, ATVing and camping right in our backyards. Then there are

all the jobs that rural B.C. has thanks to all the resource

opportunities right there. Whether it’s forestry, mining, oil and gas,

tourism — these and other industries make sure that thousands of people

can call rural communities home.

People choose to live, work and play in rural B.C. because of

everything it offers, but there is growing fear that this might be

changed. This fear comes from lack of consultation and information being

shared with the people who have the most to lose. The Concerned Citizens

for Caribou Recovery in my riding have done a great job highlighting

what my region will lose if bad, reactive, knee-jerk decisions to shut

down parts of our back country happen without consulting the people who

use it and know it.

Rural B.C. should not be taken advantage of just because they are

quiet, hard-working people who don’t usually raise their voices. But

their voices deserve to be heard. Imagine the outcry and protests if all

human activity in Stanley Park was shut down just to save a bird with no

public consultation at all. Now imagine shutting down something the size

of seven Vancouvers without any public input.

[10:15 a.m.]

Rural British Columbians are at the front of the line when it

comes to fighting to preserve our environment and our species at risk.

After all, it’s our backyards. That’s why we are asking to be at the

table for discussions before a few ministers who don’t even live in our

region decide for us.

MEN’S HEALTH PROMOTION

M. Dean: Thank you to the Canadian Men’s Health Foundation who are here

today to build our knowledge and relationship with them as they work to

encourage men to adopt a healthier lifestyle. They also aim to prevent

men’s health problems, such as prostate cancer.

Research shows that over 5,590 men die from cancer every year in

B.C., with prostate cancer accounting for over 19 percent of all cancer

diagnoses in B.C. men. Additionally, more than 3,000 men die from heart

disease each year. That’s why the foundation’s work is so important, as

it helps bring awareness to the importance of making healthy choices to

prevent health problems and help men create a happier and longer

life.

For example, the Don’t Change Much program is a campaign and

website with quick recipes, easy tips on how to be active and advice

from celebrities like NHL veteran Trevor Linden and four-time Olympian

Simon Whitfield. It gives men simple tips on how to be more active by

making small, manageable lifestyle changes.

The Downtown Urban Knights Defending Equality and Solidarity,

DUDES Club, is a modern way to involve the community in promoting

healthy living for Indigenous men. It’s helping Indigenous men reconnect

with their families and cultures through spiritual, social, physical,

mental and emotion-focused events and activities.

Thanks for your dedication and hard work in inspiring men

everywhere in B.C. to be healthy, present and engaged in the community

as we all work towards a better quality of life for everyone.

PUBLIC TRUST IN GOVERNMENT

AND LEGISLATIVE

ASSEMBLY

A. Olsen: There’s a crisis of confidence in this institution. Thinking back

to the thousands of stories I heard on the doorstep during the 2017

election, it did not matter whether I was on the top of the mountain in

North Saanich, the waterfront in Sidney, on Saltspring Island or

Tsartlip First Nation. Trust in this institution was in tatters. The

internal narrative of our local campaign was built on trust. Trust is an

important value for me.

On one hand, it seemed like a political opportunity, right? People

had lost trust in government. It appears to be a perfectly delicious

scenario for change. On the other hand, it is devastating to be enticed

to celebrate a crisis in confidence in our government because of a

potential political win.

These statements from members often celebrate the lives of

influential British Columbians or special days of advocacy. They draw

attention to critical, non-partisan issues in our ridings and across the

province. That, too, is my goal today.

Since my election, there has been a steady stream of constituents

who’ve approached me, encouraging me to directly address the issues that

are diminishing the stature of this House. These people have seen the

inside. They carry the burden with them as part of their

story.

It is for these constituents of mine and for British Columbians

right across this province that today I shine a light on our commitment

to rebuilding the public’s trust in our government institution. I stand

here in this chamber, where we undertake the most important business of

this province, and reaffirm the oath that we swear to protect the honour

of this House, the people’s House. I am reminded that this place is

indeed nothing if it’s not built on trust.

WOUNDED WARRIORS FUNDRAISING RUN

S. Malcolmson: “Honour the fallen. Help the living.” This is the mantra of seven

runners just this side of Campbell River. They’re making their way here

right now to raise funds and awareness about post-traumatic stress

disorder and operational stress injuries affecting military veterans and

first responders.

The Wounded Warriors are relay-running the length of Vancouver

Island this week. That’s 600 kilometres in seven days. Seven police,

Coast Guard, DND and firefighter runners started in Port Hardy on

Monday. In three days, they’ve raised $60,000 for veterans’ mental

health. Tonight they’ll rest in Comox. Check out woundedwarriors.ca to

see when they’ll be passing through your town.

[10:20 a.m.]

I’ll cheer them on, on Saturday in Nanaimo, along with the cadets

and our legions. Tilray in Nanaimo is sponsoring them; so is Serious

Coffee. The support is the beautiful part of this. The families support

their injured veterans and first responders, and Wounded Warriors

supports both the veterans and families. Couples Overcoming PTSD is an

award-winning program. It’s life-changing, repairing families. The

Vancouver Island Compassion Dogs is another beautiful charity providing

service dogs to veterans. There’s also trauma resilience training for

people already working on the front line. Wounded Warriors funds them

all.

Friends in Victoria, if you can, please greet these fine runners

and their support team at the Wounded Warrior Run grand finale, right

here Sunday at 4:30. It’s at the back of the Legislature along Superior

Street.

The front line keeps us safe every day, so please come out and

support the Wounded Warriors as they finish their epic journey down

Vancouver Island, and let them know that we have their backs

too.

E. Ross: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

E. Ross: My apologies to Judy Fraser, sitting in the gallery today. She’s a

Prince Rupert resident, a big supporter of all the activities in the region

as well as the province, and a friend to many of us here in the House. Would

the House please make Judy Fraser welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: I also seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. K. Conroy: Joining us shortly in the gallery is a group of students who are here,

from the West Kootenay regional debate team, for the Law Foundation Cup

Provincial Debating Championship 2019. These students will debate against

six other teams from the regions in the province, honing their questioning

and debate skills. This team is made up of students from both Kootenay West

and Nelson-Creston. I’m going to introduce the students from my

constituency, and the member for Nelson-Creston will introduce

hers.

From J.L. Crowe Secondary in Trail, we have Katie Mountain, Grace

Holden, Ripley Shubert and Mattea Palesch, all in grade 8; Sasha Leithead in

grade 9; and Chris Mountain in grade 12. With them are a couple of teachers

— Kim Eggert, the coach and chaperone; and Marilyn Lund, the coach — as well

as the regional coordinator.

It’s really great to welcome them all here, but especially Marilyn. We

have known each other for quite a long time, as we went to school together,

although it just seems like a few years ago.

Please join me in welcoming them to the House and wish them well on

their debates.

Mr. Speaker: Continuing with the second part of that introduction.

Hon. M. Mungall: Joining the group that the Minister for Children and Families just

mentioned we have Harlan Hofman-Miller, Jayden Stallings, Sophie Edney,

Sarah Wensink, Sabien Edney, Michael Rhodes-Bliss, Willa Morrison, Marissa

Price and Margaret Saville. They are all from L.V. Rogers. From Wildflower

School in Nelson, we have Bea Kelley.

These are amazing young people who are learning the art of debate, and

I have no doubt that in question period, we will show them our best artistic

form in debate today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We’re joined by a number of search and rescue volunteers that are here

to mark Search and Rescue Volunteer Memorial Day. They include Jim Spencer

of Nanaimo and Patrick McSorley of Victoria, representing PEP Air; John

Johnston of Kelowna and Ruth Sharun of Ladysmith, representing Royal

Canadian Marine Search and Rescue; and Christine Strub of Squamish and

Cheryle Bass of Squamish, representing the British Columbia Search and

Rescue Association. Would the House please join me in welcoming them and

thanking them for the wonderful work that they do.

Oral Questions

SOFTWOOD LUMBER NEGOTIATIONS

AND TRADE WITH

U.S.

J. Rustad: Two years ago the Premier said: “I will go to Washington, D.C.,

myself to get a deal.” Well, I guess the Premier did get a deal — a

cheque for a quarter million dollars from the U.S. Steelworkers for the

NDP — but he got nothing on the softwood lumber agreement. The Premier

has failed miserably to advance this file anywhere.

Yesterday the Premier claimed that he raised issues of mutual

interest when he met with Governor Inslee earlier this month, but not a

peep about softwood lumber.

[10:25 a.m.]

Why does the Premier care so little about the men and women

working in our forest industry that he didn’t even raise the topic with

the governor?

Hon. J. Horgan: Jurisdictional questions seem to confuse the opposition. The

challenges we have with softwood lumber are not with the state of

Washington, not with the governor of Washington, but with the United

States department of trade and the United States Department of Commerce.

Again, had the people on the other side spent more time thinking about

this when they were on this side of the House, they might have had more

success in the negotiations going forward.

The member is partly correct. I did go to Washington, as one of my

first tasks as Premier. I spoke with the Department of Commerce. I spoke

with the trade ambassador. I made it abundantly clear that the tariffs

and the countervail duties that were being contemplated at that time by

the United States were unfair, they were unjust, and we would challenge

them every step of the way. That’s exactly what we’ve been

doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes on a supplemental.

J. Rustad: Here are the facts. There wasn’t a single mention of softwood

lumber that made it into any of the recent releases from last month’s

meeting — not a word. The Premier committed hundreds of thousands of

dollars of taxpayers’ money and did photo-ops but did not raise the

issue.

Workers and communities are hurting, while the Premier cozied up

to his buddy Governor Inslee. The Premier very well knows that you need

allies to be able to move forward on issues such as softwood lumber. He

has failed to move this file forward, either on the Canadian agenda or

with anybody in the U.S. that he had an opportunity to meet

with.

Will the Premier admit that he has not kept his promise on

softwood lumber and that forestry workers and families are suffering

because of it?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m really delighted that the members on the other side of the

House are interested in the conversations I have with leaders in other

jurisdictions. But again, I’m struggling to find the thread here, the

relevance here.

I did talk to Governor Inslee, just three or four months ago,

about the impact of groundwood duties on our coated paper industry. It

was a case being brought forward by a Washington state company that

precipitated that trade dispute. I made it abundantly clear to the

governor at that time that this was ill informed and ill

conceived.

Of course, the International Trade Commission agreed with us in

Canada, those of us who were standing up for British Columbians. People

are still working in Powell River, people are still working in Crofton,

and people are still working in Port Alberni because of the

interventions we made at that time.

Having said that, I know that the member for Nechako Lakes

understands this file fairly well, and that’s what surprises me about

why he’s going in this direction. He knows that we made interventions at

the appropriate time. We were in regular contact with the Minister of

Trade at the federal level, where these issues are decided. We are

vigorously defending the interests of British Columbians, and we’ll

continue to do that.

J. Tegart: There are 140 forestry-dependent communities in British Columbia

that are suffering without a softwood lumber deal, communities that feel

abandoned by this government. In the community of Merritt, I’ve had

constituents come into my office in tears because of rolling layoffs at

the local mill. These are hard-working people who are losing

family-supporting jobs right now.

Will the Forest Minister explain to my people when they can expect

the signing of a softwood lumber deal?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’m absolutely delighted to be patient, as the people on

that side get used to being in opposition. But it’s outrageous for them

to stand here and ask questions about an arrangement between two

nation-states that has been a perennial problem between our two

countries.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: They’re doing this when all the while, on their watch, 30,000

forest jobs were lost, 100 mills were closed. To stand here today and

say, when the former Pre­mier did not go to Washington, did not

heed the advice of David Emerson, the eminent person that we put in

place to help us get through this…. For them to stand here and say they

care about forest workers when 30,000 of them are doing something else

now is outrageous.

[10:30 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola on a supplemental.

J. Tegart: My constituents want to know about today and why this callous

government doesn’t even seem to care. This is a bigger issue than “The

Premier goes to Washington.”

In 2017, the Premier said: “I’m going to directly involve myself

in the softwood lumber negotiations and make sure that we get a deal.”

Well, that was nearly two years ago, and millworkers in my constituency,

whose shifts are being cut, are getting sick and tired of waiting for

your government to do what they promised.

When, Mr. Premier, are we going to see a signed

agreement?

Hon. J. Horgan: Clearly, the research department in the Liberal caucus doesn’t

have any sense of what’s going on. The issue is now in the courts.

That’s where it has to go because the negotiations failed, because the

United States was not prepared to do a deal. It is irresponsible in the

extreme…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …to come in today, on a Thursday morning, and say: “We’re going to

blame the B.C. NDP for the failure of a negotiation….”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Premier, you can proceed when you feel it’s quiet enough for you

to speak uninterrupted.

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate that, hon. Speaker.

Now, if there was just a molecule of sincerity and genuineness in

the question being asked — just a molecule…. So 100 mills, 30,000 jobs

lost while you sat idly by and let that happen.

We have been working aggressively in trying to revitalize the

coastal forest industry. We’re working on the Interior. We’re meeting

with COFI later this week. We’re trying to build a better, stronger

economy for forest and rural workers. Why don’t you get on board rather

than whining about it?

Mr. Speaker: We’re ready for another question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY

INTO MONEY

LAUNDERING

A. Olsen: For the past two weeks, my colleagues and I have been raising the

issue of — groan — money laundering. I know; it’s such a groaner, eh?

We’ve asked about top investigators losing their jobs when they tried to

take action. We asked about the lack of prosecutions and how this

shameful situation is heavily linked to housing and the opioid crisis. I

mean, these are just groaner issues in this province. I get it from the

official opposition.

Yesterday the Attorney General stated that he agreed that “a

public inquiry does bring the benefit of going into significantly more

depth on these issues.” The Attorney General has done important work,

but when is enough evidence enough? The government is agreeing that a

public inquiry could be useful, but not actually wanting to start

one.

My question is to the Attorney General. When will the public know

if this government is serious about a public inquiry?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question, and I thank the Green Party

for raising these issues. I think about the people in the Lower

Mainland, the families in rental housing who earn a good income, who

have been priced out of the market because they’re competing, in part,

with people earning money illegally. They’re competing with people who

are evading taxes. I don’t think that’s enjoyable, and I don’t think

that’s wacky. I think that’s the worst.

[10:35 a.m.]

When we look at this issue of money laundering and the connection

to the real estate market, we take it incredibly seriously. The first

priority for our government has been to stop the activity that’s taking

place. That has been something the Finance Minister has been working on

since day one, something I’ve been working on since day one and

something the Premier has been working on since day one, because we get

how serious this issue is, unlike some political parties.

Now, I’ve also tried to be clear that we are doing this work right

now with the reviews to stop this activity. That doesn’t mean that there

is not benefit, potentially, in a public inquiry and doing deeper work

on that. But our first priority is to stop the activity, and that’s the

work we’re doing right now.

Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

A. Olsen: Frankly, the silence from our colleagues in the opposition tells a

story. The groaning on these questions paints the rest of the

picture.

My colleagues and I appreciate that the Attorney General wants to

ensure that he’s taking the right path. However, we have an abundance of

evidence to support an inquiry, and it keeps growing. Three-quarters of

British Columbians support it, and thousands have signed petitions.

Legal experts, major unions, advocacy organizations and municipal

governments in this province are calling on the government to launch an

inquiry.

Yesterday we again made international news — again for all the

wrong reasons — when the Washington Post had a headline that

called the situation in British Columbia “an emergency.” We agree. An

independent inquiry is critical to exposing the truth and getting to the

bottom of this. This is what British Columbians are expecting, and this

is what they deserve.

My question is to the Attorney General. Finally, will he commit to

launching a public inquiry?

Hon. D. Eby: I read the

article with interest in the Washington Post —

one of many articles, by the way, in international media that feature

the scandals of the previous government, including this one. We take it

incredibly seriously. We are taking the steps to stop this activity as

quickly as we can.

The

article relied heavily on a lot of material that was made

public through the efforts of this government to bring forward a report

that was being kept secret, that wasn’t being released — to bring

forward the issue that was being kept secret, that wasn’t being advised

to the public, even though publicly, international anti-money-laundering

personnel were being educated on the Vancouver model of money laundering

at the same time as British Columbians were being told it was

functionally impossible to launder money in our casinos.

It’s an unacceptable scenario. I understand why 75 percent of

people want a public inquiry. I understand why the members for the Green

Party want a public inquiry. I also hope that the member understands why

we’re working as quickly as we can to stop the activity as our first

priority.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER NEGOTIATIONS

AND TRADE WITH

U.S.

M. de Jong: I have to say I’m a bit surprised that the Premier doesn’t

apparently recognize the important role he plays as Premier in informing

leaders within the U.S. — there are 50 governors — of the importance of

the softwood lumber dispute and the impact it is having on Canadians and

British Columbians.

Now, the Premier’s office is pretty good at issuing press

releases.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. de Jong: The Premier’s office is very good at issuing press releases. I did

look at the one. Presumably, they issue the press releases to highlight

the things that are important, the things that were discussed or the

issues that the Premier wishes to raise.

On February 4, they issued an information bulletin. Not a mention

of softwood lumber. February 8, they issued a press release. Not a

mention of softwood lumber. The Premier is in a foreign country that is

attacking our number one industry. February 9, they issued a press

release. Not a mention of softwood lumber.

Now, contrast that with the actions of the Premier of New

Brunswick, who had a meeting with U.S. senators and U.S. state leaders

and made a point of raising softwood lumber and articulating how

important it was to all of Canada to get a solution.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. de Jong: With our number one industry under assault, will the Premier

explain why he is refusing to highlight the issue with Americans and why

he has abdicated leadership on this issue to the Premier of New

Brunswick?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, a little lesson in jurisdictional responsibilities. Trade

is the responsibility of the Department of Commerce, in the department

of trade, in the United States — not the governor of Washington. There

are jurisdictions in the United States that are bringing forward these

countervailing duties towards us. They’re usually found in the southern

United States. The former Forests Minister, who saw raw log exports go

from almost nothing to 55 percent, probably should have remembered

that.

As a former Forests Minister…. I absolutely know with certainty

that the member understands that a binational panel was appointed in

November of 2018 to continue to get a resolution on this dispute. We’re

quite delighted, if there is a Forests critic on that side…. I’m not

sure who it is. If they want to have a thorough briefing, the minister

is quite happy to sit down with them and walk them through the process.

But to come into this House after an appalling 16 years of ignoring the

forest industry, ignoring the job loss, ignoring mill closures and

seeing logs disappear out of British Columbia faster than they can get

put on the back of a truck is just outrageous, and everybody knows

it.

Now, I absolutely appreciate that you have to have something to

say on a Thursday morning in February. But if you really want to

understand and work with the province and the people of British

Columbia, why don’t you get on board? Let’s have a pan–British Columbia

view on this issue, and let’s stand together to defend the interests of

British Columbians.

M. de Jong: Well, I guess the Premier is saying that the Premier of New

Brunswick doesn’t know what he’s doing, because he made a point of going

to a meeting of the National Governors Association of the U.S. and made

a point of highlighting the importance of this issue. But I’m trying to

understand the Premier’s strategy and the government’s

strategy.

Just a few days before he went to Washington…. This is kind of

interesting. Just a few days before he went for his photo-op with the

governor, the president of that country, Donald J. Trump, issued

Executive Order 13858. This is the document. It has the force of law. It

excludes the use of foreign goods, products and materials on U.S.

infrastructure projects. It defines an infrastructure project as being a

project to develop public or private assets, including — this is

interesting — roadways, bridges and railroads.

Did our Premier express outrage? Did he articulate on behalf of

Canadians and British Columbians how unfair this was? Did he register

any kind of protest? No. Our Premier’s response to this was to dip into

the taxpayers’ pockets of British Columbia and hand over a cheque for

hundreds of thousands of more B.C. dollars for a project to be built

largely in the U.S. that Canadians and British Columbians won’t even get

a chance to bid on because of a presidential order.

That’s showing them, Mr. Premier. That’s getting their attention.

That is not standing up for British Columbians.

When will the Premier have the backbone to stand up and defend the

interests of British Columbians on our number one export, the softwood

lumber dispute?

Hon. J. Horgan: The thespian from Abbotsford stands again, looks squarely into the

camera and does the feigned indignation better than any member of this

House, save and except the member for Port Coquitlam.

Again, I realize it’s been 18 months since the people on that side

of the House used to sit over here, but they seem to have forgotten a

lot of protocols and procedures. I went to Washington at the invitation

of the governor of Washington to talk about orcas, to talk about climate

change and to talk about chinook salmon — profoundly important issues to

the people of British Columbians, within our ability to make a

difference.

[10:45 a.m.]

I understand now that there’s a new sheriff, the head of the crew

on the other side. They’re certainly entitled to change their policies.

But I have a note here from the New York Times of October 2,

2016, the former Premier, Ms. Clark, saying the following: “Vancouver

has a lot more in common with Seattle than we do with Calgary, Montreal,

Toronto or anywhere else in this country.” The Premier said, “We should

make the best of those cultural commonalities,” and, in fact, then

announced that she was going to work with Governor Inslee to work on

high-speed rail between Seattle and Vancouver.

The official opposition has now decided that softwood lumber is an

important issue. They had 16 years to deal with it, and they didn’t. Now

it’s the most important issue. So if they want to abandon relationships

with Washington state, if they want to abandon the high-speed rail

initiative that they started, I’m happy to step back. But sometimes a

good idea is just a good idea, whether it came from a Liberal, a New

Democrat or a Green.

I would argue, again…. I appreciate it’s question period and it’s

important for the members to stand up and look as indignant as they

possibly can, but the people of British Columbia want to know that their

government is focused every day on making life better for them. That’s

exactly what we’ve been doing, and to good results — the highest growth

rate in the country, the lowest unemployment rate in the country,

successive balanced budgets, a $40 billion private sector investment in

the north, working with Indigenous people to bring true reconciliation

to British Columbia — so that we can all benefit from this spectacular

place we call home.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a second

supplemental.

M. de Jong: Look, I don’t think the Premier should…. Probably he’s not worried

about the indignance on this side of the House, but he probably should

be worried about the indignance of British Columbians who have today

learned that his response to a presidential edict in a foreign country

that precludes them from participating in a project that he’s using

their tax dollars to help finance…. That’s what they’re going to be

indignant about.

Maybe it’s not all the Premier’s fault. I mean, I have to believe

that his intrepid Trade Minister briefed him on the presidential edict.

I can’t believe his Trade Minister would let him go to a foreign country

without briefing him on the fact that the edict had been applied. And

while he’s talking to his Trade Minister, when he gets around to doing

that, ask him to tell him about the softwood lumber agreement negotiated

by the previous government.

One last bit of advice for the Premier, though I’m sure he’s not

inclined to take it. When you are a leading a province, when you are

leading a people in a trade dispute, you don’t wait for an invitation

from the other guys to raise the issue.

Will the Premier demonstrate to this House and to British

Columbians and families in forest-dependent communities that he at last

recognizes the role he plays, show some leadership — this is British

Columbia’s file; we have the bulk of the softwood lumber trade in Canada

— and not default to the Premier of New Brunswick?

Hon. J. Horgan: It looks like the Abbotsford West leadership juggernaut is up

again — third chance at it. Didn’t make it the first time. Didn’t make

it the second time. But I think you’ve got a pretty good chance here,

unless you dabbled in renting when you were a child or unless you

dabbled in the rental market, unless you want to support the people who

live in coastal ferry-dependent communities. Then you might have a

little bit of trouble. But I wish the member well in his third try to

become leader of the moribund B.C. Liberal Party.

Having said that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: I would argue, again, that when it comes to taking on Donald J.

Trump, I think the presentation by Mr. Cohen yesterday was far more

persuasive than that of the member from Abbotsford.

[10:50 a.m.]

COMPENSATION TO GUIDE-OUTFITTERS

FOR MOOSE HUNTING

REDUCTION

D. Barnett: Last November I wrote to the Minister of Forests on behalf of 13

guide-outfitters who have had their moose allocations cancelled by this

government. He acknowledged his ministry was “looking at the

compensation issue.” It’s now February, and these guide-outfitters have

yet to hear back from the minister.

To the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural

Development, when will the minister follow through on his promise to

compensate these guide-outfitters?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I thank the member for her letter advocating on behalf of some of

the constituents that live in her constituency.

The issue of moose management is a very important issue. We’ve

been taking measures to ensure that the moose populations are

sustainable. I know the guide-outfitters are very interested in that, as

well as local First Nations. I want to ensure the member knows that with

the Tsilhqot’in National Government, we’ve been in contact and in

conversations and, in fact, working with them on the issue of moose

management as it relates to not just their own needs but to the needs of

guide-outfitters.

I want to say that it’s an inclusive process. In fact, the

president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation commends us. “You and your

staff are to be congratulated for your efforts to resolve issues around

moose and moose-hunting in the Tsilhqot’in territory. On behalf of the

B.C. Wildlife Federation, I am grateful for your even-handed effort in

trying to resolve this exceedingly difficult situation.”

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin on a supplemental.

D. Barnett: For many of the guide-outfitters, the cancelled moose allocation

represented their only source of income. This government made a

commitment to these guide-outfitters and their families. They should

honour that commitment.

When will the minister provide the financial compensation he

promised?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Our ministry officials are working with the guide-outfitters on

this topic as we speak. The bigger issue, of course, is moose

management. We’re taking control of that in a way that was never done

under this other opposition government.

ASSISTANCE FOR CASE OF FLOODING

AND WATER

CONTAMINATION

T. Stone: Tiffany and Devin Wilson and their three children, ages one to

nine, have lived on their current property in rural B.C. near Chase for

eight years. For the last two years, they’ve experienced extreme

groundwater flooding of their home and property due to a creek on

adjacent Crown land rising during freshet. Unfortunately, this is all

happening as a result of activities approved by FLNRO.

FLNRO and MOTI decided to riprap ditches to protect MOTI

infrastructure. However, when asked about making a similar fix to the

creek to protect the Wilsons’ home, the family was told by FLNRO: “The

province would not be fixing the creek when it’s only affecting one

family.”

Here’s what Tiffany Wilson has to say: “Our well is contaminated

when Archer brook flows. We are unable to drink or cook with our water.

We were advised by the public health nurse that we should vaccinate our

children against hep A, as they’re bathing in contaminated water. Our

basement has now been completely destroyed two years in a row. Our

property is a danger zone for our children, as there are streams of

water and standing water everywhere. We fear for the health of our

children.”

Now, the FLNRO minister knows the details of this family’s plight

from multiple letters that I personally hand-delivered to him back in

July. This is a family that’s trying to raise their kids in a safe,

healthy home. They’re stressed and exhausted, and they’re facing

significant financial hardship.

My question to the minister is this. Will the minister step in

before the Wilsons are flooded out again in the coming

months?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the question. I know the member has come to meet

with me on, I think, at least two occasions, maybe three. We’ve

exchanged correspondence, and we’ve also had one-on-one conversations

around this topic. The approach I take as a minister in this new

government is that my door is always open to members on the other side

to have discussions like this.

I’ve directed staff — and he knows this — to look into this issue.

They visited the family. They visited the site. They have looked at the

flooding situation. Many of the reasons that the floods are being

experienced on the property, which was not flooded in previous times,

are activities outside of the land base of the actual

property.

If the member has new information that he wants to sit down and

discuss with me, I’d be more than happy to have a look at it.

[End of question period.]

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 3 — COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

TO SIT IN TWO

SECTIONS

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the motion standing in my name on the order

paper:

[That this House hereby authorize the Committee of Supply for this

Session to sit in two sections designated

Section A and

Section B;

Section A to sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to

time, and

Section B to sit in the Chamber of the Assembly, subject to

the following rules:

1. The Standing Orders applicable to the Committee of the

Whole House shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of

Supply save and except that in

Section A, a Minister may defer to a

Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the

Minister.

2. All Estimates shall stand referred to

Section A, save and

except those Estimates as shall be referred to

Section B on motion

without notice by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be

decided without amendment or debate and be governed by Practice

Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation.

Section A shall consist of 17 Members, being 8 Members of

the New Democratic Party and 8 Members of the BC Liberal Party and one

member of the Green Party. In addition, the Deputy Chair of the

Committee of the Whole, or his or her nominee, shall preside over the

debates in

Section A. Substitution of Members will be permitted to

Section A with the consent of that Member’s Whip, where applicable,

otherwise with the consent of the Member involved. For the fourth

session of the Forty-First Parliament, the Members of

Section A shall be

as follows: the Minister whose Estimates are under consideration and

Jagrup Brar, Mitzi Dean, Bob D’Eith, Mable Elmore, Anne Kang,

Rick Glumac, Rachna Singh, Simon Gibson, Jane Thornthwaite, Peter

Milobar, Coralee Oakes, Mike Morris, Jordan Sturdy, Teresa Wat,

Ellis Ross and Sonia Furstenau .

4. At fifteen minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for

adjournment of the House, the Chair of

Section A will report to the

House. In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular

ministerial Estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the

Government shall have a maximum of eight minutes, and the Official

Opposition a maximum of five minutes, and all other Members

(cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to summarize the Committee

debate on a particular ministerial Estimate completed, such summaries to

be in the following order:

(1) Other Members;

(2) Opposition; and

(3) Government.

Section B shall be composed of all Members of the

House.

6. Divisions in

Section A will be signalled by the ringing of

the division bells four times.

7. Divisions in

Section B will be signalled by the ringing of

the division bells three times at which time proceedings in

Section A

will be suspended until completion of the division in

Section

Section A is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred

to Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders

applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to

such Bills during consideration thereof in

Section A, and for all

purposes

Section A shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such

referrals to

Section A shall be made upon motion without notice by the

Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided

without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to

Consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals.

9. Bills or Estimates previously referred to a designated

Committee may at any stage be subsequently referred to another

designated Committee on motion of the Government House Leader or

Minister responsible for the Bill as hereinbefore provided by Rule Nos.

2 and 8.]

Motion approved.

J. Sturdy: I rise to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

J. Sturdy: The Highline Road is a spectacular high-elevation road that connects

the communities of D’Arcy and Nequatque with Seton Portage and Shalalth. For

decades, the province denied it was a public road, but the courts determined

otherwise, and it is indeed an MOTI responsibility.

Today I submit a petition signed by 574 hard-working people of the

region, who rely on the road for services, employment and community

connection. They ask that the ministry live up to its obligation and upgrade

the road standard, add road-surfacing material and increase the frequency of

grading and snow clearing, all in the name of safety and

community-building.

The Highline Road is very suitably named, and I would be happy to tour

the minister through the magnificent country so she can understand the

challenges these community members face every day.

Orders of the Day

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

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, those who don’t have a House duty, maybe you can either leave or

be quiet.

[11:00 a.m.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the 2019 budget.

It doesn’t matter how long you’ve been in the Legislature. These are

always important opportunities, and I think that all of us recognize what a

humbling experience it is to be elected and to be able to stand in this

chamber and speak on behalf of the constituents that sent you

here.

I want to begin by thanking all members of the House for the comments

that they’ve provided on the budget. Obviously, I don’t agree with all of

them, and that isn’t surprising to anyone. But it is important that we have

an opportunity to stand in this place. I think that at times we’re concerned

when we hear differences, when we hear people that agree with elements of

the budget. There are people who speak very strongly and passionately in

this place. In fact, that’s exactly what should be expected, and it should

be welcomed.

This is a place where each person who is elected brings their

perception, their ideas and their support from the constituents that sent

them here. We were elected to do just that — to come to this House and to

speak on behalf of our constituents.

On that note, like other members of this chamber, I want to say how

incredibly grateful I am to the people of Prince George–Valemount. I cannot

be more proud to represent the people in that incredible region of British

Columbia. I continue to be thankful for their faith in me and for the

incredible resilience they show. I’m very proud to be the member for Prince

George–Valemount.

The observations of MLAs from all parts of the province matter. I

think when we look at this budget, as we will have more conversation about

in the next few minutes, that input is essential. It’s even more important

when you look at the balance of members in this House and where they

geographically represent.

We have members from urban British Columbia, rural British Columbia.

It is important that, in a budget, we see all of those regions reflected,

and that’s why commentary in this House matters, because not everyone has

the same experience in British Columbia. We live in different places. My

riding is basically the size of Belgium. It takes a lot of time and energy

to visit all of the parts of my riding,

whereas some members in this House

represent very small, urban ridings. We bring different

perspectives.

I want to recognize the minister…. I also want to congratulate the

Minister of Finance. She has delivered her second complete budget, and I

want to thank her for…. At the beginning of her comments and in her budget

speech, she spoke a little bit about her own personal experience — in fact,

growing up just a few blocks away from the Legislature.

I always appreciate when ministers and members of this place talk a

little bit about their own personal experience because, first of all, it’s

never easy to do, and as much time as we spend in this place, we rarely know

very much about each other. I want to thank her for being personal and

sharing some of her own background. It served as an important reminder for

me that our values are often shaped at a very early age and that all of

those experiences better prepare us for our future challenges in life. So I

do want to begin by recognizing the minister.

I also want to thank her staff and the ministry, because we know this:

it takes hard work to put together a budget. In fact, a budget represents an

incredible amount of work and consumes the ministry for many months. We’ve

certainly had that experience.

On a personal note again, I, like others in the chamber, want to

recognize my family for their continuous support and particularly for the

forgiveness they have for missing those big days. All of us go through that

experience. You know, they’re pretty fantastic at being willing to adjust

dates and making things work. There are more of those special dates coming

up. In fact, soon Bill and I will celebrate our 40th wedding anniversary. I

am hoping that won’t be one of the big days that I have to miss.

[11:05 a.m.]

I also want to thank our hard-working staff in both Prince George and

Victoria for their dedication and their effort on a daily basis. I want to

send a special get-well-soon wish to Krystine in my Prince George office, as

she recovers from unexpected surgery, and to Dorothy for working so hard to

carry the load while Krystine recuperates.

Before I go on to the balance of my comments, I do want to recognize

my co-critic, the member for Surrey–White Rock. She has an excellent history

and background. She comes from an executive background in the financial

services sector and provides me and our caucus with invaluable insight and

advice.

In this budget cycle, we decided to switch roles. My colleague

provided the initial response to the budget, and it is now my opportunity to

make a few remarks as we get ready to end the budget debate. But I can

assure you, my co-critic and I look forward to continuing to examine the

budget document in even greater detail, as we enter the estimates

phase.

When I think about this budget, I look at the content and the context

of this budget. I have to say that the devil is, of course, always in the

detail. My colleague and I — and, in fact, members of this House and British

Columbians — certainly discovered that after the rollout of this minister’s

2018 budget. We’ll talk a little bit about that.

However, much has changed in the course of the year, especially the

outlook for the economy. As difficult as it is to say, we need to recognize

— in this place and in the policies that we make and the decisions that we

make — that storm clouds are beginning to gather globally.

According to Deloitte Insights most recent analysis, global

economic growth peaked in 2018, and a slowdown is inevitable. The economic

threats looming on the horizon are well known. And, in fact, today in

question period, we talked about one of them: U.S. protectionism, including

the ongoing softwood lumber dispute. It does not appear to be receding,

despite the recently signed U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade agreement, which itself

remains unratified.

The fallout from Brexit threatens to disrupt not only the United

Kingdom and the European Union but will further market volatility on a

global scale. And, of course, we will certainly feel the impact of a

shrinking growth outlook in Asia and, in particular, in China.

Here in Canada we are not immune. Just in the last few weeks, Payless

shoes is closing all 248 Canadian stores, including two in Prince George and

four in the minister’s own riding in Victoria.

Hudson’s Bay is shutting down all 37 Home Outfitters across the

country. And General Motors closure of the Oshawa assembly plant is telltale

of rapid changes to Ontario’s traditional manufacturing base. In addition,

Alberta continues to struggle by selling oil at a discount to it’s only

customer, the United States.

As we all know, all of this is because of ongoing pipeline disputes

that prevent the sale of Canadian energy products overseas — something that

this government knows an awful lot about.

So what does that matter, Mr. Speaker? How does all of this impact the

provincial economy in British Columbia. Well, it’s because we are not an

island that stands alone isolated from the global economy. If anything, one

of the things about our province is that we have one of the most highly

diversified provincial economies in the country. And that means we need to

be paying attention to those global storm clouds that are gathering. Because

we stand to lose the most from a downturn in overseas markets, especially in

Asia.

My point is that British Columbia has benefited from a strong economic

performance with our trading partners abroad. But there is a risk in

assuming that the strength of our economic momentum will last forever,

because if there’s one thing we know, it won’t.

[11:10 a.m.]

That causes us a great deal of concern. As the minister is well aware,

the meltdown of the global economy in 2008 is absolutely proof of that, yet

this minister and this government appear to shun the basic principles of

financial planning: prudence, caution and being mindful — acutely aware — of

factors outside of this government’s control. All of these are absent in

Budget 2019. I’m sure it will come as no surprise to you that my comments

today will outline the reasons why I and this side of the House will not be

supporting the budget that the Finance Minister tabled just days

ago.

That being said, I do want to recognize several things that members on

our side of the House appreciate and support in the budget as presented. We

know that it’s important to care for the most vulnerable. One of the most

difficult things to do in this Legislature is to stand and listen to the

partisan comments that suggest that the previous government paid no

attention to people in British Columbia. The fact of the matter is: that is

not true.

Today I want to take a moment to reflect on two things, in particular,

that we are appreciative of in this minister’s budget. The increased support

for foster parents and, in addition, the extension of those same benefits to

extended family, who support children and keep them out of care. Every

member in this House cares about vulnerable families, about vulnerable

children. The difference is how we, through our policy-making and through

the budgets we table, reflect that. I do want to give the government credit

for that particular initiative.

Secondly, all of us in our communities, all of us in our families, all

of us have been touched by the issue of having a loved one, a friend or a

colleague who’s dealing with mental health and addictions issues. So we

welcome the initiative to create a distinct program for child and youth

mental health, with a $74 million investment.

Those are the kinds of things that do make a difference for British

Columbians, and those are the kinds of things that all of us in this House

should stand up and be supportive of. Every budget is like that. Every

budget has items that have merit and that can be supported by the entire

House. It is important for us to recognize some of those things

today.

However, there are many items contained in this budget that cause me

great concern. I will address some of those. But what concerns me the most

is what doesn’t appear in this budget. This budget lacks some of the same

substance as the government’s ill-fated throne speech. Budget 2019 has some

deficiencies.

If I were to characterize this budget in just one sentence, I would

have to say that it is a high-risk budget. While it appears to be balanced

on paper, British Columbians should be aware that it would not have been

possible without a one-time federal transfer payment of $1.6

billion.

Let’s look at why and where that money came from. This money came as a

result of the province’s higher-than-anticipated economic performance in

2017, which generated extra credit when the final numbers came in. That

happened in 2017. It happened as a result of the economic circumstances of

this province in 2017. Suffice it to say, there is absolutely no guarantee

that that will happen again.

Budget 2019 contains significant spending, increased debt and ongoing

tax increases. Budget 2019 affirms this government’s rather alarming rate in

program spending — a 26 percent increase, to be precise — and all of this

within the last 18 months since this minister took office. The risk seems so

obvious.

[11:15 a.m.]

In the event of an economic downturn…. Let’s go back to the beginning

of my comments. Those warnings are already being issued — that the momentum

of the economy simply cannot continue. In the event of an economic downturn,

how on earth will this government sustain this rate of spending without

resorting to deficit financing?

We all know, by looking at the budget documents, that the projected

surpluses are razor-thin. Again, there is absolutely no room for error or

allowance for unpredictable economic challenges, unpredictable events such

as another record wildfire season or extensive flooding. Those kinds of

things could tilt the balance back into red ink.

Oddly enough, the Premier made the following observation during the

height of last year’s wildfires. “Clearly, the traditional means of

budgeting for fire season is laughable, and it’s not something that’s just

developed in the last 13 months. It’s been going on for 30 years. Choose an

arbitrary number, put it in the books, and hope for the best.”

Well, clearly, the Minister of Finance didn’t take heed of what the

Premier said about that. Budget 2019 only makes accommodation for $101

million in 2019 — yes, that’s progress; we’re seeing some change — yet we

have the benefit of knowing exactly how much those wildfires cost the

province in the last two record-breaking wildfire seasons. In 2017, it was

$648 million. In 2018, it was $615 million, despite only having $63 million

in the budget.

How will the minister account for this a year from now? Let’s remember

the reason this budget is balanced, on paper, is largely because of a $1.6

billion federal transfer based on economic circumstances that were generated

in 2017, and there is absolutely no guarantee that that will be

repeated.

If all of this is sounding fairly familiar, it should. It’s pretty

much the same playbook that was used the last time this government was in

power. And what was the end result? The last time the NDP was in government,

they managed to take our province from first to worst in Canada. In fact, if

you can imagine, this proud, incredible province was relegated to have-not

status, where we became recipients of federal equalization payments. That is

an embarrassment for this province, and it was totally avoidable. That’s the

risk of paying attention to one side of the ledger: the spending side. The

same applies to the debt.

Many constituents approach me, and I’m sure my colleagues, and ask how

the minister can claim the budget is balanced yet still add $14.5 billion to

the provincial debt over the next three years. Of that, $10 billion

represents taxpayer-supported debt. It’s one thing to borrow and invest in

public infrastructure, but it’s quite another to open the floodgates to the

point where we could potentially reach a 90 percent debt-to-revenue ratio,

all the while ignoring the signs of a slowing economy.

I know this government certainly didn’t like to talk about things like

our triple-A credit rating. To be sure, the previous government, this side

of the House, faced unending criticism from the NDP for placing a focus on

the province’s enviable credit reputation, including our efforts to wipe out

B.C.’s operating debt. And yesterday, in this very chamber, one of the

members on the opposite side of the House stood up and celebrated the

elimination of the operating debt as if it had happened overnight under the

watch of this government.

Well, I want to point out that while a triple-A credit rating may not

be top of mind for the governing side, I do know this: no one pays attention

to a triple-A credit rating until you no longer have one. The impacts of a

potential credit downgrade would have a significant impact on the province’s

finances. One need look no further than the risk of our provincial debt on a

per-capita basis.

[11:20 a.m.]

Over the course of this minister’s fiscal plan, taxpayer-supported

debt will increase from a current $1,595 per person to an astonishing

$10,401 worth of debt for every British Columbian over the course of this

government’s fiscal plan, and that’s in just three years. And that’s not

even the worst of it. When you take into account the total spending plan,

that number increases from the current $2,265 per person to $15,871 for

every single British Columbian in just three years. I can assure you of

this: that will attract the attention of credit-rating agencies.

Yet the primary source of revenue that this government appears to rely

on is what they can extract from taxpayers in the form of income and carbon

tax and an increased burden on the private sector. That is simply not

responsible. It is not sustainable.

To support this government’s spending plan, there have been no less

than 19 new and increased taxes since this government assumed office less

than two years ago. These increases began in the 2017 budget update, then

Budget 2018 and rolled right into Budget 2019. Two of the most prominent tax

measures, the speculation tax and the employer health tax, stumbled out of

the gate and required serious revisions just months later.

After considerable opposition from the private and public sectors, we

arrived at the current form of both taxes — muted yet still deeply flawed.

In the process, the spec tax and the EHT have generated considerable

confusion in real estate markets and placed a heavy burden on both business

and local government. For a government that has launched in excess of three

or four dozen program reviews since they assumed office 18 months ago, the

failed launch of both taxes is nothing less than remarkable.

Even to a casual observer, this indicates a complete lack of

preparation, no public consultation and a willingness to apparently just

make up tax policy on the fly without any regard for unintended consequences

or the damage caused by uncertainty. Indeed, the general disposition of this

government, reflected in their budgets, seems to be: raise taxes first; ask

questions later. Well, I can assure you, we’re going to continue to ask

questions — tough questions — because we know from experience that the devil

is always in the details.

Let’s quickly look at the speculation tax. When it was introduced by

the Finance Minister in her 2018 budget, British Columbians were told it

will only target foreign and domestic speculators. She kept reassuring

British Columbians that 99 percent of homeowners don’t need to

worry.

Well, that was until the middle of January, when 1.6 million taxpayers

suddenly discovered that they would indeed be captured by the speculation

tax unless they file annual exemptions to prove to this government that they

are not speculators. Failure to do so will result in homeowners being

charged the maximum rate. This is quite simply negative-option billing,

similar to what cable companies attempted to do in the 1990s until the

federal government outlawed the practice. I can only imagine what’s going to

happen when the tax bills start arriving on people’s doorsteps.

There are countless other examples of how the spec tax is penalizing

hard-working British Columbians, and I know for a fact that members on the

government bench are hearing those stories too. Yet we have not seen one of

them — not one single one of them — stand up in this House and raise a

single concern. Not one. So we have a so-called speculation tax, which we

know is really a tax on assets.

The employer health tax. As I had mentioned, this is a government

that’s fond of launching dozens of program reviews. A case in point is the

MSP Task Force chaired by Dr. Lindsay Tedds. It also included former NDP

Finance Minister Paul Ramsey. In the weeks before the minister came out with

her budget, the 2018 Budget, the task force had released their interim

report telling the province that under any circumstance, the province should

not adopt a new replacement tax until the MSP was completely

eliminated.

Yet within a few weeks, this minister, the Minister of Finance,

blindsided the business community and municipal governments with the

introduction of a new employer health tax that she had received specific

advice not to introduce. No adequate preparation, no public consultation. It

has a pretty familiar ring to it.

[11:25 a.m.]

The EHT was just another prime example of a failed tax policy that

this government introduced. Worst of all, the minister continues to charge

MSP on top of the EHT through 2019. This double-dip approach to tax policy

is apparently one of the few revenue generation plans we have seen from this

government — no economic strategy, no jobs plan and 19 new or increased

taxes.

British Columbians are also led to believe that the government will

turn around the financial prospects of B.C. Hydro and ICBC in just one year.

Unrealistically ambitious, if not downright naive.

Make no mistake about it. Taxpayers will be hit with higher property

taxes because municipal governments have no other options to cover the

increased costs, not to mention higher costs for goods and services. The

list goes on. How can this possibly be interpreted as making life more

affordable for British Columbians?

Then we get to the carbon tax. In 2017, the minister launched a series

of four consecutive increases to the carbon tax. At the very same time,

despite announcing increases, she abandoned the revenue-neutral feature of

the carbon tax. In this budget alone, the government will collect $6 billion

in carbon tax revenue, and to date, we have seen very little transparency on

where that money will go. But what we do know is that less than 15 percent

of that revenue will be used for CleanBC. The remaining 85 percent of the

carbon tax will go into general revenue.

I seem to recall this minister saying taxpayers didn’t mind paying a

little more as long as the revenue went specifically to green initiatives.

Well, surprise, British Columbians. That promise isn’t being kept either. I

guess the devil really is in the details. As I said earlier in my remarks,

this should be considered a high-risk budget. It’s only balanced because of

a one-time federal transfer payment and the carbon tax going through the

roof.

The spending commitments contained in this budget are significant. And

where are all the more expensive promises, the undelivered campaign promises

that are not reflected in the budget? British Columbians were told there

would be a $10-a-day daycare program. Today you have to be the winner of a

lottery, basically, to be one of those lucky daycares that has been selected

by this government. In other words, winners and losers for families in

British Columbia. And where did the $400 renter’s annual rebate

go?

There is a wide range of capital projects previously announced by this

government — hospitals, highways, schools — simply missing. The capital

plans laid out in Budget 2019 — nowhere to be found. It is one thing to have

lots of photo ops, but there are MLAs in this House who are deeply concerned

that much-needed infrastructure has simply fallen off the list of priorities

of this government.

On top of that, business confidence is dropping in the province.

Investors are uncertain about whether or not B.C. remains a good place to

invest. Housing starts are projected to drop. Natural resource revenues are

projected to drop by 30 percent. And miraculously, ICBC is going to go from

a deficit of $1.8 billion in the current fiscal year to a positive balance

of $50 million.

Well, batten down the hatches, British Columbia. This is a government

that can see the looming storm clouds on our economic horizon, just like

everyone else, yet they want you to believe that everything’s going to be

okay.

Let’s end with this. Here’s what Jock Finlayson of the B.C. Business

Council had to say about Budget 2019: “I think the government, in this

budget, is coasting a bit on what has been a fairly strong economy. What we

do see is a material slowdown in the U.S. and globally. I don’t think this

budget takes enough account of the economic risks that are there.” So you

don’t have to take my word for it or that of the members on this side of the

House.

The business sector, economists, are saying it’s time to pay

attention. Yet this budget represents an expression of unyielding optimism.

The Finance Minister keeps saying: “Don’t worry. Be happy.” Well, British

Columbians deserve a government that isn’t content to cross their fingers

and hope the economic situation doesn’t deteriorate. Frankly, this budget is

long on spending, increased taxes and a growing debt load. Sadly, it leaves

British Columbians vulnerable in a time when there is a growing concern

about a slowing global economy.

[11:30 a.m.]

When this government took office, they inherited the strongest economy

and the No. 1 job-creating jurisdiction in Canada. That’s correct. They

inherited the situation. And despite the minister standing in the House

taking credit for that, we all know it didn’t happen in 18 months. The devil

is in the details. Batten down the hatches, British Columbia.

Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to acknowledge that we’re gathering on the traditional

territory of the Lekwungen-speaking people, members of the Esquimalt and

Songhees First Nations. Simgigat, Sigidimhaanak, K’uba Wilksihlkw .

I’d like to acknowledge the matriarchs, the leaders in these chambers. I’d

like to thank the member opposite and all the members who have spoken to

this budget, Budget 2019, a budget that makes life better.

When I stand in these chambers, I never forget where I came from. I

never forget the fact that I was raised in the projects by a single mother,

as an Indigenous east side kid who went to Van Tech, who knew a thing or two

about going without. I’m a proud mother. I’m proud to be Nisga’a. I’m

honoured to have the opportunity to stand in these chambers to be an

advocate on behalf of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Indigenous people across

this province.

When I think about this budget making people’s lives better, I think

about what 50 bucks means to people. When you have nothing, 50 bucks can go

a long way. But before I continue, I want to acknowledge something, because

this budget is about values. And my values are….

I didn’t get here alone. I want to thank my mom, who is my

constituent. I want to thank my grandparents for their resilience and

strength as Indigenous people, who taught me to work hard, fight hard and to

never forget who I am. I am the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, a

diverse riding that has faced challenges. I have a constituency office at

1st and Commercial, the Drive. People love the Drive because it represents

our eclectic diversity.

I want to acknowledge my staff who open the doors every day, Carven

and Amy; Kevin; the volunteers that help out in my office. I want to thank

my ministry staff who help me every day — Cindy, Mike, Negin. I’m surrounded

by people that are paddling with me. I am not here alone.

I am here with the expectation that I am going to make a difference in

people’s lives, and I take that duty and honour very seriously. So again, I

am standing here with the values of gratitude. It is my privilege to stand

here, not only as the MLA but as the Minister for Advanced Education, Skills

and Training.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Before I continue, I want to talk about what I think the themes are of

this budget. The theme is the policies…. The announcement is about making

good public policy. I’ve listened to the members opposite shrill about the

fishnets and how we’re overspending and we’re bloated and we’re going back

to the ’90s. I have a different version of this budget.

Barack Obama wrote a book called The Audacity of Hope . I

stand in these chambers with hope that if you make decisions with people in

mind, people’s lives will get better. So I have a different version of truth

in the way I see this budget and how it impacts people in Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant.

I am thinking about the child care centres, thinking of the Woodward’s

building. I used to go to the Woodward’s building when I was a young kid,

when there were dollar days. I’m thinking about the poverty reduction

strategy that we were committed to doing because it’s going to benefit

people. I’m thinking about that $50, that extra $50 to my constituents and

people across British Columbia. A small amount can go a long way. And again,

I will never forget where I came from.

[11:35 a.m.]

Foster parents. Before I got into politics, I was an advocate for

children. Why? Because I wanted the rights of children in care to be upheld.

In this budget, we extended a policy to ensure that extended family members

can get the same rates as foster parents. That is good public policy. It was

a recommendation from Grand Chief Ed John. We acted quickly because it was

the right thing to do.

I think about levelling the playing field and increasing benefits for

foster parents. I’m not the only one who thinks that’s a good idea. Even the

members opposite agree that levelling the playing field is good public

policy.

I think about this budget and education and seismic upgrades to Lord

Strathcona, with a $25 million investment. I think about the 380 homes that

are now in Mount Pleasant. I think about my constituents who had to sleep on

the streets, who have faced homelessness. Let’s not forget what brings

people there. Let’s never forget that people don’t wake up homeless, that

those 380 beds are making a difference for people in Mount

Pleasant.

I’m thinking about the $400 million investment through the B.C. child

opportunity benefit for kids going all the way up to 18. I’m going to pause

for a minute. It won’t be clawed back.

We are making decisions to lift people up. This budget is about “Lift

as we climb.” It’s balanced. We have a triple-A rating. But it’s all about

people. If you create good opportunities, you get good outcomes, if you

invest in people. The audacity of the members opposite to act like if you

invest in people, there will be consequences — the fear that goes along with

investing in people. Well, there’s a consequence if you fail to invest in

people, if you continue to leave them behind.

When it comes down to kids, I will always stand on their side. I’m the

mother of two children. I want to say hi to my young, beautiful daughters,

Maya and Makayla, and my husband, Cassidy. I wouldn’t be here without you.

Thank you for your sacrifice so I can stand in these chambers and be a voice

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills

and Training. I signed up for this job to make a difference.

I want to thank the Minister of Finance. She’s a Métis woman. She’s an

Indigenous woman. She stood in these chambers with the NDP government. It’s

balanced. It’s about people. It’s a game changer. It’s going to make

people’s lives better.

On another note about Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, there’s going to be

more access to justice through pilot programs that are going to level the

playing field. There’s going to be a $76 million investment in mental

health. There are going to be retrofits — $902 million to reduce our

greenhouse gas emissions.

There isn’t enough time in these chambers to talk about all the

amazing things that are happening through Budget 2019, but I want to

highlight four things, as the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and

Training.

Tuition-free adult basic education. Free tuition for adult basic

education is going to continue. There are no cuts. We are not going back to

the decisions that were made in 2013. We are going to continue investing in

people.

We are going to continue investing in tech seats — 2,900 tech seats,

the biggest lift in a decade. I know we don’t want to talk about the last 16

years, but let’s talk about the last ten.

Student housing, half a billion dollars in student housing. We’ve

invested in almost 1,200 beds in the last 19 months, and we’ve got more to

come.

The highlight of this budget for me, and all the thank-you letters

that came from students…. It’s even benefitting Keith Baldrey, our

legislative reporter for Global. It made the front page of the newspapers.

Guess what it is. We eliminated interest on B.C. student loans. That is good

public policy.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk about how we are

making life better for British Columbians. Haawa .

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Finance.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I see no further speakers, so I’ll close off the debate.

I want to thank the members for their comments and for their interest

in getting involved in debating the budget. While I certainly didn’t agree

with all the comments that were made, and I’m not going to go through all of

those pieces, I think it is a very important process that we go through in

this legislative chamber. It is a very important role that both government

and opposition play in debating, holding the government accountable and

putting forward their ideas and approaches. It’s a key part of our

democracy. So I want to say how much I appreciate the discussion and the

debate.

I also want to say that I really appreciated the opportunity for

members’ comments that they brought forward and advocacy that they brought

forward on behalf of their communities. Again, each of us comes to this

place from a community, elected by a community, and brings forward the

advocacy and the important issues from their community. That’s a critical

part, again, of our democracy and a critical part for government to pay

attention to because those voices are important and are reflected in this

Legislature.

Just as I do when I listen to those discussions during the budget

debate, just as we do formally through the Select Standing Committee on

Finance, I will continue, and our government will continue, to listen to

those voices, regardless of whether we agree or disagree, to take the

opportunity to be able to hear the feedback, to hear the ideas and, yes, to

hear the criticisms that come forward. I, again, believe that that’s an

important part of democracy.

Budget 2019 continues the work that we began in Budget 2018, and that

was built on listening to the people in British Columbia. I’m putting their

needs first each and every day. You know, when we became government, the

people of the province very clearly said that they wanted and expected a

government to reflect the critical issues that were facing them. They wanted

us to address those issues. So we got started as a government.

Certainly in 2018, two of the key issues, as you know from our

previous budget, were child care and housing. I just want to comment for a

minute, because I’ve heard a few members on the other side talk about the

importance of making sure that there are supports for business and for

investment. I have to tell you that in fact, child care and housing — and

this is probably the crux of the difference between the past government and

ourselves — are business investment issues. They are, in fact, not only

social issues and good for families, good for communities and good for

seniors. They’re, in fact, business issues. They are, in fact, issues that

are critical for us to continue to grow a sustainable economy.

When we see the kind of housing crisis we see in British Columbia,

that’s a detriment to growing our economy. When businesses can’t attract

employees, when they can’t retain employees, that’s a detriment to a strong

economy. It’s not either-or, as we’ve heard from some on the other side.

It’s both. It’s making sure that we make those investments in people to grow

a strong economy. That’s what you see in Budget 2019, and you’re really

seeing the results.

We’ve got continued strong economic growth; wage growth; lowest

unemployment rate in our country; prudence built into the budget, despite

what we’ve heard from a few comments on the other side; $1.5 billion in

contingencies; $1 billion in forecast allowance; a growth projection below

the Economic Forecast Council — again to build in prudence.

We are maintaining our strong economy while making key investments in

people. I just want to run through a couple of those pieces. I don’t have

time to go through all the good news in the budget. I don’t have that

opportunity, but I just want to go through a few pieces.

B.C. child opportunity benefit. Eliminating interest on B.C. student

loans. Providing stable long-term funding for First Nations communities.

Eliminating medical services premiums. Investing in the largest investment

in climate action in B.C.’s history in Clean BC. Continuing our historic

investments in a made-in-B.C. child care program and continuing with our

30-point housing plan to ensure that housing is available for all British

Columbians. Major capital investment — $20 billion — which will create jobs

and build the infrastructure needed across British Columbia. And $800

million for tax benefit for businesses who are investing in equipment, who

want to look at green technologies.

It’s a long list. I know that I don’t have time to run through it all.

Is there more to do? Yes. No question there’s more to do, and we are going

to continue our work. We’re going to continue our work in investing in

people to build a strong economy. We’re going to continue investing in a

green, clean economy to create jobs and spur on investment.

It is a real honour to be Finance Minister for this province. It’s a

real honour to work with our Premier and to work with my colleagues across

our caucus and across government.

[11:45 a.m.]

I want to say a huge thank-you to all of them, because you don’t build

a budget by yourself. You build a budget based on the values and the hard

work of your team that comes forward. So I want to express my huge

appreciation to my colleagues for the incredible work that they do each and

every day and the support that they provide to make sure that the ideas and

the values are represented in Budget 2019.

I want to thank the staff in the Finance Ministry. The public is very

well served by the civil servants that we have, who represent the public

well. I want to express my appreciation to them. Certainly, the staff in my

office and my constituency office and my Finance office again provide an

extraordinary support.

With that, I move, seconded by the hon. Premier, that the Speaker do

now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

[11:50 a.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 44

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Malcolmson

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

NAYS — 40

Cadieux

de Jong

Bond

Polak

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Reid

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Isaacs

Letnick

Thomson

Larson

Foster

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada