Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 83

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 M201 —

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2018

L. Larson

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Rainbow Kitchen program in Esquimalt

M. Dean

Team Tardi at World Junior Curling Championships

M. Hunt

Joey Hartman and Vancouver and District Labour Council

M. Elmore

Parks system and Friends of Cypress Provincial Park

R. Sultan

Homelessness awareness and Long Long Night of Hope fundraiser

B. Ma

John Savage and service to agricultural community

I. Paton

Oral Questions

MSP premiums elimination and employer health tax

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

Housing plan priorities and housing prices

A. Weaver

Hon. S. Robinson

Employer health tax and minimum wage increase

J. Martin

Hon. C. James

Environment Minister communications prior to spill response announcement

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

M. Polak

Greyhound bus service

E. Ross

Hon. C. Trevena

NDP election campaign statement on rebate for renters

S. Sullivan

Hon. C. James

Hon. J. Horgan

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

S. Bond

A. Weaver

Hon. J. Darcy

T. Stone

Hon. K. Chen

J. Martin

R. Kahlon

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2018

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

M. Hunt: Mr. Speaker, it’s my absolute pleasure to introduce your guests to the

House, who are here behind me — your former colleagues from the University

of the Fraser Valley.

We have Jackie Hogan, who is the interim president and

vice-chancellor; Eric Davis, who is the provost and vice-president,

academic; Adrienne Chan, who is the associate vice-president of research

engagement and graduate studies; Craig Toews, who is the vice-president,

external; Maureen Berlin, who is director of special gifts; and, of course,

for those of us from the agricultural side of things, Dr. Garry Fehr, who is

the director of the Agriculture Centre of Excellence.

I would ask all members to join me, joining the Speaker, in welcoming

his guests.

Hon. M. Mark: Hon. Speaker, I’d like to double down and add on to those remarks from

the member opposite. Friends of yours in the Fraser Valley — Jackie Hogan,

the president, and her colleagues that are here with us from the University

of the Fraser Valley — play a huge role south of the Fraser.

You punch well above your weight class. Thank you for hosting me back

in the summer, when I had a chance to meet with you, your staff and the

student union — and today talking about the digital economy and the

agricultural economy that are driving British Columbia. Thank you so much

for your time today.

Will the House please join me in welcoming our delegation.

Hon. S. Fraser: I know I don’t have to tell anyone in this House the challenges that

go along with this job, juggling that with family and the sacrifices our

family members and loved ones have to make, and missing significant dates,

often. On the date of today, the 21st of February, Dolores and I had our

first date. I marked it down because I think I’m still paying for that. She

turned me down several times — playing hard to get, I think — but I

persevered.

[1:40 p.m.]

Dolores, if you’re watching, a happy anniversary of our first date 37

years ago today.

L. Reid: I’m delighted, on behalf of the women in this Legislature, to welcome

the UBC

chapter of Equal Voice. They’ve joined us in the gallery. They’re

absolutely stunning visitors today. We have Fatima Aamir, Elimi Gubskaya,

Alana Davies, Ashley Haines, Naeemah Shah, Puneet Heer, Jasmin Kaur Basra,

Sarah Victoria Tang, Cecilia Pang, Sophia Diamonds, Riya Talitha Samuel and

Neha Sree Tadepalli.

Please join us in wishing them the warmest welcome possible. You’ll be

here one day.

Hon. G. Heyman: One of the great joys of the position has been visiting employees of

the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy in different offices

around British Columbia. Today five employees of the ministry are joining us

in our workplace, in the gallery. I would like to invite every member of the

House to make these hard-working public sector workers welcome.

From the information and records management team, we have Vicki

Desaulnier and Julia Fedorak. From internal communications, we have Sabrina

Cousins, and from the deputy minister’s office, Coleen Gooderham and Karla

Kennedy. With the exception of Karla, it’s the first visit to the gallery

for four of these workers.

Thank you very much and join me in making them welcome.

C. Oakes: Today I had the pleasure of meeting with the Canadian Federation of

Independent Business — Sam Howard, who is the director for British Columbia;

Aaron Aerts, who is the western economist; and Queenie Wong, who is the

senior analyst.

CFIB represents 10,000 hard-working independent small business owners

in British Columbia. What I appreciate about the work they do is that they

directly survey small business owners on topics and issues. Today they

shared with me their latest data.

Would the House help me recognize this important

organization.

M. Dean: I would also like to recognize the fantastic women who are here from

Equal Voice from UBC. It was a fantastic time we spent with them over lunch,

sharing our experiences and hearing about theirs and their ambitions as

well.

On behalf of a government that has 50 percent women in cabinet, I

thank them very much for coming and spending their time with all the women

from the Legislature today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M201 —

INTERPRETATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

L. Larson presented a bill intituled

Interpretation Amendment Act,

L. Larson: I move that a bill,

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2018, of which

notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and

now read a first time.

Twice a year the changing of our clocks forward or back one hour

continues to create a flurry of articles and discussion. The practice of

moving our clocks forward and back began in 1918. Studies continue to be

published about the negative impacts on our health, studies that have

documented an increase in both heart attacks and car accidents in the

days immediately following the time shift. Studies have also identified

losses to the economy from a lack of productivity directly related to

that shift.

The European Parliament has entered into the discussion of

abolishing this practice at the request of Finland, following a petition

of 70,000 signatures from that country. An on-line petition from

Kamloops has more than 25,000 signatures in support of this

change.

The elimination of daylight saving time requires changes to the

Interpretation Act, as set out in this bill. This bill will also make

consequential amendments to the Community Charter, Election Act, Local

Government Act, Vancouver Charter and Wildfire Act or any other act,

regulation, rule, order, bylaw, agreement or other instrument or

document referring to Pacific Daylight Time.

It will be 100 years this spring since the time shift was

introduced. B.C. has the opportunity to show leadership in what has

become an international discussion by ending time shifting.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

L. Larson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M201,

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2018, 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.

[1:45 p.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

RAINBOW KITCHEN PROGRAM

ESQUIMALT

M. Dean: Well, no unicorns here in the Rainbow Kitchen, yet it’s a

phenomenal place. Every year the Rainbow Kitchen provides more than

36,000 meals to individuals in my community. This outstanding initiative

is run almost entirely by more than 200 volunteers and supported by

generous contributions from community partners. Lunch is served to about

125 to 150 people every weekday from the kitchen’s headquarters at

Esquimalt United Church.

Meals are carefully planned to be nutritional, tasty and generous,

keeping in mind that sometimes it may be the only meal a person receives

that day. Many of them don’t have the ability or capacity to cook for

themselves.

Some are on provisional income assistance or disability pension.

Some are house-poor. Some are elderly and frail. Some are homeless.

Loneliness can be as devastating as hunger, and some come more for the

conversation than the food. This warm, safe, welcoming space helps build

healthy social interactions and is the kind of supportive, respectful

and nonjudgmental environment that promotes mental wellness and recovery

from addictions.

This is a marvellous program, supporting self-determination and

creating many success stories. Several of those who now generously

volunteer started as guests at Rainbow Kitchen. They were encouraged to

volunteer and take training like FoodSafe and gain confidence and better

health. Some are working in the kitchen, some are custodians, and some

help in the community gardens.

Today I ask all members of this House to join me in thanking those

who support Rainbow Kitchen with their donations, food, time and

caring.

TEAM TARDI AT WORLD

JUNIOR CURLING

CHAMPIONSHIPS

M. Hunt: It’s my honour today to rise and to speak about our provincial

junior curling team, Team Tardi, and the upcoming games of the 2018

junior world championships in Aberdeen, Scotland.

Now, we know it initially came from Scotland, but Canada has a

rich history in curling, since we have such long winters. The first

story that we have in our country is the 78th Fraser Highland Regiment

melting cannonballs and curling with them on the frozen St. Lawrence

River in Quebec City in 1759. We here in British Columbia have our first

record in 1895 up in the Kootenays. Though it has a long history, it’s

still alive and well in this province, and we see this through our young

athletes and those whose performances have inspired a whole nation’s

admiration and the fierce pride of the various provinces.

We’re very proud of our four athletes who make up the British

Columbia junior curling team — Tyler Tardi, Sterling Middleton, Jordan

Tardi, Zachary Curtis — and their coach, Paul Tardi. Sounds like a

family affair. The team has been breaking records, and their captain,

Tyler, is the sixth male to skip back-to-back gold medals. The gold

medal was awarded to our Surrey competitors after they defeated the

Sudbury champions.

Mr. Premier, are you listening? Coincidentally, the team was

called Team Horgan who they defeated — we defeated.

I’m thrilled to announce that they will be travelling to Scotland

for the 2018 world junior championships because of this spectacular

victory. The games will be held in Aberdeen from March 3 to 10, and we

know that our B.C. team will make us proud. They’re aiming for Canada’s

19th gold medal in the world juniors. Given how much we love sports here

in British Columbia, I know we’re rooting for them, and we wish Team

Tardi all the best in the coming tournament.

JOEY HARTMAN AND VANCOUVER

AND DISTRICT LABOUR

COUNCIL

M. Elmore: The Vancouver and District Labour Council was founded in 1889 as

the Vancouver Trades and Labour Council, making it one of the oldest

labour organizations in the country. Today the VDLC represents 60,000

workers from over 100 affiliated unions. After more than 100 years, Joey

Hartman became its first woman president in 2011, and last night she

retired after serving seven years as president.

[1:50 p.m.]

Joey was a child care worker at Ray-Cam Community Centre when she

got involved on the picket line during the 14-week Vancouver area civic

strike in 1981, advocating for the issue of pay equity. She is a trade

union and community activist and has been involved in many organizations

and served on many boards, including the B.C. Labour Heritage Centre,

Pacific Northwest Labor History Association, On to Ottawa Historical

Society, SFU’s labour studies program, Metro Vancouver Alliance, United

Way of the Lower Mainland, B.C. Employment Standards Coalition and

CoDevelopment Canada.

She leads labour history walking tours in Vancouver and is

passionate about labour history. She has compiled a women’s labour

history presentation and continues to organize the largest dinner in

B.C. to celebrate International Women’s Day.

During her seven years as president of the VDLC, she has worked

tirelessly to strengthen the connections between the labour movement and

our communities. She has increased the involvement of youth and young

workers and has mentored generations of activists. She has done much

work on international solidarity and has led the VDLC to become a more

engaging and dynamic organization advocating for social justice and

equality.

Joey may be retiring as president of the VDLC, but I have a

feeling she will continue to be involved in building and strengthening

our communities for many more years to come.

Thank you, Joey, for your leadership and commitment to social

justice and for being a great inspiration for social change for all of

us.

PARKS SYSTEM AND

FRIENDS OF CYPRESS PROVINCIAL

PARK

R. Sultan: Friends of Cypress Provincial Park is an important volunteer

organization in my riding. Although tiny, FCPP has an outsized influence

in the struggle to preserve our natural environment.

B.C. has the third-largest park system in North America, outranked

only by those of Parks Canada and the United States. Land set aside for

class A parks in B.C., ecological reserves and conservancies equals

twice the area of the Republic of Ireland.

Our previous government aggressively added hectares. Staffing,

however, often lagged behind. Here’s where folks such as Lynn Grants,

Anne Leathem, Anne George, Irene Miller and Katharine Steig of FCPP

stepped in to help.

Cypress Park day use attendance now exceeds one million visitors

annually. This put a smile on the face of our tourism industry but can

produce frowns on those who worry about environmental stress and

biodiversity.

Since we created these parks and invite our citizens as well as

the world to use them, the Ministry of Environment has a deep

responsibility to manage them and certainly not to cut their budgets.

When issues of invasive species, out-of-control dogs and park

maintenance arise, Friends of Cypress Park sound the alarm. They

contributed $40,000 of their own money so that B.C. Parks could hire a

trails crew to maintain the heavily used Baden-Powell Trail.

Thank you, FCPP, for your extra set of eyes and your important

stewardship.

HOMELESSNESS AWARENESS AND

LONG LONG NIGHT OF HOPE

FUNDRAISER

B. Ma: In a few days’ time, I’ll be sleeping in my car, and I need your

help. You see, I’m privileged enough to be able to choose to spend only

one night without a home, but there are thousands of people across the

province who aren’t as fortunate as you and me. Will you help me support

them?

On February 24, I’ll be joining the good people of the parish of

St. John the Evangelist Anglican Church in North Vancouver, in their

Long Long Night of Hope. We will sleep in our cars. We will sleep on the

pews of the church. We will raise awareness of what homelessness can

look like, and we will do this to raise funds for the North Shore

Lookout Society homeless shelter.

Thousands of people in B.C., including 750 people on the North

Shore, are without a home. They are left to find temporary shelter,

sleep on the streets, in their cars, in the woods or worse. Some people,

particularly women, will put themselves in dangerous or precarious

situations just to stay out of the cold. Still thousands more across the

province hang on the precipice of homelessness — one sick day, one

paycheque, one car repair away from not being able to pay their next

month’s rent.

[1:55 p.m.]

These aren’t people in a faraway land. They’re our friends, our

neighbours, maybe even our family. My own partner lived for years this

way. He was only able to keep a roof over his head because he had

landlords who were kind enough to let a few rent cheques slide here and

there.

The new budget has released an incredible slew of affordable

housing investments, and the current development of a provincial poverty

reduction strategy gives me great hope that we might one day alleviate

the depth of poverty in our province. But it does take time, and in the

meantime, there are still urgent needs that require the help of us and

our neighbours. Will you donate?

JOHN SAVAGE AND

SERVICE TO AGRICULTURAL

COMMUNITY

I. Paton: I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a dedicated Delta

farmer, a champion of agriculture and a former Minister of Agriculture.

I refer to Mr. John Savage, who turns 82 this Friday.

The Savage family began their history of farming in Delta in 1870

upon their arrival from Ireland. John Savage and his family are known

not only as great farmers in Delta but also as active community members,

local aldermen and former owners of a New Holland–Massey Ferguson farm

equipment dealership right on their family farm on Ladner Trunk Road. I

know John and his family are also very proud of a palliative care

facility in Ladner having been named after John’s mom and dad, Harold

and Veronica.

John Savage has had an incredible and storied career. He was first

elected as an alderman in Delta before moving on to become a Social

Credit MLA for Delta South and eventually becoming a well-respected

Minister of Agriculture.

In addition, John’s contributions to Delta and the agricultural

community across the province have been enormous. Over the years, John

was either president, director or chairman of so many associations,

including the Canadian and B.C. Federations of Agriculture, the Delta

Farmers Institute, the Delta Ag Society, the B.C. Farm Debt Review

Board, the B.C. Vegetable Marketing Commission and the B.C. Cranberry

Marketing Commission. John Savage was also an excellent athlete in his

younger days, excelling in men’s fastpitch and widely known as one of

the best bowlers in Delta.

We are very fortunate to have John still with us, as he nearly

succumbed to a sepsis blood infection in 2014, leading to stroke,

cardiac arrest and six months in Surrey Memorial Hospital. By truly a

miracle, John pulled through, and he can be seen today driving his

familiar pickup truck around Delta, checking up on the progress of

younger farmers and spreading his great sense of humour.

I am thankful for John’s dedication to his farm, his community and

his province. I have learned plenty from this hard-working gentleman,

and I am proud to have followed in his political footsteps.

Johnny, I wish you many more years of happy and healthy

retirement.

Oral Questions

MSP PREMIUMS ELIMINATION

AND EMPLOYER HEALTH

TAX

A. Wilkinson: In preparation for yesterday’s budget, the Premier commissioned a

task force to look at Medical Services Plan premiums, better known as

MSP. They recommended “that MSP premiums be eliminated at a specific

date and that the new revenue measures take effect fully at the same

time.” In other words, no overlap, no

duplication. That’s the interim report from the Premier’s own task force

on MSP premiums.

Instead, we now have a year of double taxation, with both MSP

premiums and the brand-new employer health tax. Can the Premier please

tell us why he is ignoring the advice of his own experts and providing

for a year of double taxation, with both MSP premiums and the employer

health tax?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question, the

opportunity to talk about how proud I was to introduce a budget that

will eliminate MSP premiums in this province for individuals and

businesses.

I find it extraordinary that a member on the other side would

raise a question about MSP, considering it was the other side that in

fact doubled MSP premiums, the most regressive tax in our province,

during their time in office. We are bringing in a fairer, more

progressive approach to funding health care.

The employer’s tax will be put in place January 1, 2019. There

will be 85 percent of businesses in British Columbia that will pay no

employer’s health tax.

[2:00 p.m.]

Five percent of businesses will pay the full amount. Most

businesses will not pay any of the employer tax, and those who do will

continue to get the break that is happening right now, with a 50 percent

reduction — $1.3 billion in savings to individuals and

businesses.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, apparently a few things are becoming clearer in this House.

First of all, the definition of “progressive” is that it’s progressively

crippling on business. The second is that the Premier doesn’t like to

answer the financial questions, and the third is that the employer

health tax and the MSP premiums add up to almost $2 billion in taxation

in the coming year and $3 billion in the next year.

The Premier’s own task force noted that this will have a dramatic

effect on B.C.’s competitiveness. We’re left with the question for the

Premier, who may care to fob it off on the Finance Minister. Why did the

Premier allow for double taxation of family businesses, which his own

task force said would damage competitiveness?

Hon. C. James: I’ll just repeat again that 85 percent of businesses in this

province will not pay the employer health tax.

While I’m at it, I just want to take a moment to actually talk

about the tax changes in this budget because I’m very proud of the

changes that we have brought forward. The majority of those tax changes

in this budget are in the area of housing, an area that that side of the

House ignored till it became a crisis.

We are addressing it with a 30-point housing plan in this budget.

We’ll be bringing in a new speculation tax. We are going to increase the

foreign buyer tax. We’re increasing the tax on the top 2 percent of

homes — luxury homes more than $3 million. And, yes, we are asking

people who buy luxury cars that are worth more than $125,000 to pay a

little bit more. That’s what a fair, progressive tax system looks like

in our province.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: We can remember, way back long ago, George Harrison wrote a song

for the Beatles called “Taxman.” Now we have the tax woman, in the

person of the Finance Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question. Thank you.

A. Wilkinson: Apparently, the members of this government didn’t look at the

headlines today in the newspapers, where people aren’t too thrilled

about tax increases. Big tax hikes are not something to celebrate except

when you’re a member of the NDP.

We have the question, of course. Job creators were blindsided

yesterday by the employer health tax. The government’s own handpicked

experts said: “This is not the direction we were going.” So why is it

that this Finance Minister grins from ear to ear as she lists off one

tax after another that will cripple small business in this province and

make it less and less affordable?

Hon. C. James: I’m not sure what the other side doesn’t recognize about cutting

small business taxes in September in our budget update. I’m not sure

what the other side doesn’t get about eliminating the PST on electricity

in 2019 for all businesses in British Columbia.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: we are putting people

at the centre of this budget. I am so proud of a universal child care

program, of housing initiatives, of support for seniors. We are making

life better for British Columbians, and that will continue to be our

priority.

S. Bond: “First, whatever mechanisms are chosen to replace MSP revenue, we

feel strongly that there should not be any phase-in of the new measures

and phase-out of MSP.”

[2:05 p.m.]

If the minister has so much confidence in her own handpicked task

force, why did she completely ignore the advice that she was

given?

Hon. C. James: A 50 percent cut in MSP premiums in January of this year. That

provides a $1.3 billion savings to businesses and to families. The only

province left with a regressive tax like the MSP is British Columbia. We

are eliminating those premiums, an $1,800 savings that will be there for

families — $900 for individuals. In order to ensure that we are fiscally

responsible, we are bringing in an employer health tax, as other

provinces have done, that 85 percent of the businesses in British

Columbia will pay nothing towards.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, make no mistake about it. Despite ignoring the advice of her

task force, the Minister of Finance is double-dipping and raising an

extra $1.8 billion on the backs of family businesses. Yet in her budget,

amazingly, the task force is going to continue to do its work, despite

the minister rejecting all of the advice that they gave her.

Let’s ask this question. They, apparently, were also asked to look

at a personal income tax surcharge. The task force terms of reference

prohibit retaining MSP premiums and increasing the PST. Will the

minister today rule out additional increases to income taxes — yes or

no?

Hon. C. James: I’m not sure if the member knows whether we should be paying

attention to the report or not paying attention to the report. She seems

to pick and choose from the pieces that she wants to bring

forward.

In fact, we have increased on the top 2 percent of income earners.

We reversed the tax break that the other side gave and increased taxes

in September of this year. That covers off the income tax changes there.

We’re bringing in the employer tax, and we’re eliminating MSP

premiums.

HOUSING PLAN PRIORITIES

AND HOUSING

PRICES

A. Weaver: For months, we were told to wait for the comprehensive housing

plan that the NDP promised was going to be forthcoming. Now we have it.

While it’s encouraging that, finally, we have a government that was

willing to acknowledge that there’s a problem, I’m not entirely clear

what outcomes this government is trying achieve with their

plan.

In her housing plan, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

says this. She wants to “stabilize” the market. My question to the

minister is this. What does she mean by stabilizing, and what does

stabilization actually look like?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to first of all thank the Leader of the Third Party for the

question. It’s a pleasure for me to stand up in this House and talk

about, finally, how British Columbians have a government that’s paying

attention to this housing crisis. For far too long, people have been

neglected in this province. I’m very proud to represent this government

on the housing file.

I think it’s really important to recognize that people need to be

able to find housing that is appropriate for their families. We have so

many families that are living in basement suites — three children and

parents living in substandard housing. That’s unacceptable, and those

people need to be able to find the housing that they need. We also have

seniors who are really struggling every month to make their ends meet.

We have seniors who are choosing to not pay for medications because they

can’t afford their rent.

With this effort, with the efforts of this 30-point plan, we’ll be

making a difference for seniors, making a difference for women fleeing

violence, making a difference for people who are Indigenous, making a

difference for families throughout this province.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Well, I must admit, that’s a fascinating definition of

stabilization, if you ask me.

[2:10 p.m.]

The budget spoke of stabilizing demand and bringing down the cost

curve of housing costs. Let’s be very clear what stabilizing the market

actually looks like. Between 2015 and now, just three years, the average

price of a home in greater Vancouver increased by 60 percent to $1.6

million. The average price of a condo increased 70 percent to $665,000.

It’s a similar story throughout British Columbia.

Stabilizing the housing market at present levels leaves home

prices distantly out of reach for the vast majority of British

Columbians, especially families with young children. The government’s

own revenue projections back this up. They reveal that government

doesn’t believe their measures are actually going to have a real impact

on housing prices. The government has projected property transfer tax

revenues to go up and the speculation tax to come in at $200 million,

both next year and the year after.

My question, again, is this: how does the minister square this

circle? How can government project increased revenues from the housing

market while promising to decrease demand and reduce housing

costs?

Hon. S. Robinson: Let’s be really clear. We have just announced the largest

investment in affordable housing in B.C.’s history. We have brought in

more than a dozen measures to address speculation in our market. That’s

a significant amount.

We have been saying all along that one-offs that the old

government did were not how you address a significant problem like this.

Thirty different actions are going to be taken by this government, 30

different pieces, where we’re going to be working with local

governments, with First Nations, with all kinds of partners who are very

excited to work with a government committed to housing. That’s how we’re

going to be addressing the housing crisis that we have here in this

province.

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

AND MINIMUM WAGE

INCREASE

J. Martin: According to the government’s own expert panel, the new jobs tax

comes at a time when family businesses are facing multiple competitive

challenges, including the June 1 hike to the minimum wage. Did the Fair

Wages Commission consider the impact of a new jobs tax when they made

their recommendations — yes or no?

Hon. C. James: Government made the decision to eliminate MSP premiums January 1,

We are bringing in an employers health tax that 85 percent of

businesses will not be having to pay because they are small businesses.

We are protecting them. We are also making sure that we lower small

business tax rates and eliminate the PST on business.

Are we making sure that we’re continuing to grow our economy? You

bet. We’re making major investments in child care and housing, which

businesses have asked for to address recruitment and retention issues

for them as well.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack on a supplemental.

J. Martin: The combined impact of the minimum wage hike and the

double-dipping jobs tax is going to hurt family businesses across

British Columbia. Will the Minister of Labour ask the Minister of

Finance to cancel this double-dipping jobs tax?

Hon. C. James: I’m so pleased that the member across the way wants to ensure that

we’re all working together. I can assure him that we are working

together, and we’re all proud of this budget that we’ve put

forward.

Small family businesses with a payroll less than $500,000 are not

paying any of the employers tax. Businesses that have a payroll between

$500,000 and $1.5 million are only paying a small portion of the

employers health tax.

We will ensure we support the health of our British Columbians. We

support the health budget, and we ensure that we eliminate MSP premiums

— a benefit to business and to individuals.

ENVIRONMENT MINISTER COMMUNICATIONS

PRIOR TO SPILL

RESPONSE ANNOUNCEMENT

P. Milobar: The day before his announcement which directly triggered the trade

war with Alberta, the Minister of Environment selectively disclosed

information to a group of professional activists committed to shutting

down Canada’s natural resource industries.

I’d like the minister to be very clear to this House. Precisely

what information did he disclose to members of the Bowen Island group on

January 29, ahead of the January 30 announcement?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, the opposition started this question period by pointing out

that they didn’t want to give British Columbians relief from a

regressive Medical Services Plan premium.

Now they’ve moved on to demonstrate that they don’t really want to

stand with 3,400 workers in the primary seafood sector on coastal

communities. They don’t want to stand with the over 42,000 workers in

B.C.’s film and television industry. They don’t want to stand with sport

fishery tourism operators throughout all of the interior of British

Columbia. They would rather just focus on exactly what I did in my role

as minister.

If they want to know what I did in my role as minister, they

should ask the Opposition House Leader, who set the pattern of

consulting and informing stakeholders the day before a significant

announcement. What I told business leaders in British Columbia, what I

told industry associations and what I told environmental organizations

was no more and no less than a simple

summary of what was public

information the next day.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: I think it’s safe to say that the minister has quickly forgotten

their 16 years of opposition in terms of when something doesn’t seem

quite right, you keep asking when you don’t get an actual proper

answer.

The minister’s former employer, the Sierra Club, issued a news

release within minutes of the government announcement on January 30.

Now, those releases typically take a little bit longer than a couple of

minutes to get properly crafted and properly distributed on the wire.

Yet clearly, their release said they knew about the new restrictions on

the shipment of bitumen, within that release.

Did the minister reveal this market-sensitive information to the

Sierra Club on January 29 — yes or no?

Hon. G. Heyman: I believe I’ve answered this question ten, 12, perhaps 13 times,

so let me make it simple and clear for the member opposite. I’ve had

nothing to do with Sierra Club press releases for well over four

years.

Let me simply say that industry associations, other stakeholders

and certain environmental organizations involved in this project got

notification on January 29 of the general content of the announcement

that we were going to make. This is standard practice. Perhaps the

member would like to consult with some of the business organizations

about why they didn’t write their press releases earlier. They had

exactly the same information.

As the member should know — and if the member doesn’t know, he

could check with the Opposition House Leader — tax measures, regulatory

decision-makers, like approvals of permits, can be market-influencing

decisions. Intention to consult with British Columbians is hardly —

hardly — in that category and certainly is appropriate to share with

interested parties.

M. Polak: It is well-established practice within the Ministry of Environment

not to share the content of regulatory announcements. In fact, they are

kept confidential until after markets close, when announcements are then

made.

Did the minister ignore the advice of his officials?

Hon. G. Heyman: What we announced on January 30 was the intention to consult with

British Columbians about proposals that we might make as regulations. We

followed standard practice of the ministry. In fact, I took the advice

of ministry officials to follow exactly the practice that was carried

out when the Opposition House Leader was Minister of the

Environment.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the opposition on a supplemental.

[2:20 p.m.]

M. Polak: In this case, it is obvious from the news releases that were

generated from the Bowen Island group that they did have knowledge of

the detail with respect to the regulatory announcement.

Since the minister is claiming that he followed established

protocol, will he then provide this House with any scripts or materials

that were used in order to share the heads-up information with

organizations?

Hon. G. Heyman: There was no regulatory announcement because there was no

regulation. We announced the intention to consult with British

Columbians on an intentions paper. We gave people a

summary of what was

public information in a news release the next day. That’s it. Full stop.

Period. We gave the same information to the business council. We gave

the same information to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

This is standard practice.

Members of the opposition can spend their time, if they wish,

trying to make an issue where none exists. But British Columbians want

to know when members of the opposition will stand up for tens of

thousands of jobs spread throughout British Columbia and protect B.C.’s

jurisdiction to defend its coast and its environment. When will they do

that?

GREYHOUND BUS SERVICE

E. Ross: For years, the NDP advocated for bus services in the north,

particularly Highway 16. Today we learned Greyhound has been given

permission to stop providing service in northern B.C. and rural

B.C.

My question is: how is it possible that the minister has allowed

this service to collapse?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think both sides of this House recognize how unfortunate it is

that Greyhound is pulling out. The Passenger Transportation Board, which

is an independent tribunal, studied this. They actually had hearings

about it at my instigation. I got in touch with them during the fall and

winter. They actually had further hearings.

I’ve been in touch with members of the opposition, including the

member himself. They sat down in my office. We’ve talked about the

problems that we might face. I will be continuing to work with them. The

member for Prince George–Valemount is well aware of this. In fact, I

sent her a note just before we started this session.

I’m happy to sit down with them. I’ll be sitting down with mayors,

elected officials, First Nations across the communities affected to try

to find a solution.

Mr. Speaker: Skeena on a supplemental.

E. Ross: The information is correct. We did sit down, but I thought the

common goal was to keep the service in northern British Columbia because

the bus service is vital for people in the north, especially for First

Nation communities. The service reduction increases public safety

concerns, especially where transportation options are limited and the

winters are very harsh.

To the Minister of Transportation: what will you do to bring this

service back?

Hon. C. Trevena: As the member well knows, I agree with him. We are extraordinarily

worried about access for vulnerable people, access for First Nations.

It’s a very a harsh climate. I think that the member knows that we need

to find a solution, and I will sit down with him.

Greyhound is an independent business. They wanted to pull out.

They applied to the Passenger Transportation Board, an independent

tribunal, to withdraw the service. The Passenger Transportation Board

took evidence from Greyhound, from the communities. At my instigation,

they went out and talked to communities. They decided to make that

ruling.

Greyhound will be pulling out. We will be working with

communities, with the members opposite, if they choose to work with us.

I will be very happy to sit down and continue to work with them to try

and find solutions because, like the members opposite, we know we cannot

leave people stranded in the north.

[2:25 p.m.]

NDP ELECTION CAMPAIGN STATEMENT

ON REBATE FOR

RENTERS

S. Sullivan: During the election campaign, there were very clear commitments,

very specific promises made to the voters, but now many of these are

being described as “aspirational” or “slogans.” One of these commitments

was a promise made to renters. We know that many renters are struggling,

and they were promised a renters rebate. I have looked through the

budget, and I can’t find any sign of this renters rebate.

My question is to the Minister of Housing. Where is the renters

rebate in the budget, and when will the renters receive their

much-needed rebate?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question.

We certainly are concerned about renters and tenants. In fact,

they’re often the most vulnerable when the housing market is in a

crisis, as it is right now. That’s why we made the changes that we did

in the September update, where we made sure that we put in support in

the tenancy branch to be able to get rid of the backlog to support good

tenants and good landlords. That’s why we closed the one-year fixed-term

lease issue: to be able to support tenants.

We are continuing our work in this budget by ensuring that the

most vulnerable tenants — seniors with low incomes and working families

who get the rental assistance program — are going to see more benefit,

and more people are going to be able to partake of that

program.

This is what we’ve done in seven months. We’re working on the

renters rebate and a number of other ideas that have come forward to

support tenants. There’ll be more over the next three years.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–False Creek on a supplemental.

S. Sullivan: I appreciate the Minister of Finance giving me these details, but

I’m really referring to a promise made, a commitment that was made to

the voters during the election campaign. I know that the Premier has

discussed what he calls an amended promise, but I would like to again

ask the minister: are the renters going to receive the clear commitment

that was made to them — yes or no?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for Richmond-Steveston for participating in the

Legislature, as he just did, and also for the question from the member

from False Creek.

The question was revolving around promises during the election

campaign. You will all recall that we promised to eliminate tolls on the

Port Mann and Golden Ears Bridge, and we did that. We promised to make

coming to British Columbia and those that want to make a better life for

themselves, and we did that. We promised to address rampant speculation

that was ignored by those on the other side in the housing market, and

we did that. We promised to eliminate medical services premiums, and

guess what. Rather than doubling them, we’re cutting them in half, and

then we’re going to eliminate them. So we did that.

Lastly, because I know we’re out of time and there’s an important

debate that will be following this riveting question period, we promised

affordable, accessible child care for the families of British Columbia,

and guess what. We’re doing that too.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call address in reply to the budget debate.

[2:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to continue from my initial comments

delivered in the House yesterday regarding the 2018 budget tabled by the

government.

I also wanted to add my thanks to the Minister of Finance for the work

that she has done in facilitating the lockup for our particular caucus

members and also for the staff that she provided to assist with our

preparations. I very much appreciated the efforts that were made in order

for us to be prepared for the budget yesterday.

The strength of our economy in British Columbia actually comes from

the hard-working people of this province. I don’t think there’s anyone in

the House that would disagree with that. We also recognize that everyone in

the province wants to have a good job and the opportunity to make their

lives and the lives of their families better. People expect that when they

work hard they will reap the benefits, that they will work hard and their

families will find themselves in a better place.

We have to recognize that ultimately the wealth in British Columbia is

generated by hard-working people across the province, many of those in the

private sector. From small start-up companies to businesses that are small

and medium and large-sized, the private sector is a primary source of

well-paying, family-supporting jobs in our province.

I’m sure that most members of this House have heard, and certainly we

have, that business can only prosper if government gets out of the way and

allows the private sector to be competitive, to compete. We know, and we’ve

seen evidence. We’ve seen the story before. We’ve heard the story before

that when you place a heavy burden on the private sector by piling on more

taxes, by dealing with issues by adding more regulation…. All of us

recognize that health and safety regulations are essential, but you simply

don’t grow an economy by placing heavy burdens on businesses, the private

sector in the province.

For the past several years, British Columbia has led the country in

terms of economic growth. In fact, when we received the fall update from the

Minister of Finance, there was recognition that this government had

inherited one of the fastest-growing economies in the country — triple-A

credit ratings, leading job creator in the country. British Columbia has

been a leader in economic growth.

One of the reasons that that has been the case is because, as a

government, we made it a priority to have a competitive tax regime that

allows businesses to take root in B.C. and to flourish. Well, unfortunately,

we’ve started to see a shift in that priority.

It started when the new government took over last summer. We’ve

already seen the shift. We’ve started to look at that loss of

competitiveness. It’s essential that we remain competitive. Yet what do we

see? We see a number of significant tax changes contained in the September

27 budget update.

[2:35 p.m.]

British Columbia used to have the lowest corporate tax rate compared

to the western provinces, and that matters. They are our competitors. They

compete for investment. They look to attract new businesses to their

provinces. Competitiveness matters.

All of that began to change when the current government increased the

rate from 11 percent to 12 percent last September. It wasn’t important that

British Columbia remained the leader and remained competitive. It was okay

that we were now in the middle of the pack. That’s not good enough for

British Columbia. For a new company looking to locate in B.C., there is no

longer a significant competitive tax incentive. That matters.

To further compound the burden on the private sector, the government

announced a significant increase in the carbon tax over the next four years.

One of the things, as the opposition, that we are very concerned about is

the lack of revenue neutrality. Now, that just sounds like a phrase, and

people are wondering: “Oh, what difference does that make?” It makes a

significant difference.

B.C. had received international acclaim for being one of the very

first jurisdictions to adopt a truly progressive carbon tax, and much of the

success and the reception from the public was because of the principle of

revenue neutrality. That disappeared with the new government.

What that meant is that any increase in the carbon tax would be offset

by a corresponding decrease in income tax or other forms of taxation. But

now, with the current government, the carbon tax is being increased. The

cost of doing business in B.C. is going up incrementally.

The really difficult part about that is that there will no longer be a

requirement to report to British Columbians about how that revenue is going

to be spent. There is certainly no guarantee, looking at the 2018 budget,

that it will be related to any sort of comparable tax reduction. British

Columbians are paying an increased carbon tax. They will not know how it

will be distributed or how it will be spent, and it certainly will not be

revenue-neutral. That is a significant fiscal issue for British

Columbians.

The increases in the carbon tax start on April 1 of this year, and

they will compound over the next four consecutive years. These are seemingly

silent tax increases every year, amounting to $1.4 billion. Once again, no

requirement to report out. No requirement to outline for British Columbians

where those dollars will be invested.

Most of the impact will be felt in the transportation sector. Stop and

think about it for a moment. From a truck that delivers food to the grocery

store, to the bus that takes your child or, in my case, your grandchildren

to school or the taxi you take to the airport, gas, diesel and, yes,

aviation fuel are going to cost more. I’m not sure how the correlation

hasn’t been made that when businesses experience the rising cost of

overhead, that expense somehow will be passed on to consumers.

When we want to talk about affordability, we’d better stop to think

about all those consequences that British Columbians will face when we see

things like a compounded carbon tax over the next number of years. British

Columbians will start to feel that pinch — where? — at the gas pumps. They

are going to start to feel the impact very directly, starting April 1, when

they go to fill up their vehicles.

All of the tax increases that were contained in the September budget

update, frankly, set the stage for yesterday. If there’s one thing that can

be said about the NDP’s first full budget, they certainly did achieve the

element of surprise. If you are a business owner in British Columbia, you

probably feel blindsided by the budget that was delivered yesterday. A

whopping new payroll tax is being levied against the backbone of our

economy: family businesses, the private sector, those entrepreneurs, the

tech sector.

[2:40 p.m.]

This is a government that speaks frequently about the need to look at

innovation, the knowledge economy. The very increases in this budget will

hit that sector hard.

Businesses in this province woke up this morning to the reality that

government now expects them to pay almost $4.2 billion more in taxes over

the next three years. What did the president of the Greater Vancouver Board

of Trade have to say? Well, in fact, he said: “This is a hammer that came

down that we didn’t see coming.”

When our government announced a 50 percent reduction in MSP premiums

in Budget 2017, it was supposed to represent a $1 billion tax break for the

average British Columbian. Now it appears the NDP wants that money back and

more. Only now they expect businesses in B.C. to pay for it. This is

fundamentally wrong. We depend on the private sector to generate employment

and grow and strengthen our economy. How does this government honestly

expect businesses in the province to hire more employees, especially if it

is incrementally more expensive to hire someone?

Let’s be clear about this. Despite the discussion we had in question

period, this government plans to double-dip with MSP premiums. Starting on

January 1, 2019, the new payroll tax kicks in, one full year before the MSP

premiums are phased out. What that means to business is double taxation.

Meanwhile, what does it mean for the government? They rake in a $2 billion

windfall, a tax windfall because of overlapping taxes. This impact will be

felt by small and medium-sized businesses the most.

Today one of the most difficult answers to hear in question period was

when the Minister of Finance said they will only pay…. Well, I can tell you

that already today we’ve heard from small businesses, from non-profits, from

organizations who, if and when this takes place, either will be forced to

reduce their staff to cover the incremental costs or certainly will not be

hiring additional staff. The impact will be felt by small

businesses.

The members opposite may want to think of small as five or six people,

but let’s be clear. A $500,000 payroll threshold includes businesses that

may have ten or 12 or 14 employees, and the definition of “small business”

is a business with 50 employees or less. Make no mistake about it. They will

feel the impacts of the jobs tax. The Finance Minister claimed that a

$500,000 payroll threshold will exempt most small operators with ten or 12

employees. However, the government is counting on $4.2 billion worth of

revenue over four years. The money has to be coming from

somewhere.

Let’s go back to the Vancouver Board of Trade once again: “Small

business is defined as 50 employees or less. This will hurt.” He is quite

correct, as 47 percent of small businesses in British Columbia have less

than 50 employees, and this pain will be felt by thousands of small

businesses right across the province.

For example, for a small business with an annual payroll of $1.5

million, the annual cost will be about $30,000. Standing in this

Legislature, that may not sound like a lot, but when you are striving and

working as hard as you can, working along the margins to keep your business

operating, $30,000 can make the difference between operating that small

business, hiring new people or, in fact, letting people go. That’s quite a

tax hike to come out of nowhere. The small business community is already

being hit with a 34 percent increase to the minimum wage in the next four

years.

Here’s what the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has to say: “When I look at

the dog pile of increasing corporate tax, increasing minimum wage, loss of

neutrality around the carbon tax, and now we get to add to that a payroll

tax, that’s going to leave business, by 2021, footing an almost $2 billion

bill.”

[2:45 p.m.]

They go on to add: “By the time we reach 2021, the business community

is picking up 70 percent of the tab.” That’s a lot. It’s too much. The

impacts are real, and I think it will stifle growth and investment in key

sectors.

Let’s just say that again. This isn’t about invisible people, and it’s

not about whether or not there is merit in adding more child care and

looking at the housing sector in British Columbia. But you have to stop to

think about who is responsible for growing the economy in British Columbia —

those small business owners.

The vast majority of businesses in British Columbia are small or

medium-size enterprises. They drive the economy. Here is what they had to

say: “The impacts are real, and I think it will stifle growth and investment

in key sectors.”

Jock Finlayson of the B.C. Business Council says the new payroll tax

came as “a nasty surprise.” The Canadian Federation of Independent Business

vice-president took a look at the $500,000 payroll threshold and said the

following: “It’s probably too low. A payroll of $500,000 may seem like a

lot, but that’s probably only eight to ten people. We would like to see that

threshold double.”

Business is right to feel blindsided. They should.

One of the first things this government announced was a medical

services premiums review panel last November — one, I might add, of over two

dozen government reviews. The panel included former NDP Finance Minister

Paul Ramsey to examine how to replace that missing MSP revenue. According to

the terms of reference of the medical services premiums review panel, it was

supposed to present a report to the government on March 31 of this

year.

Certainly, as the official opposition, we have to ask why on earth

government is engaging with panels and experts and consultants if the

government has no intention to listen. They are going to produce mounds of

reports that, if this is any example, will amount to nothing.

Again, according to the terms of reference, the MSP review panel was

to provide an analysis based on the following criteria: fairness,

efficiency, business competitiveness, simplicity and revenue stability.

Well, with respect to fairness, efficiency and business competitiveness,

this government appears to have blindsided not only the entire business

community in British Columbia; they also gave their own review panel short

shrift.

The initial report of the MSP panel specifically recommended that the

government should not double-dip with the new payroll tax. Here’s what the

report says — not my words but the words of the very people selected by the

government to provide them with advice: “First, whatever mechanisms are

chosen to replace MSP revenue, we feel strongly that there should not be any

phase-in of the new measures and phase-out of MSP. Rather, we suggest that

MSP be eliminated as at a specific date and that the new revenue measures

take effect fully at the same time.”

Furthermore, the initial report of the MSP panel had this to say about

the so-called employer health tax: “A payroll tax would reduce the

competitiveness of B.C. businesses at a time when they are facing several

challenges, including expected increases to the minimum wage; CPP increases;

and recent tax reform in the United States, which improved the competitive

position of many U.S. businesses.”

The current government should have waited a few weeks and heard what

the former NDP Finance Minister, Paul Ramsey, would have to say. But I guess

the government is just too anxious to get on with spending and taxing their

way to the bottom again.

With respect to their desire for a simple solution, the NDP can

probably say goodbye to a lot of business potential in this province. And

when a lot of existing companies in British Columbia pull up stakes and move

out to greener pastures, we’re going to see whether or not this new payroll

tax is “revenue stable.”

I think what bothers people the most — and it certainly bothers us —

is that the NDP just keeps piling on new taxes.

[2:50 p.m.]

Since assuming office last July, the NDP is escalating tax increases —

they are either in place or announced — to the tune of an annual $8 billion.

Eight billion dollars’ worth of new tax measures, all in less than seven

months. Given the fact that the Finance Minister has left herself only with

a razor-thin margin in terms of a surplus — $219 million in the current

fiscal year — we are very concerned about the sustainability of the fiscal

plan. We see a highly ambitious plan to spend money, but there’s very little

way of growing revenues in a sustainable way.

It’s worth noting that British Columbia is not an island on its own.

However — and I will digress for a moment — you may have noticed the

full-page ad that appeared in every single major newspaper this morning. We

see a map of Canada with the province of B.C. distinctly separated from the

rest of the country. It is, in fact, a message from the government of

Alberta. The headline reads: “We Used to Be So Close.”

It’s a rather strong message directed at our government in British

Columbia. It says that British Columbia and Alberta share the same goals.

But it also says: “The B.C. government is now trying to break the rules of

Confederation and ignore the national climate action plan, choosing only to

agree with parts of the federal decision,” and furthermore, “this disregard

for the rule of law puts our national economy in danger, and it could be the

end to the national climate plan.” These are very strong words.

Interjection.

S. Bond: I know the leader of the Green Party is going to have his opportunity

to speak any time now. I am the designated speaker.

These are very strong words. They’re not coming from the Official

Opposition. They’re coming from a fellow NDP government and our closest

neighbour, Alberta.

We are one province in a country that is currently facing an uncertain

future with respect to the North American Free Trade Agreement. The same

applies to the uncertain outcome of the softwood lumber dispute. It could be

years before that is resolved. It’s one of the reasons that we are deeply

concerned about the sustainability of this budget, particularly with a

razor-thin surplus of just over $200 million. There are external

considerations — North American Free Trade Agreement negotiations, softwood

lumber. It could be years before that is resolved.

If we have a wildfire season anything close to last year…. All of us

know how very difficult that was for British Columbians. It showed the

strength, the spirit and the resiliency of people who live in our province,

but it had a devastating impact on many regions in British Columbia,

including those of many of my colleagues. If we have a wildfire season

anything close to last year, costing well over $650 million, the rather thin

margin of $219 million could definitely plunge British Columbia into deficit

financing.

Furthermore, it’s worth noting that British Columbia was able to

balance the budget over the past five years, but it did so — and we

recognize that — in an era of very low interest rates. That era now appears

to be gone. For the first time in years, the central bank of Canada raised

the prime lending rate in July. It raised it again last September and again,

barely a month ago, on January 17.

Rising interest rates usually indicate a strong economy. However, the

Bank of Canada governor was quite frank about the uncertainty we face as a

country with respect to NAFTA. That could mean that all bets are off with

respect to this government’s rather optimistic economic forecast. A sudden

downturn in the economy due to NAFTA and its uncertainty could throw a

wrench into all of the fiscal assumptions. This would leave British Columbia

very vulnerable.

While we do have a highly diversified economy, there is no escaping

the fact that the United States remains our number one trading partner. But

the simple fact remains that the economy is always cyclical. In a global

context, the economy is subject to the ebbs and flows of various

markets.

[2:55 p.m.]

On January 18, barely a month ago, Moody’s Investor Service

acknowledged the many advantages that the current government inherited from

the previous government: continued economic growth underpinned by a strong

and diversified economy, five consecutive budget surpluses and a budget

surplus of $2.1 billion.

However, Moody’s January update affirmed B.C.’s triple-A credit

rating, with the following warning: “The province’s credit rating could be

downgraded if net direct or indirect debt were to be sustained above 95

percent of revenue across multiple years, impairing the fiscal flexibility

of the province. In addition, a loss of fiscal discipline and a return of

consecutive deficits or a deterioration of debt affordability due to a

faster-than-expected rise in interest rates would also exert downward

pressure on the rating.” The message is very clear.

Yesterday I reminded this House about a fundamental fact. If there is

one document that clearly helps to define a government, it is their

provincial budget. It does provide an outline of government priorities, and

it details its spending plans. I consider — and, I think, the members of the

opposition, certainly having sat in government for a long period of time —

that the provincial budget is an accountability document. It is a report

card that voters can look at and see if this government is in fact

delivering on its campaign promises.

Today it is equally important for us to talk about what is left out of

a budget. During the last election, the NDP specifically campaigned on three

notable promises. There were many but on three notable promises. I know that

because even when meeting with my constituents — particularly families,

those with middle incomes, people struggling and grappling with the issue of

child care — I can tell you they understood.

The promise that was made was called $10-a-day daycare. There was a

promise to build 114,000 affordable housing units and a $400 annual rebate

for renters. While all three parties that are represented in the House today

had various proposals on child care and housing, the NDP promises were very

specific.

I know that there are lots of middle-class parents out there who

voted, who wanted to see those promises delivered. They took this government

at its word. There are lots of people who voted because they were expecting

an annual $400 renters rebate. Where is that in the budget? It is nowhere in

this budget.

There were lots more people who were looking for solutions on housing

affordability. As I did yesterday, I commend the government for these steps

that they have taken to look at the issues of child care and housing. But

let’s not do that without remembering exactly what they told British

Columbians.

It’s not a matter of debate between three parties in this House; it’s

a matter of what they knocked on doors and told British Columbians. They

said there would be a $400 annual renters rebate. They also said that there

were going to be solutions for housing — 114,000 units. It wasn’t just:

“We’re going to build a lot.” It was 114,000 housing units.

Budget 2018 doesn’t correspond to any of those campaign promises. In

fact, they are broken promises. This government is walking a very fine line

between too many election promises and pressure to spend more and more on

services that will be paid for by tax increases and a reliance on economic

growth, which we all know is cyclical. We can’t predict exactly how much the

economy will grow next year or the year after that.

[3:00 p.m.]

We look at the promises that were made about child care, for example.

All of us recognize that there are families today who, after this budget,

will be in a better position when it comes to dealing with their child care

issues. That’s an important recognition, whether you’re on the opposition

side or whether you’re in government. That does matter. It makes a

difference. Those steps are important. But this budget does not contain a

$10-a-day universal daycare program. Today there are families who are

realizing that their hopes for the kind of support that they were promised

by this government on the doorsteps is not coming.

The same can be said for the promise around housing. While, again,

there is certainly progress being made, particularly focusing on those

families that are most vulnerable and most in need — and every member of

this House agrees that those steps are important and necessary — it wasn’t

the opposition that promised 114,000 units of affordable housing. In fact,

this budget is about 80,000 units short.

Anyone that runs a household knows that it’s easy to spend money. The

trick is trying to figure out how to find that right balance between

generating the revenue, making the money and staying on budget. The people

of British Columbia do not want to return to the era of deficit

financing.

We remember a time when B.C. was a have-not province. I remember that

it was one of the things that drove me to consider running for public office

at the provincial level. It was an absolute embarrassment that a province so

full of resources, the richness of the people that we have and the hard work

that they do relied on equalization payments from the federal government

just to stay afloat. We do not want to see that happen to our province

again.

Canada is relying on us to lead the rest of the country through an era

of uncertainty. While we recognize that important steps have been taken in

this budget, we also recognize that promises were made. There are promises

that British Colombians made choices about when they were told by this

government that there would be a universal daycare program, there would be

114,000 units of housing, there would be a renters rebate, and the list goes

on.

The most significant concern that we have as the official opposition

is the fact that when you look at the spending rate, the growth rate of

spending in British Columbia today under the leadership of this government,

it is currently double that of revenue growth. The economy has served

British Columbia well, as it did in this budget. But there are no guarantees

that that economic growth will continue. Simply put, this is a budget that

is based on increasing taxes, a raft of new taxes, in order to fund some of

the initiatives that this government promised.

I appreciate the time that I’ve been given to speak on behalf of the

official opposition. We intend to hold the government to account. We will be

watching in the days ahead that the commitments made in this budget are

carried out. It is an accountability document. We’ve already seen that there

are major pieces missing that British Columbians expected to see. While

progress has been made in important areas that every member of this House

would agree on, there is still much work to be done. With that, I will end

my remarks.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to Budget 2018. It’s

refreshing to see a budget that puts focus back on people, and for that, I

and my caucus colleagues are very, very welcome. The government has provided

an excellent range of tools in the budget, but what matters are the

details.

[3:05 p.m.]

While we have yet to have had time to explore in further detail what

the actual implementation is that we’ll be discussing when we debate Bill 2,

a budget implementation act, at this stage, I’ll say that we’re quite

reassured that clearly, front and centre in government’s mind is an approach

towards starting to think, which has been missing for some time, about

intergenerational equity, about doing today what’s good not only for this

generation but also for the generation afterwards.

British Columbia has lost ground on earnings since 1976, four decades

ago, on average by about $8,000 to $10,000, while at the same time, the

costs of housing and living costs have skyrocketed.

This budget focuses on two critical areas, one being child care —

substantive investments in child care — and the other being in housing. I’ll

come to both of those separately, discuss in detail what we like and don’t

like with respect to the housing initiative, talk about our confidence and

supply agreement and, as well, talk in detail about what we do and do not

like. Well, actually, frankly, there’s not much we don’t like about the

direction that the child care policy is moving forward, and we’ll be quite

clear in our support of that.

One of the things I’d like to see at the get-go, as we move towards

actually embracing the idea of intergenerational equity here in this

Legislature, is that future budgets should start to report age trends in

terms of government spending and revenue for those over 65, those under 45

and those in between.

Why this is important is when we start to look at it in this

particular budget, we see that, for example, medicare gets a substantial

increase, a dramatic increase, to the tune of $832 million. That’s 3.2 times

the new investment in child care spending.

The 2018 budget once again grows by spending faster for seniors than

for the youngest British Columbians. If you actually do an analysis and do a

cost analysis, on average, every senior gains $421 in new spending in this

budget, while each person under the age of 45 gets a mere $261.

Now, I’m not saying we’re going to criticize the overall budget. But

what I will say is that we need to start reporting out the data as per the

age groups. As our demographic, as our baby boomers, age, there’s a concern

that we’ll continue to throw more money after health — more money after more

money onto the health care system — while neglecting some of the issues,

profound issues, facing the next generation. We need to start thinking about

that generation a little bit more. I’ll come to that when I discuss the

climate plan, or lack thereof, as detailed in this budget.

In B.C., there has been a growing inequity between those who have and

those who don’t have. Those who don’t have, have compounding problems with

costs that have been rising for them — fixed costs like MSP, fixed costs

like ICBC rates, if they’re required to drive, and so forth.

Let me start by saying, with respect to MSP, that we’re delighted to

see that government has taken steps in that direction to eliminate MSP in

the coming years. We do have some concerns — shared, clearly, as we heard

earlier, with the official opposition — that the plan to actually eliminate

MSP precludes the actual submission of the final report of the committee

that was struck and designed to advise government as to the plans it should

do to reduce, eliminate MSP. It seems on the one hand, you have a committee.

On the other hand, you’ve already prescribed an outcome.

With that said, we understand the rationale that government is taking

for what members opposite have called a “jobs tax.” It’s not a jobs

tax.

Right now in British Columbia, most major employers have negotiated

benefits with their employees. Those benefits have negotiated contracts.

Those contracts very often, more own than not, include a negotiated benefit

where the employer pays the MSP premium.

That benefit, when it was negotiated…. I say that as someone who’s

acted as the chief negotiator for a University of Victoria faculty two times

in negotiating. That benefit that is negotiated is costed against a

settlement. It’s a cost that would otherwise have been spent with workers in

that organization on other issues. So the approach that the government is

suggesting, while clearly going to meet some confusion and resistance, is

one that is done in other provinces.

[3:10 p.m.]

There’s a recognition that as we move from a system where employers

had to negotiate this benefit with employees to one where employers are

likely going to pay about the same amount, in many cases, as they are

already doing, perhaps some a little more than others…. But now, instead of

negotiating it in future cost settlements, it’s part of the costs of doing

business.

Now, we recognize and understand the concern that this came out of

nowhere. The B.C. Greens, in the last election, campaigned, of course, on

eliminating MSP through mirroring the progressive health care premium that

we see in Ontario, which is one that actually has the person paying that.

That would also have been able to have been a negotiated benefit. Again, I

won’t have time to go into the details of why we favour that approach, as

one that retained revenue, but it did so in a progressive

fashion.

Please let me start by highlighting some numbers on what clearly is

the defining issue in British Columbia as we speak: the issue of

affordability in terms of finding a place to live, either through ownership

or through renting.

Since July of 2017, at which point the B.C. NDP formed government,

we’ve had some increases. We’ve had, from July to January, a 4 percent

increase in the costs of condos in the capital regional district. We have

had in the Lower Mainland, from July 2017 to January 2018, a 10.1 percent

increase in the average cost of condos to an average of $665,400 now. In

Victoria, it’s $450,600 on average. While we have been waiting for

government to deliver and offer a plan on housing, the prices have gone up

in the CRD by 4 percent and by 10.1 percent in the Lower

Mainland.

In question period today, I was somewhat troubled by the answer I got

when I posed the question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

and asked what she meant in her plan when they talked about the issue of

stabilizing our housing market. Does stabilizing mean we’re going to stop at

present values? Does it mean we’re going to slow the development of the

increase? Does it mean reverting back a little bit?

Frankly, I don’t know many people who could afford the average

condominium price of $650,000, when the average salary is substantially

below $100,000 for a family, in the order of…. I don’t remember the exact

number, but I will say this. The housing component of the budget, while

recognizing…. At least, finally, we have a government realizing there’s a

problem. It’s not the bold action that we were looking for but rather a

timid approach towards dealing with a problem that, frankly, I don’t think

will be dealt with through the actions that are put forward.

I obviously welcome many of the steps that are in this. But when you

have revenue projections in the budget for this year and future years that

require substantial amounts on the revenue side to come in from the property

transfer tax and the speculators tax, you start to recognize that, in fact,

this is not dealing with the problem. The whole purpose of a speculators tax

is to reduce speculation, to set us on the path towards a very little amount

of revenue coming in from that because speculators are no longer in our

market to the extent that they are now. But government has budgeted that

way. They’ve budgeted $200 million, remaining flat in that regard, and that,

to me, is worrying.

If I stand back and look at the housing aspect in this budget, what I

see is government viewing this as a cash cow to create revenue for which

they can deliver on their affordable housing supply-side plan. That is,

we’re going to continue to allow speculation, foreign speculation, money

coming in from everywhere in our housing market. We’ll tax it a bit more,

and we’ll use that as a source of revenue to build affordable housing. It

doesn’t deal with the problem. The problem gets bigger and bigger, and we’re

trying to actually put a band-aid by creating supply that will not address

the fundamental problem.

[3:15 p.m.]

Right now in British Columbia…. Real estate, leasing and renting.

Those three things — real estate, leasing and renting — account for 18

percent of our GDP. Eighteen percent of our gross domestic product comes

from real estate, leasing and renting. Government has clearly recognized the

substantial component of our economy associated with such sector, and rather

than recognizing that this is unhealthy, it’s viewing it as a source of

income to build for the future.

Let’s take a look at some of the specifics in the policy. In terms of

stabilizing the market, one of the things government is proposing to do is

to tax speculators who are driving up housing costs. The annual charge will

be half a percent in 2018 — which is clearly a barrier to nobody, a half a

percent speculation tax in 2018 — moving to 2 percent in 2019.

The first question I have is this: why would you do half a percent in

2018? Why would you start so low? Why wouldn’t you increase that? If you

wanted to have a transitional one, why not 1 percent in 2018, 2 percent in

2019? We’re not sure where that number comes from.

We recognize that there are upfront exemptions for long-term rental

properties and so forth and for most principal residences, but I’d like to

outline a number of problems that I see with this speculators tax

approach.

We all know, everybody in British Columbia will know, friends and

family who live in the Prairies in the summer. That is where they grew up.

That’s where their home is. But they recognize, for financial reasons, for

other reasons — they may be elderly, and it may be unsafe to walk around in

the cold — that they want to live in a warmer part of Canada during the

winter months. So they might have a condo in downtown Victoria, in

Parksville, in Nanaimo, on the Sunshine Coast or in Kelowna — an apartment

that they spend four months a year in, a primary place to live.

These people now will be subject, if things go ahead as I read it, to

a speculators tax. They are not speculating; they are living there for four

months. They’re contributing to our economy by buying food, by buying

electricity, by spending their money in our stores, by buying music, by

buying records…. I buy records. Others might buy records too. Those are the

vinyl ones. Yes, I do. Sadly, I sold my records, and then I buy them all

back. But that’s another story that we won’t go into today. That’s a

problem.

There are also British Columbians who may, for example, have a condo

on Mount Washington. They might have a condo on Big White. They might have a

condo in Apex or some other ski resort, Silver Star. This is not

speculation. In many cases, these condos are given to friends and family if

they’re not being used. I have troubles and concerns that this will be

treated….

This budget is missing what the real problem is. The real problem — we

all know what it is — is government is afraid to take it head-on. The real

problem is offshore money flowing into our market here purely in terms of

speculation, purely in terms of an investment to use our housing stock, our

land as a commodity that can be traded or bought and sold — much like potash

or gold or wheat or natural gas or oil.

Housing is a place for people to live, a place for people to rent to

others, to vacation to. It is not something that we should view solely as a

speculative place to dump and, heaven forbid, launder, in some cases, as we

know, offshore capital.

We know that jurisdictions like New Zealand and Australia have stepped

in and dealt with it. We know it was successful in Australia. We know Prince

Edward Island stepped in and dealt with this years ago. We know that

jurisdictions all across Europe have stepped in to deal with this — some in

much stronger measures than others, like in Denmark. You must live in

Denmark for five years before you can own property.

The reason why is quite simple. When you are a stable democracy,

particularly in one of the most beautiful parts of the world, your land,

your capital is viewed as a safe haven to park money.

There are 4.6 million people here in British Columbia and 7.6 billion

people in the world. There are an awful lot of millionaires in the world

looking to park their money in safe havens. They can stick it into offshore

bank accounts in the Bahamas, or they can stick it into real estate here in

British Columbia.

As we’ve seen highlighted in many of the stories, whether it be

through Kathy Tomlinson’s good work in the Globe and Mail or Sam

Cooper’s good work in the Postmedia, there are an awful lot of shenanigans

going on in terms of money transfer into our market here. That’s what we

should have dealt with. That’s why we put forward our bold plan for housing

action, not the #timid plan that we see here before us today.

[3:20 p.m.]

That’s not to say that there aren’t good first steps here. There

are.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I say “hashtag” for all those people at home riveted to this who are

live-tweeting out our budget response here today.

Again, I come back to that. I worry that government is treating the

speculators tax as a form of revenue, as opposed to actually dealing with

the problem. Why is it we’re afraid? I know after we introduced our

#boldaction plan on housing, the public support was overwhelming. I have

never seen public support at that scale like I saw for that

issue.

Recall about three years ago, when I stood here calling for the

elimination of MSP, and we initiated a campaign for public support. All of

us in this House were inundated with emails about people who felt it was a

regressive one-size-fits-all tax. All three parties campaigned on

eliminating it.

The response to the foreign or offshore capital ban pales in

comparison to the response that we saw with respect to the call for a

foreign buyers…. When I say foreign buyers, it’s people who don’t pay income

tax here in Canada. Again, government’s collecting the data to know who they

are, because government is now going to have the speculation tax based on

where you pay your income tax.

If you’re going to have the speculation tax into where you’re going to

pay your income tax, you’re putting in place the structure to actually

collect the data to know where people pay their tax. It’s very simple there,

at that stage, to say: “If you pay your tax and you’re not paying your tax

in Canada — or you’re not a Canadian resident who happens to be posted in

some other jurisdiction but you are actually Canadian — you should be able

to own property here.”

We don’t think it’s right for somebody sitting in an office tower in

Luxembourg to recognize that they have a windfall of $1 billion that they

need to actually park somewhere. “So let’s park it in land in British

Columbia.” That’s fundamentally wrong because it ends up increasing the

costs for all British Columbians. That Luxembourg office tower, when they

invest, is not paying the social costs associated with affordability.

They’re not paying the food costs associated with affordability.

I had a delegation from northern B.C. come and see me when I was at

UBCM, profoundly troubled by what was going on there with thousands of

hectares being bought up by foreign corporations and converted to produce

hay, not for British Columbians or Canadians but to freeze-dry or vacuum

pack that hay and ship it abroad.

What is the social cost of doing that? The price of hay goes up in the

area because much of it’s being shipped. That’s one. Two, access to land

goes down and prices go up. So we end up paying the consequences of not

dealing with this foreign capital flowing in. Frankly, I think government

has failed on that aspect of dealing with the housing issue.

The government response is to say: “Let’s increase the foreign buyers’

tax.” Okay, another policy instrument that you have. But again, in what can

only be described as one of the greatest examples of Whac-a-Mole, the

government proposes to move it from not only the Vancouver region but into

the CRD, Nanaimo and the Central Okanagan.

Well, I can tell you, as a matter of certainty, what’s going to happen

here on Vancouver Island. It’s going to have zero effect on the input of

foreign capital. But I will say that Cowichan Valley regional district, in

between Nanaimo and Victoria, is going to see a massive spike in property.

Parksville, Qualicum, Comox, Courtenay, Campbell River — just watch what’s

going to happen up there on top of what already exists in these communities

in terms of housing. You look at the Okanagan. Well, good luck, Kamloops.

Watch what’s going to happen there.

You can’t play Whac-a-Mole on an issue like this. There needs to be a

policy solution that is broadly applied across British Columbia. We increase

the buyers’ tax from 15 to 20 percent. Again, what’s the signal it’s

sending? It’s saying we’re going to generate more revenue from those who are

buying. The

interpretation I have on that is that government is seeking a

source of money to build the affordable housing that they plan to build, but

not actually taking steps to deal with the problem.

It’s a little bit like a child’s story that I read, and I still read

it today to schools when I go in. It’s a story about a king who likes

cheese. The king likes cheese so much that his castle gets infested with

mice. The book’s called The King, the Mice and the

Cheese .

The king doesn’t like these mice, so what he does is call in his wise

folk and asks them: “What are we going to do?” They say: “Well, we have the

solution, the only solution. Bring in cats to get rid of the

mice.”

[3:25 p.m.]

The king does that, and his castle gets infested with cats. What do

you do? Wise folk come in and advise him to bring in dogs, which get rid of

the cats, but you’re left with a dog problem. So they bring in lions to get

rid of the dogs, and you’re left with a lion problem. They bring in

elephants to get rid of the lions, and now you have an elephant problem. How

are you going to get rid of the elephants? You bring mice back in to get rid

of the elephants. Now you’re back where you started.

When I do this with kids in class, the metaphor I usually attach it to

is climate change. But this metaphor actually applies directly to the

housing plan here. I ask the kids in the class: “What do you think the wise

folk are going to do now that they’re back where they started?” Invariably,

and in unison, the children will say: “Stop eating the cheese.” But that’s

not what the wise folk do in this story. They decide that they have to share

the cheese with the mice. The analogy with climate change is direct. The

adults can’t give up what they’re doing. The kids say: “Stop using

oil.”

Now, in the case of housing, it’s exactly the same thing. We know what

the problem is. The problem is the eating of the cheese. The problem is

offshore capital. Rather than dealing with the problem, we skirt around it

with all sorts of this and that and others — Whac-a-mole here and policy

over there and second-guess over here. We’re not actually dealing with the

problem.

Again, I look forward to exploring some of this in Bill 2, when we

debate that at some point in the future.

Another component of their plan, another component that is odd, is

increasing property purchase tax on the value of homes over $3 million.

That’s less odd than actually increasing school tax on houses over $3

million. Now, I get that this acts as a little bit of a barrier to sales of

homes above that, and it puts a little clamp on. It’s not a bad step for tax

fairness from the property transfer tax point of view. It’s kind of scary,

when we’re one of the very, very few jurisdictions that has property

transfer tax, that we are relying so heavily on revenue from that to meet

our general revenue targets. It’s a little scary that we are hoping that

this windfall continues. But the real problem is the school tax.

The reason why that concerns me is that there are many people, who for

no reason other than the fact that they live in a house that’s gone up in

value, will now be required to pay a substantive increase, or 3 percent

increase, in school tax. It’s small, actually. I forget the number, but it’s

an increase in taxes which they otherwise would not have to pay if their

home wasn’t valued so much.

I know we can say, if it’s seniors who are living in the home, that

seniors can defer their property taxes until such time as the house is sold.

But I can tell you of personal stories that I know of individuals whose

parents died. Those individuals whose parents died were living in the home.

It’s the only asset they have. They’ve grown up in the home. They might have

special needs. They might need a little different support. They’re barely

struggling to make ends meet, but they have a home to live in.

Now, for many cases, you might argue: well, they should sell the home

and find another. That’s not always possible for people. So here I worry

that by broad-scale taxing — again, on everyone, for school taxes — we’re

not actually dealing with the problem. We know what the problem is. If you

want to reduce the cost of the homes, deal with where the money is coming

from, and that’s from offshore.

I do like the fact that there is some legislation being brought

forward — from a tax fairness perspective, it’s quite good — to allow cities

to regulate Airbnbs and the likes of that. But again, it’s not dealing with

the problem. The problem is the growing amount of our supply that’s used in

a fashion to actually have short-term vacation rentals.

Again, we could empower much more interesting ways of doing this, by

requiring a business licence, slightly different zoning restrictions and so

forth. I would have hoped that we’d have more discussions on

that.

To the issue of cracking down on fraud and closing loopholes. My

expectations were extremely high here in this area, and I was profoundly

disappointed in the lack of action that I saw in terms of the actual closing

of loopholes. The government’s response is: “We’re going to collect data.”

Okay, I recognize that collecting data is always a good thing.

[3:30 p.m.]

The reality is we know that there are loopholes. We know, right now,

that there are people who are actually going into partnerships and avoiding

foreign buyer tax by having one of those partners a Canadian and the other

one a partner who’s not a Canadian. We know that’s ongoing. In fact, if you

want to know how to do it, all you’ve got to do is read the Chinese-language

signs on bus stops in Burnaby or Richmond. They’ll tell you how to do

it.

We know that these are being abused. These are existing loopholes that

are there. We don’t need to study them more. We need to close

them.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The bare trust loophole that the now Attorney General, when a critic,

was pointing out time and time again needs to be closed. The government

response: collect the data, study it, maybe something in the

future.

A crisis requires bold action. A crisis does not require standing

back, reflecting upon it and then maybe making a decision down the road. If

we look at…. Some of the registry issues are good. The requirements to have

accurate data.

Again, the presales offshore. We’re requiring developers to collect

information on presales. That’s not dealing with the problem. The problem is

we know that condos are being presold in offshore markets at below the

amount they are actually being sold for here in British Columbia. So rather

than collect more data, we should be closing those loopholes. I’m saddened

that the government did not take the bold action that would have led to us

doing that.

I worry, in terms of auditing and enforcement powers. Although there’s

discussion here, in fact the budget does not have the staff required, not

only in enforcement and compliance in the housing issue but also in all

other sectors. Whether it be Environment, FLNRO or others, we see an

increase in civil servants, but the discussion of that increase is not

containing language about the need for more compliance and enforcement staff

in these areas.

In terms of the ALR, the agricultural land reserve, I’m dismayed that

government has not taken steps to limit foreign speculation in the ALR. It’s

out of control now. Again, the foreign buyers tax. You put it in, in

Vancouver. We know that the foreign buyers tax put a temporary damper on

single-family homes, but people just parked their capital in agricultural

land in Delta. They parked their capital in the Interior. They parked their

capital in condos in Kelowna. They parked it in condos in

Victoria.

We should have been closing the agricultural land reserve loopholes in

this budget. Really, delay is not an excuse.

Again, it’s refreshing to see that there was some language about

working with the federal government to protect tax evasion and put in place

permanent provincial-federal government action to combat money laundering,

tax evasion and avoidance. These are obviously good first steps in

addressing tax fraud and money laundering to ensure that governments have

the necessary information to enforce real estate taxation, but they’re not

adequate on their own.

We were looking for far more substantive action. Where are the people?

Where is the budget announcement that there will be an increased number of

people enforcing these rules here in British Columbia? Where’s the funding

in that regard?

We find that starting in 2019 — why not 2018, in July? — the province

will collect SIN numbers, social insurance numbers, as part of the homeowner

grant application process. We know that there is some fraud going on in

homeowner grant applications, and it’s good to see that there’s enforcement

there. However, again, this is but a small, but important, step in terms of

dealing with the overall plan.

The government continues to focus, much like the former government

did, on the issue of supply. Somehow, if we build more, we’ll solve the

problem. I can tell you that every time I drive to Vancouver along Cambie

Street into town, I can see that there’s a lot of construction — large land

assemblies going on. If you go to Burnaby, Metrotown — lots of highrises

going on, lots of them being built, lots of vacancies in them.

What’s happening here is you’re displacing low-income renters, the

duplexes on Cambie Street, with high-end condos and townhouses. This is not

dealing with the issue. Again, if we dealt with the offshore capital coming

in, we’d temper that.

[3:35 p.m.]

It’s not only happening there. You can see the land assemblies in

downtown Kelowna. They’re happening all over downtown Kelowna. You see the

land assemblies happening in Victoria. These are land assemblies that are

happening to change what’s typically lower-end rental housing with upper-end

condos.

It’s not against condos. But we need to have a plan, a bold plan, to

actually deal with our housing crisis, rather than a Whac-a-Mole plan,

putting band-aids on little areas of it, which is not actually getting us to

where we need to go.

There are some other good things. Of course, I was pleased to see that

partnerships are being built in the area of affordability. The housing hub

is an interesting idea, particularly in light of the fact that it’s being

funded by the elimination of the B.C. HOME partnership. It clearly was an

utterly outrageous plan brought in by the B.C. Liberals to incentivize those

who can barely qualify for a mortgage to take on more risk than they should

otherwise take on.

What sort of economic principles were they building their policy on?

The economics of causing bankruptcy was basically the plan. I guess they

were concerned about not enough people having foreclosures, which is why the

government wanted to incentivize foreclosures. The fact that the government

introduced those, when the last government was here, was, frankly, a

reckless approach to incentivize purchases with people who couldn’t

otherwise.

I’m pleased to see that the government has eliminated that. It’s

creating something called the housing hub. It’s an interesting idea: an

organization that will partner with NGOs and others to actually look about

ways of funding and moving forward with affordable housing. That’s a good

idea that we could support.

It’s also interesting to see that the municipal and regional district

revenues are going to be able to be expanded to actually be used for

affordable housing. It’ll be interesting to see how that goes, but there’ll

also be some concern that municipalities will take that as somehow being

downloading of federal jurisdiction or provincial jurisdiction onto

municipalities.

I was looking for other things that we didn’t see in the housing

aspect of the budget. We didn’t see a tax on flipping. We know, everybody

here will know, somebody or some other people who go into a home, they’re

there for six months, and then day they move to the next house. They’re

there for six months, and one day they move to the next house. They’re there

for six months, and one day….

There are means and ways that we can actually step in to ensure that

houses are treated as places to live, not ways of avoiding capital gains

tax, which is basically what’s happening there. We also noticed that there

was no ability for local governments to tax empty homes. Jurisdictions

across British Columbia have said they want the ability to tax vacant homes

if they so choose.

Ours — what I like to call #boldactionplanonhousing, as opposed to

#timidstepplan, which we see before us — was actually to empower

municipalities, without bringing the House back, to enable them to introduce

vacancy taxes or, frankly, a foreign buyer tax, if you didn’t have a foreign

buyers ban in place. But again, we didn’t see that there.

If we look in general…. I like to give letter grades. You can take the

academic out of the university. You can’t take it out…. It’s like the

speaker…. You can take the teacher out of the classroom. You can’t take the

classroom out of the teacher. The letter grade on this housing plan — C. Not

a very bold housing plan.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has requested a meeting in

office hours. We will do that after. The member for Chilliwack has suggested

that great inflation is occurring here in British Columbia. That’s a good

sign. If I have both extremes, it must actually be a fair grade that’s being

offered here too.

I want to move to child care. While I’ll give a C to the housing plan,

I’ll give a high A-plus to the child care plan. It is an exceptional plan.

We would have….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Thank you.

The building of a child care and early childhood education system

presents us with an unparalleled opportunity to provide the next generation

of British Columbians the best possible outcomes for success to set B.C. on

the path forward. We’ve heard a lot about: “You didn’t say $10-a-day.” But

as we’ve said all along, and if you actually look at the policy embedded in

the $10-a-day plan, you’ll see it coming forward right now.

[3:40 p.m.]

What matters in British Columbia is good public policy, and we see

that brought forward in this very innovative approach to child care, a

historic investment in child care.

Mind you, had we had a B.C. Green majority government in this

Legislature, there would have been an even more historic investment, as we

had campaigned on over $4 billion over four years through sources of revenue

that we had identified as to where we would have collected it — $4 billion

over four years and $4 billion in education over four years. If you want to

make it a priority, you can make it a priority. It’s clearly a priority to

this government. There’s no question.

We know that the first years of life are a phase of prolific neural

development. MRI studies indicate that 80 percent of all neural connections

are formed by age three. It’s also a time when children’s brain development

is highly influenced by their environment. For infants and toddlers,

research quite clearly suggests that they’re capable of complex thought, and

their development at this stage can impact the course of their

life.

We know that there’s broad consensus that children who have access to

high-quality, affordable child care enter adulthood healthier, better

educated and less likely to be involved in the criminal justice system.

These outcomes contribute to long-term health, happiness and higher earnings

as well as higher tax revenues for government and reduced government

spending.

That’s why, in our campaign, we recognized that the single most

important investment you can make in any society is in early childhood

education, child care and the K-to-12 education system. It’s because if a

child gets off on the right start, you don’t need to provide the social

services — the housing issues, the fentanyl crisis services — down the road.

You save money by investing up front.

While this is a good step in that regard, we look forward to seeing

how this actually plays out as we move forward. Without any doubt, this is

critical, this child care plan. In our confidence and supply agreement, we

argued that what’s important to both parties, in terms of shared values, was

an investment in child care and early childhood education — to improve

quality, expand spaces, increase affordability and ensure child care is

accessible for all families — with a focus on early childhood

education.

One of the things that’s clearly missing in this is a recognition that

one of the barriers to effective child care and early childhood education is

access to people who are actually going to work as early childhood educators

and child care providers. The reason why it’s missing is…. We talk about

investment here in the budget in terms of training new people. That’s great.

But if you’re going to offer these trained new people minimum wage, which is

not much different in many cases…. It’s hard for these people to want to

aspire to go into the career of early childhood education or child care if

they could earn a better wage being a waitress, working on a construction

site, building a house.

We want to ensure that when we have professions in our society that

are so critical — teachers, early childhood educators — we attract the best

and brightest into that field by valuing it as a society and ensuring that

we pay them what we, as a society, believe they deserve. We saw that missing

in the budget. We didn’t see a focus on how we’re going to actually raise

the wages of people to encourage people into this area.

In the budget we see language about increasing more spaces — that’s

good — and increasing more educational opportunities. That’s good. But we

did not see substantive discourse on how we’re going to increase the wages

there. That’s what we look forward to. That’s still an A-plus.

It’s not there, member for New Westminster. If it were there, I would

be delighted to see it, but we don’t see there any statement about how we’re

going to actually increase the wages of these people. You can say: “Okay,

we’re going to give families some more, by allowing them access.” But again,

it’s about the wages of the people there in order to get the people to

actually be early childhood educators.

The focus here has largely been on child care, too. There’s some

language on early childhood education, which is important, but we need to

recognize that not every family chooses to put their children in child care.

There are some families who make the decision that the husband or wife — or

husband or husband, or wife or wife, one of the partners — will stay home

with the child, and the other partner may go to work.

[3:45 p.m.]

Now, in my colleague’s case, my colleague for Saanich North and the

Islands stayed at home with his children. He stayed at home with his

children, and society doesn’t value that. One of the things we campaigned

for in our platform was recognizing that child care is a choice. For many

families, the choice is they’d like to have high-quality, licensed services

where they could have child care occurring and education occurring through

child care. For others, their choice is to stay home.

We believe that fairness would require both to be treated equally.

Fairness would be that you actually…. When we campaigned, it was to create a

benefit for those people who chose to stay home, so as not to incentivize

third-party child care, but also to recognize that, for some, staying at

home is an option. That, we would have liked to have seen in this budget. I

see some of the members opposite are in agreement

there.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Some of them. At least one of the members, but I suspect…. Two of the

members opposite, and there are only…. I can’t say which, and there are

only….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I can’t say. Not all members opposite are there. So 33 percent of the

members opposite.

Three years from now, some single parents currently paying $1,250 a

month for infant and toddler care will pay no fee at all if their income is

below $45,000 a year. That’s great. That actually gives those parents who

choose to put their children in child care the ability to do so. It doesn’t

deal with those parents who choose not to. Therefore, it is incentivizing

more people to choose to put their children in child care.

We all know the single best care a person can get is with their

family. Many, many parents choose to actually have one person stay at home.

In many cases, some people choose to have a nanny to come and live in their

house with them. Again, that would not be accounted for here, because in

that case, there’s an option that people have that would not be rewarded

here, too.

Maybe it’s a grandparent who comes to live, as in many, many Eastern

European, my family, South Asian or Asian communities. Part of the family

structure is that as the children age and have their own children, the

grandparents play a key role, in that tight family unit, of looking after

their grandchildren. That’s how my children were raised. I suspect that’s

how members opposite…. I look to the member for Delta North. That’s how he

was raised, and maybe his children. The grandparents looked after our

children. The grandparents stepped in. It’s a very common cultural value.

We’re not actually rewarding that here.

We recognize that there’s some home-based licensed child care, but not

everyone wants to take in other kids as well. The grandparents might want to

come and look after the kids. Frankly, we think that they should be

rewarded. They should be rewarded because they are providing a key service,

generating some income, perhaps. But in this system, the service is much

more expensive if it’s done elsewhere, and that’s what we’re

incentivizing.

With that said, there’s no question we support this plan. We think

it’s A-plus. But there are things, I think, that have not been thought. A

third one on that — and my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands

might address it— is Indigenous communities, where in fact the model of

child care might be somewhat different from the model that’s being thought

about here. We have to be very careful that we don’t try to impose a

one-size-fits-all option.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Well, exactly. I have a lot of time for the comments from the member

for Powell River–Sunshine Coast because he comes from this issue, and he’s

providing validation in many areas here. It’s not heckling.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Okay. The member is suggesting it’s included. We’re having a

discussion here. It’s not clear to me. I didn’t see it. During office hours,

I look forward to having the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast also

bring forward the issue of how it’s included.

The creation of 22,000 spaces is clearly good. It’s putting us on

track to where we need to be, and $237 million over three years to do so is

a non-trivial investment, coupled with a substantial capital investment as

well.

Coming to the issue of quality. Child care workers generally, as I

mentioned, don’t earn pay equity wage levels. It’s a reality. We in society

seem to think that if you are driving a truck, you should be paid more than

if you’re caring after our youngest infants and toddlers. That is a

messed-up society, in my view. It’s not that way if you go to progressive

nations in Europe.

[3:50 p.m.]

Progressive nations in Europe do not share that view. They recognize

that child care education is a critical aspect of a thriving, successful

society. I don’t see the measures here that I would like to have seen. We

need budgets to anticipate that child care workers should be better

compensated.

The budget proposes new investments in post-secondary training for

child care providers, but it is very short on details about plans to raise

wages for early childhood educators to be on par, for example, with school

teachers. Why do we think it’s okay for teachers of children in the ages of

three to four to be paid, in many cases, a fraction of what teachers of

children at the age of five would be paid? It seems to us that we have some

priorities here.

Well, if we move then, again, with that letter grade of A-plus for the

child care, to the issue of climate — another issue that is quite important

to me — I’ll give a solid B on the issue of climate. There are many As in

other areas that I won’t have time to address.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I will give the government As on the way they’re actually applying the

increased funding for renters into the RAP and SAFER programs. Without a

doubt, that’s not an A. That’s an A-plus. There’s recognition that we have

federal programs coming in on stream in 2021 that would mirror beautifully

with the existing RAP and SAFER programs. It targets people when they need

it and who needs it — seniors and SAFER and people with lower income

requiring rental subsidies in the RAP. So without a doubt, there’s an A-plus

there. I’ll give some more A-pluses to the members in government as we go

forward.

The solid B in climate. I appreciate that government is reiterating

its commitment to take steps to meet our climate targets. I very much

appreciate that. I very much appreciate that government has sent a signal to

the market that the price of carbon, the levy that’s attached to it, will

increase by $5 per year to meet the federal target a year before the federal

target comes into place. That shows leadership, and that shows certainty. It

gives business leadership, and it gives business certainty.

I appreciate that the government is also taking steps to ensure that

those people who cannot afford to pay this will have means and ways to deal

with it through rebates, much like we have right now with the carbon levy

rebate. I appreciate that government recognizes that some industries — like

Rio Tinto Alcan, for example — have already made major investments in terms

of greenhouse gas reductions. It’s difficult for them to make further

investments, in light of the fact they’ve just spent billions of dollars to

do that. There’s going to be language in there, steps to ensure that there’s

no penalty for people who’ve been early adopters or people who will be put

at a competitive disadvantage if they aggressively move forward.

I was saddened to see that we had no mention of bringing back in the

cap-and-trade legislation that the B.C. Liberals repealed when it created

its greenhouse gas increase and LNG act back in the day. The cap-and-trade

enabling legislation was a critical component of Gordon Campbell’s climate

plan, at the time, in 2008. It is what the B.C. NDP campaigned for back in

the day, when they finally came up with a climate plan after the tax attacks

campaign.

The cap-and-trade enabling legislation could work in concert with the

carbon tax to actually capture heavy industries, to pull them out of the

carbon tax, include them in the cap and then allow British Columbia to join

Washington, Ontario, Quebec, the eastern U.S. — many, many states and

jurisdictions that have such a plan to allow for the most efficient

reductions in greenhouse gases to occur. I would like to have seen

that.

Again, the problem with climate mitigation plans is it’s not too

dissimilar to the same problem that Indigenous people have been dealing with

for years. Words, aspirational goals and targets are so easy to offer. What

matters is real action. We have words in the budget, but where are the

actions? There’s a general worry that the government’s present

reconstitution of the climate leadership team will give it an excuse to

delay action when we know that the civil service has spent years, since

2008, developing the instruments, the pathways, the regulations that we

could implement.

[3:55 p.m.]

Why did we not see in the budget a recognition that British Columbia

should have a zero-emission vehicle policy like Quebec has? British Columbia

should have zero-emission vehicle policy. Why didn’t we see in the budget a

statement along the lines of: “British Columbia will change a small

regulation” — it can be done through order-in-council — “that will actually

allow people to charge for electricity if they’re charging their charging

stations”?

Companies like ChargePoint, which install electric charging vehicles,

or Sun Country are not actually allowed to charge for the electricity. So

what we have is…. We have to wait for the goodwill of schools, the goodwill

of hospitals, the goodwill of municipalities or homeowners like me to

actually provide free electricity to somebody if they want to charge up

their car, unless you’re B.C. Hydro.

B.C. Hydro has — get this; I’m not kidding — 29 fast, high-voltage DC

charging stations in the province. For a province that claims to be wanting

to see leadership in this area, that’s pretty woeful. That’s more than

pretty woeful. It’s quite pathetic, really. You can’t drive from Victoria to

Kamloops because there are no high-voltage DC stations. Even the ones that

are there are down so often.

The stories I get from across British Columbia — station in Kamloops

down. Duncan goes down. Duncan goes down for months because they’re repaving

the parking lot. Well, people who drive from Victoria to Courtenay need a

fill-up in Duncan or Nanaimo, and they’re both out at one point.

This is a joke in terms of what we’re saying here. We want to be

leaders, but we’re not willing to invest in the infrastructure. It doesn’t

even require public investment. It requires allowing industry to put the

charging stations in and actually, for example, charge 35 cents a kilowatt

hour, like B.C. Hydro has been allowed to charge because of the application

before the BCUC, which permitted it to charge 35 cents a kilowatt hour for

electricity.

You or I, hon. Speaker, couldn’t do that, unless we registered as a

utility. Well, there’s no way in a million years I’m going to go and

register as a utility. New Westminster — the member for New Westminster is

here — has a registered utility. They can actually charge for power in New

Westminster with their charging station. Nelson, I believe, is another

one.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Yeah. I’m hoping. It’s not in the budget. But I would have liked to

have seen more signalling, either in the throne speech or in the budget,

because the budget sends a direction. The direction…. Child care: A-plus.

Housing: sorry, C. Climate: B. Then there’s a bunch of good things in the

budget.

I know some of the stakeholders out here in the community are quite

excited by what they’ve seen. I like to quote the Sierra Club. To me, the

Sierra Club reaction is quite critical in light of the fact that the

Environment Minister — who I have enormous respect for, who I think is doing

an incredible job — was former executive director of the Sierra Club. This

is what they said.

“There’s no question affordability is a huge issue for far too many

working families. But longer-term affordability issues are being neglected

as a result,” said Sierra Club B.C. communications director Tim Pearson.

“Budget 2018 attempts to address intensified climate impacts, which will

continue to get more and more expensive, but does not allocate nearly enough

resources to this growing challenge.” It’s not only the Sierra Club saying

that. We had, last week, the Auditor General in British Columbia saying the

same thing.

To the issue of transportation. Transportation: A-minus. The step

forward in terms of the infrastructure and moving toward the direction of

the mayors plan — I’m very pleased to see that we’re seeing a start down in

that area.

Something that I would have liked to have seen, something that I think

is critical, is we should see, sooner than later, investment in light rapid

transit, light rail from Abbotsford and the valley directly into Metro

Vancouver. We know that one of the biggest problems in terms of congestion

in Metro Vancouver is investment. We need investment.

We have B.C. Transit, and we have TransLink. But heaven forbid you

cross the boundary and take public transit across the TransLink and into

B.C. Transit zone — B.C. Transit being in the Fraser Valley, TransLink being

down in the Metro Vancouver region.

Light rapid rail. Why are we not talking about that in Victoria? Why

are we not talking about actually getting people from A to B, efficiently

getting people out of their cars? If you start to increase…. Part of the

problem,