Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, February 26, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 87

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

Tributes

Greg Norton

L. Larson

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Greg Norton

Hon. L. Popham

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Kelsey Serwa

N. Letnick

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Tla’amin Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. S. Fraser

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Sunshine Coast Community Resource Centre

N. Simons

B.C. athletes at Olympics in Pyeongchang

M. Stilwell

Fuel spill near Heiltsuk Nation and marine spill response

J. Rice

B.C. Winter Games in Kamloops

T. Stone

Mining industry

B. D’Eith

T. Shypitka

Oral Questions

Environment Minister communications with environmental groups

J. Johal

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

Interior Fraser steelhead population and chum gillnet fishery

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Donaldson

Bus service in northern B.C.

M. Morris

Hon. C. Trevena

Impact of employer health tax on businesses

T. Wat

Hon. C. James

D. Clovechok

Impact of employer health tax on non-profit agencies

S. Cadieux

Hon. C. James

Impact of employer health tax on businesses

M. Stilwell

Hon. C. James

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. D. Donaldson

M. Morris

M. Dean

A. Olsen

N. Simons

N. Letnick

L. Krog

S. Cadieux

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: Members on both sides of the House today had the honour to meet with

representatives of the University of British Columbia Medical Undergraduate

Society, first-year medical students advocating for changes in child and

youth mental health and addictions. There’s a significant group. I know they

met with members on both sides of the House, and I’d like to introduce them

now. This is the first of two sets of introductions, kind of an introduction

filibuster.

Here it is: Amy Kim; Ashley Ram; Brianna Crighton; Ellie MacBain; Emma

Woo; Kaity Lalonde; Laila Drabkin; Sophia Lee; Privia Randhawa; Rebecca

Afford; Seamus Hogan, who almost hit the daily double today; Nicole Gabers;

Amir Danishwar; Andrea Jones; Chloe Lim; Cody Lo, Dan Shearer; David Jung;

Devon Mitchell; Dhruv Pandey; Dylan Collins; Faizan Bhatia; Gulaab Sara;

Irene Li; Jacky Tang; Janice Mok; Jas Hans; Jacqueline Sproule; Kelly Zerr;

Kevin Liang; Laura Kim; Linda Yang; Maichael Thejoe; Maya Rosencrantz; Nora

Penty; Perneet Sekhon; Rahul Walia; Raymond Cho; Robert Yao; Shikha Walia;

Tanjot Singh; Tribesty Nguyen; and Vivian Tsang. I’d like everyone in the

House to wish them welcome.

It was a busy morning for guests, as well, for many members on both

sides of the House. I think doctors of optometry are so committed to our

communities and the services they provide in public health care but also,

often, as local business people who are committed to the community. I wanted

to invite them. There are many doctors of optometry from around British

Columbia here today. I wanted to introduce the president and vice-president,

Pria Sandhu and Dr. Johnathan Lam, for being here — and all the

optometrists, for all they do every day for eye health in British

Columbia.

M. Stilwell: I’d like to welcome a good friend of mine who’s in the House today.

Although we met when he lived here in British Columbia, he has since left

for the booming metropolis of Toronto, but he’s back in town for a visit.

I’m thrilled that he’s made the time to come and witness firsthand the

splendor that occurs here during question period. Jeff is an entrepreneur, a

planner, a questioner, an unconventional thinker and the founder of Courage

Lab. Would the House please make Jeff George feel welcome.

L. Krog: Very mindful of the admonition that we must never comment on the

presence or absence of anyone in this chamber who’s a member of this

chamber, I think I can just say, in a delicate way, on behalf of all the

members of the House, it’s just a delight to see the member for Port

Moody–Coquitlam back with us.

J. Yap: I have one introduction, a gentleman who’s no stranger to members on

both sides of the House. With us today in the gallery to observe proceedings

is the president and CEO of the New Car Dealers Association, Blair Qualey,

who has been a great leader and advocate for clean energy vehicles and, in

fact, is doing a great job in helping to administer that program. Would

everyone in the House please give a warm welcome to our friend Blair

Qualey.

Hon. J. Darcy: I’d like to echo the words of the Minister of Health, having met with

both of those groups today.

The medical students from UBC…. The focus of what they came to talk to

us about today was child and youth mental health and addictions, and I want

to just thank them again on behalf of this House.

These are young, bright, forward-thinking, progressive students who

had so much to say about the social determinants of health and about the

need for us to create a seamless and coordinated system for mental health

and addictions. They’re very much going to be about the solution to building

that kind of system going forward.

Please, let’s once again thank the brilliant medical students of the

future, who are going to help us to build that system.

[1:40 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Today is Mining Day here in British Columbia, and we’re fortunate to

have numerous delegates from the mining industry here in Victoria for the

next couple of days. We’re doubly lucky to have five members in the gallery

right now with us. Or, at least, I’m told that they’re in the precinct,

anyways. Bryan Cox from the Mining Association of British Columbia; Jeff

Hanman from Teck Resources, who is also the MABC chair; ’Lyn Anglin,

Imperial Metals, AME chair; Jim Harrison from MSABC; and Tim Bekhuys from

New Gold Inc. Would the House please give them a warm B.C. Mining Day

welcome.

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes, as the member mentioned, it is Mining Day. We’ve had many

delegates who are with us today who are meeting with members of both sides

of the House to share with us the importance of mining and everything it

does for the B.C. economy.

Up in the gallery are Bryan Cox, the Mining Association of B.C.

president; Jeff Hanman with Teck Resources; ’Lyn Anglin with Imperial

Metals; Jim Harrison with Finning Canada; and Tim Bekhuys with New Gold

Inc.

If the House could make them very welcome.

Tributes

GREG NORTON

L. Larson: I rise today to inform the House of the sudden passing of Greg

Norton. Greg has spent the last 30 years as an outspoken advocate for

agriculture in B.C. and for the protection of ALR lands. He was the

founding chair of the sterile insect release program, and he has served

as chair of many boards, including the agricultural research and

development committee, the environmental farm plan working group, the

regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen and the Okanagan cherry

growers. He was also the regional representative on the ALC for the

Okanagan.

I ask the Speaker to send condolence to his wife, Chris, and

family on behalf of the Legislature.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Sims: It’s an absolute delight today to stand in this House and introduce a

very dear friend, Nathan Cullen — not a stranger to any of us in the House.

He is here doing business on behalf of Canadians. Because he gets to visit

us…. I think he’s the one who brought us all that snow over the weekend from

out east.

One thing I’ve always valued about Nathan is his commitment to the

north and to making sure that the voice of British Columbia is heard in

Ottawa and that the issues that we face here are front and centre when he

rises and does his work. He’s an amazing advocate. He’s an amazing

parliamentarian and an orator that is truly a joy to watch.

Please help me welcome him.

E. Ross: Kitamaat Village has been our territory for thousands of years. The

city of Kitimat itself, though, has only been there for about 60 or 70

years. The town of Kitimat wouldn’t have existed without Rio Tinto

Alcan.

Today in the House, we have Richard Prokopanko, who worked for Rio

Tinto Alcan for many years. He’s a good friend, but over the years, we were

adversaries at the same time. He is in the precinct as well. I’d just like

the House to make him feel very welcome today.

Tributes

GREG NORTON

Hon. L. Popham: I would like to share, with the member across the way, our

condolences from this side of the House with Greg Norton, cherry farmer.

Greg was an incredible guy. I just had reappointed him as a commissioner

to the Agricultural Land Commission. He was very excited to be a part of

that process, and his enthusiasm was contagious.

I also feel very, very grateful, at this point, to have had a

lovely visit with him at the B.C. Agriculture gala. He will be missed,

and we give condolences to Greg’s family.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Popham: I also have some guests in the chamber today. The B.C. Agriculture in

the Classroom Foundation is here. They’re a non-profit organization that

works with educators to promote the value of agriculture with our B.C.

students. We have Pat Tonn, Joe Massie and Julie Dickson from Save-On-Foods;

and Sydney Massey from the B.C. Dairy Association. Welcome.

I also have a group that I’m meeting with later today from the B.C.

Herdshare Association — Katharina Dittus, Mark McAfee, Dr. Joanne Whitehead

and Bryony Lake.

Finally, we have a special guest from Saanich South here, Gita

Wilson.

Please make these amazing folks welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

Tributes

KELSEY SERWA

N. Letnick: From 1986 to 1991, Cliff Serwa sat here, representing the people

of Okanagan West and also served as the Minister of Environment. His

legacy was service in both his political capacity and as co-founder of

Big White Ski Resort. However, that legacy has been surpassed by a new

claim to fame. He will now forever be known as the Olympic gold medal

champion Kelsey Serwa’s granddad.

As all proud Canadians know, Kelowna’s hero won the gold medal in

women’s ski cross, with her teammate Brittany Phelan taking

silver.

Kelsey’s path to success includes world championships and Winter X

Games, but her Olympic story is a lesson in hard work and perseverance.

In 2010 in Vancouver, at age 20, she was fifth. In Sochi in 2014, she

was second, and now, in 2018, she’s first.

She may be from Kelowna, but all Canadians can be proud of our

local hero. One more story that weaves our great country

together.

Please join me in expressing our gratitude to all our Olympic

athletes and Paralympic athletes — their sacrifices, tears and

wins.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Donaldson: I have a couple of introductions today. First, I would like to

introduce four members of the United Steelworkers who are joining us today:

Brian O’Rourke, president of Local 1-2017, from Prince George; Rod Park,

second vice-president of the same local; Terry Tate, coordinator of special

projects and communications with the same local; and also Jeff Bromley,

financial secretary of Local 1-405 in the Kootenays.

We had a very productive meeting this morning, discussing the future

of workers in the forest industry. I believe they’re in the gallery — my

failing eyesight — up in the dark corner there. Oh, I see some waving hands.

I would like the chamber to welcome them here today, please.

Secondly, as well, I would like to welcome MP Nathan Cullen to the

floor of the chamber today. Nathan and I have worked together for many

years. He was first elected in 2004, and we did numerous years of

door-knocking over the last 14 years, together, chairing many community

meetings and promoting the concerns of that area. Nathan’s riding

encompasses over 3½ of our constituency. It’s a really amazing job that he

makes it around so often to all the communities. I also want to acknowledge

the great work he did as part of the federal committee on proportional

representation. Would the chamber once again please welcome Nathan

Cullen.

M. Dean: Today we’re visited by some students from the international Pearson

College in Metchosin. We have Bryan Nakambonde from Namibia, Castilleja

DeMarco from Canada, Cindy Gao from China, Daniel Santos Ramirez from

Venezuela, Juan Daniel Arias from Costa Rica, Omar Cano from Canada and

Shaheen Zainudin from Singapore. Would the House make them all very

welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — TLA’AMIN FINAL AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. S. Fraser presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tla’amin Final Agreement Amendment

Act, 2018.

Hon. S. Fraser: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Fraser: I’m pleased to introduce the Tla’amin Final Agreement Amendment

Act for first reading. This bill will provide the provincial court with

the power to issue and enforce orders for convictions under Tla’amin

laws, acting in accordance with the Tla’amin foreshore

agreement.

[1:50 p.m.]

The orders referred to under this amendment are in respect to

paying for damages, costs associated with investigations and

prosecutions — or declarations prohibiting or ordering specific actions.

The amendments are equivalent to provisions for the local government,

set out in the Community Charter and the Local Government Act. Also, in

2015, this House approved a similar amendment to the Maa-nulth First

Nations Final Agreement Act.

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 3, Tla’amin Final Agreement 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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SUNSHINE COAST

COMMUNITY RESOURCE

CENTRE

N. Simons: I’m pleased to stand today in recognition of the excellent work of

the Sunshine Coast Community Resource Centre. The resource centre has

been one of the Sunshine Coast’s key social service providers since the

early ’90s and recently celebrated a 25-year anniversary.

It started as the Sunshine Coast women’s resource centre with a

staff of one, guided by a small board. One of its first locations over

the years was a tiny office on Wharf Avenue next to a dive shop and

below a children’s dance studio. The lone staffer at the time recalls

having to speak loudly with clients while, upstairs, tiny dancers

pounded on the floor almost in unison.

In 2004, the centre’s name changed, and its mandate was expanded.

It’s now the community resource centre, offering programs and services

to members of the community. The organization is a registered

non-profit, governed by a board of seven directors, led by co-chairs

Anne Titcomb and Jane Gladman.

The resource centre’s singular goal is to help people find the

services they need to succeed in the face of life’s challenges, big or

small. Staff find the right information and connect clients to

organizations that best are able to help. Services are offered in

person, by phone, by email and through group presentations and

workshops. The centre uses a grassroots approach to strategic planning,

starting out with comprehensive community consultations and needs

assessments. The centre often works in partnership with other community

organizations to improve the services available to people in the

Sunshine Coast.

Fittingly, the centre has now received a grant from the B.C. rural

dividend fund to explore an interest in establishing a community

resource hub, which is a shared location for non-profit organizations,

agencies and social enterprises in the interests of both synergy and

efficiency. With the help of provincial funding agencies, this is an

organization that provides an important level of services to the area

residents. As such, the Sunshine Coast Community Resource Centre stands

as an outstanding example of the creative and compassionate goodwill of

British Columbians.

B.C. ATHLETES AT

OLYMPICS IN

PYEONGCHANG

M. Stilwell: Many of our amazing Olympic athletes call British Columbia home

and had trained on some of our world-class facilities. They represented

us and our country at the 2018 PyeongChang Olympics. While competing on

the international stage, they shared their pursuit of excellence, live,

with millions of people around the world.

To give you an idea of how well B.C. was represented at the games,

28 percent of the athletes on Team Canada had some connection to our

province. In total, 63 out of the 225 athletes on Team Canada either

lived or trained in British Columbia. Our athletes did us proud — those

who brought home hardware but also those who fell short of their goal

but dared to try.

We had an all-time record medal count, with 29 medals, and placed

third overall, in all countries. The stories of triumph will live in our

hearts forever while also helping to grow sport in B.C. Hometown

athletes like our Island girl Cassie Sharpe, who captured gold in the

freestyle skiing halfpipe, showed us what dreams are truly made of.

Kelowna native Kelsey Serwa’s gold medal in ski cross will inspire our

youth to pursue their passion for years to come.

This past weekend, when the Olympic flame was put out, British

Columbia’s best young athletes gathered in Kamloops for the B.C. Winter

Games. You can bet they were watching and cheering the contingent of

B.C. Games alumni — 16 in total at this Olympic Games, Serwa being one

of them. She went to the 2002 Winter Games in Williams Lake and was our

Team B.C. honorary captain for the Prince George Canada Winter Games in

2015. It was her pathway to the Olympics.

This demonstrates how important it is for government to invest in

sport at all levels to ensure that kids have the ability to follow their

dreams from playground to podium. Incredible moments, incredible stories

— memories that will inspire generations to come. In ten days from now,

we’ll do it all over again, with the lighting of the Paralympic

cauldron.

[1:55 p.m.]

FUEL SPILL NEAR HEILTSUK NATION

AND MARINE SPILL

RESPONSE

J. Rice: On the way to Bella Bella, I had convinced myself that the tugboat

which ran aground and spewed thousands of litres of diesel into Heiltsuk

waters wasn’t going to be that devastating. “The fuel barge it was

towing was, fortunately, empty, and diesel evaporates,” I reassured

myself.

I arrived days after the accident. Yet on my first boat trip out

to the sunken tugboat, the Nathan E. Stewart , near Gale Creek,

the nauseating stench of diesel was dizzying. From a boat, I watched

hopelessly as sausage links of boom, deployed around the wreck, were

tossed about the violent sea like rag dolls. These booms were supposed

to prevent oil from contaminating important clam beds and seafood

harvesting areas. It took many hours for spill response equipment to

arrive to the central coast. When it did, the equipment failed to

contain the spill.

The Nathan E. Stewart — and, a year later, the potential

near catastrophe of the grounding of the Jake Shearer —

demonstrates just how inadequate oil spill response off the coast of

B.C. is. With current marine traffic that’s plying our waters, coastal

and First Nations communities are at risk.

With a response corporation located in Prince Rupert and one in

Vancouver, and with nothing in between, the Heiltsuk First Nation

proposed building an Indigenous marine response corporation for the

middle of our province to improve response times on the central coast.

The Indigenous marine response corporation builds on Heiltsuk’s

millennia-long tradition of environmental stewardship, while utilizing

the best available western and traditional knowledge.

This would vastly improve environmental protections and marine

safety to the benefit of all British Columbians and all Canadians.

Protecting our oceans shouldn’t be contingent upon accepting more risk.

We have a duty to protect what we already have and to do better at

mitigating the risk we currently face. Please join me in calling on the

federal government to support the Heiltsuk and support an Indigenous

marine response corporation for the central coast.

B.C. WINTER GAMES IN KAMLOOPS

T. Stone: Along with the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, I’m proud to

acknowledge the 2018 B.C. Winter Games, which took place in Kamloops

this past weekend. The success of these games proved yet again why

Kamloops is Canada’s tournament capital.

The hallmark of these games was young athletes giving it their

all, dedicated volunteers everywhere, generous sponsors stepping up and

packed venues across the entire community. Featuring 19 sports at venues

in Kamloops as well as Sun Peaks and at Stake Lake, the athletes ranged

in age from 9 to 17. They competed in a range of indoor and outdoor

sports such as alpine skiing, curling, speed skating, archery,

gymnastics and judo.

In fact, over 2,000 athletes, coaches and officials, not to

mention thousands of parents, descended upon Kamloops for these games,

an event that prepares B.C.’s young athletes for their futures in

sport.

The B.C. Winter Games is a volunteer-driven event, and it would

not have been possible without the almost 1,800 volunteers and

organizers who stepped up to make this event possible. This year marks

the 40th anniversary of the B.C. Winter Games and B.C. Summer Games,

events that were created to bring young British Columbians and athletes

together through sport and friendship.

The first B.C. Summer Games took place in Penticton in 1978. The

first B.C. Winter Games were also held in Kamloops the following year.

Since its inception, the B.C. Games have been held 60 times in 38

different communities across British Columbia.

I would like the House to please join me in applauding the hard

work of the volunteers, the organizers and, most importantly, the

athletes who made the 2018 B.C. Winter Games in Kamloops such a

tremendous success.

MINING INDUSTRY

B. D’Eith: Energy, electronics, infrastructure and transportation — the

mining industry makes all of these possible, whether it’s the phones we

use to stay connected, the vehicles that get us to and from work or the

televisions where we discover our favourite starship captain. Mining is

a part of our lives. Most of our routine activities wouldn’t be possible

without the mining industry.

Well, today is Mining Day at the Legislature, and its importance

to our economy is very clear. The sector provides jobs for more than

30,000 people in communities throughout the province. It adds over $6

billion to B.C.’s gross domestic product. Our government is committed to

a strong economy that works for everyone to create good, high-paying

jobs across the province. The mining industry is an important part of

that commitment.

[2:00 p.m.]

Today I’m happy to say that we introduced a 12-member Mining Jobs

Task Force. The task force will work with communities, First Nations and

the mining industry to provide government with recommendations on how

best to move forward. Recommendations will touch on B.C.’s geoscience

needs to strengthen exploration, our level of competitiveness and

approach to investment, best practices in mining, jobsite health and

safety, skills training and development, and ways to address the

boom-and-bust cycle of the industry to help us sustain good jobs today

and in the future.

I have full confidence that this task force will come forward with

recommendations that will help us further our work to create a strong,

sustainable economy. Happy Mining Day.

T. Shypitka: I concur with the member from across the floor. The car you drove

in and the road you drove on, the clothes you wear and the great

building that we all sit in here today all have one thing in common, and

that one thing is mining. Mining builds communities. Mining has built

this province, and it continues to be an incredible contributor to our

economy. In 2016, the industry generated $8.7 billion in economic

activity and $650 million in direct payments to government, which, in

turn, helped support services like child care, health care and

education.

Currently mining directly and indirectly employs over 30,000

British Columbians in every region of the province, providing

good-paying jobs that allow families the stability they need and

communities to flourish. A healthy mining industry in B.C. is paramount

as we transition to a low-carbon economy, including the use of

alternative energy such as solar and wind.

Wind towers, for example, use over 98 percent mined materials. So

170 tonnes of metallurgical coal are needed to make the turbine and

other steel components, and 800 tonnes of concrete and aggregate are

used to make the base and tower. And there’s a lot of copper for the

wiring. British Columbia is Canada’s largest producer of copper and

steelmaking coal and the only producer of molybdenum — all of which play

an essential role in the creation of things like electric cars and wind

turbines.

Additionally, the British Columbia mining companies are among the

lowest GHG emissions–intensity miners in the world. Simply stated, a

low-carbon economy does not exist without mining. Mining helps the

growth of new sectors such as technology with the use and development of

cutting-edge software for advanced mining operations.

As it is also SPCA Cupcake Day, I hope everybody, from both sides

of the House, will join me in support of B.C. Mining Day and the B.C.

mining industry. Buy a miner a cupcake.

Oral Questions

ENVIRONMENT MINISTER COMMUNICATIONS

WITH ENVIRONMENTAL

GROUPS

J. Johal: Last week the Premier finally ended the trade war started by his

Environment Minister while the Premier was away in Asia. New documents

reveal details about the Bowen Island activists that the Environment

Minister cavorted with the day he started the trade war. I’m going to

read from the document here. “This is being organized to seize a

specific political moment and support mass popular

resistance.”

Can the Minister of Environment promise British Columbians he will

stop colluding with radical activists?

Hon. G. Heyman: As I’ve said numerous times in this House, I meet with

stakeholders from all sides of the spectrum. In fact, I’ve met, by last

count, with twice as many representatives of industry associations as I

have with environmental groups. I met, as I said, with these

questions as the minister. I don’t participate in any other discussions

they have, and I will simply leave it at that.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: The document goes on to say…. It describes the Bowen Island group

as a structure of hives and swarms. It is “not a brand. We will not have

a brand or a presence in public.”

This activist Environment Minister has done what no other person

in his position has done before. He has normalized discussions with

radical activists who are lurking in the darkness, organizing against

B.C. workers.

I ask again, to the minister: will he promise the people of B.C.

that he will stop colluding with radical activists?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: As I’ve said many times, I meet with stakeholders. I discuss

issues with stakeholders. I reject the characterization by the member

opposite of legitimate stakeholders who choose to express their

interest.

What people want to know in British Columbia is: when will members

on the other side of the House stand up for the rights of British

Columbians to regulate impacts on their environment, to regulate impacts

on our economy — to stand up for B.C. jobs, on the coast and in the

Interior? When will the members of the opposition stand with us to

defend British Columbians?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a second

supplemental.

J. Johal: This minister doesn’t seem to get it. He is colluding with radical

activists who want to shut down Canada’s resource industry. A previous

NDP Premier, I do believe, referred to them as enemies of B.C. This

minister, instead, chooses to break bread and leak confidential

information to people who have no respect for our rules and our

laws.

To the minister, what assurances can he give this House he will

stop colluding with radical activists?

Hon. G. Heyman: I, frankly, don’t think it’s particularly appropriate for the

member opposite to characterize in very inflammatory terms legitimate

British Columbians standing up for views and interests that many, many

British Columbians share. While I may disagree with people who think

it’s a good idea to ship diluted bitumen through British Columbia

without ensuring that we have the science to ensure that we can prevent

spills and clean it up safely, I’m not going to degrade their opinion by

referring to them with pejorative adjectives.

Again, what British Columbians want is a government that will

stand up for our rights — stand up for jobs in coastal communities and

in the Interior in tourism, in fisheries, in film and television. That’s

what British Columbians want to hear from this chamber. They want to

hear that members on both sides of the House respect British Columbians

of all opinions and will stand together to defend our interests. I’m

wondering when the opposition will get that memo.

P. Milobar: The citizens of British Columbia also expect their ministers to be

very transparent. We know the Minister of Environment is colluding with

the Bowen Island group. We also know that they direct their members to

communicate in the most secretive way possible — only in person, through

phone calls or with an app that automatically erases any record of the

message.

I’m going to quote from the document directly. Directly from the

document: “Whenever possible, substantive conversations and plannings

will happen in person….”

Interjections.

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

P. Milobar: I’ll start the quote from the beginning. “Whenever possible,

substantive conversations and plannings will happen in person. If that’s

not possible, use Signal, with disappearing messages on desktop and

phone.”

To the minister, has the Minister of Environment been included in

these messages on Signal, or does he only communicate in person or on

the phone?

Hon. G. Heyman: For a moment there, I thought the member was quoting from memos

from previous cabinet ministers when his colleagues were in government.

The important difference, of course, is that his colleagues were in

government. He’s referring to private citizens.

I would be happy to share with the member opposite, any member of

the public and all members of this Legislature the clear memo that I

sent to all of my ministerial staff and deputies documenting exactly how

we should document all correspondence to and from my office, and all

records.

[2:10 p.m.]

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

P. Milobar: Let’s be very clear. This is about a dinner Q and A with a group

who says to make sure you delete every message you receive. These are

people who see themselves as resistance fighters and who are

deliberately hiding in the shadows.

The minister is supposed to be an unbiased regulator. He should

not be colluding and sharing confidential information with groups like

the Bowen Island group. How many times has the minister met with the

Bowen Island group, and will he table all communications he has had with

them?

Hon. G. Heyman: I look forward to the member opposite repeating some of these

statements outside of this chamber, where he can be held to the

appropriate tests of the courts. Asserting that I’m doing anything

inappropriate as a regulator is unsubstantiated — full stop.

I’ve said in my answer to the previous question that I have clear

expectations of all staff in my ministry, and myself, about how we

document and record all of the correspondence between outside parties

and my office. That is the standard that I’ve put forward after

consultation with representatives of the Office of the Information and

Privacy Commissioner. I only wish that members opposite, when they were

in government, did the same thing.

INTERIOR FRASER STEELHEAD POPULATION

AND CHUM GILLNET

FISHERY

A. Olsen: Last week I asked if government would retract the chum gillnet

fisheries’ Marine Stewardship certification before the Thompson and

Chilcotin Rivers steelhead go extinct. In response, the Minister of

FLNRO said: “It’s DFO’s jurisdiction on the gillnet fishery, and we’re

working on that.”

The minister isn’t wrong, but he didn’t answer the question.

Steelhead’s fall return coincides with the chum salmon gillnet fishery,

which, as the minister pointed out, is managed by DFO. As steelhead are

managed by the province and swim upstream to spawn, they are getting

caught and killed by the chum fisheries’ nets. It is happening at such a

significant rate that the COSEWIC extinction listing says it’s one of

the greatest threats facing steelhead survival, yet it’s a practice the

province is going out of its way to certify and advertise as

sustainable. The chum salmon gillnet fishery, in and of itself, may be

sustainable, but the impact it is having on the endangered steelhead is

not.

This time I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture.

Will you pull the chum gillnet fishery MSC sustainability listing, given

the significant impact it’s having on steelhead?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Once again, I welcome the question regarding steelhead. The

Interior Fraser steelhead run is of grave concern to members on this

side of the House, as I believe it is to all members in this chamber who

do not want to see the extirpation, the extinction, of a couple of runs

of steelhead in the Fraser system and all it means about

biodiversity.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada,

COSEWIC, pointed out that poor marine survival and excessive bycatch in

non-target fisheries under the jurisdiction of DFO, Department of

Fisheries and Oceans, is the major cause for the loss that we’re seeing

and the decline in this species.

We know that the federal government has routinely ignored the

bycatch issue. We know that the former Prime Minister, Stephen Harper,

who was supported by the former Premier, Christy Clark, and many members

on that side who are members and support the federal Conservatives, did

nothing to represent B.C.’s interest when it comes to steelhead in the

Interior Fraser system.

We are working, helping the federal….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re working with the federal government to formulate their

fishing plans to mitigate the bycatch. When it comes to the Marine

Stewardship Council, we are having input and working with the federal

government on that.

[2:15 p.m.]

We don’t have the ability to pull Marine Stewardship Council

certification. They’re an independent, non-profit society.

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

A. Olsen: I’m guessing that while the steelhead go to near extinction or get

extirpated…. We are going to be calling the chum fishery certifiably

marine sustainable, while another species goes near

extinction.

Look. I did receive the letter, a response, from the Minister of

FLNRO — we tracked it down; it was in a constituency in-box — in which

he said: “Accountabilities for fisheries- and ocean-related issues and

initiatives are distributed across the provincial government. Several

agencies play a lead role in delivering key aspects of this work,

including FLNRO, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment,

Ministry of Indigenous Relations, Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.” The

list is long. Perhaps this is why while one ministry says bycatch is a

leading threat, another is saying it’s sustainable.

My question to the Minister of FLNRO is: how can six ministries,

in addition to DFO, play a lead role in managing this crisis?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, yes, many ministries under provincial jurisdiction play a

role. For instance, the Ministry of Agriculture has concerns about

runoff from farms that impact the waters that these steelhead spawn in.

The Ministry of Environment has jurisdiction over pollutants in those

waters. My ministry has many tools at their disposal when it comes to

the sport fishery.

What I want the member to know…. I clearly do not believe that the

MSC certification should apply to the chum fishery in relation to this

steelhead return. That’s the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’

responsibility. We will make sure that our views are well known to the

federal government, as well as taking measures on habitat conservation

and restoration that are within the jurisdiction of the provincial

government.

BUS SERVICE IN NORTHERN B.C.

M. Morris: The Minister of Transportation has known for five months that bus

transportation in northern B.C. was threatened. Last week the Passenger

Transportation Board approved the elimination of six bus

routes.

The Minister of Transportation has had much of last week and the

weekend to take action. What concrete steps has she taken since the

decision was made to eliminate these routes?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member opposite knows how important this is. It’s

something that I have talked to his colleagues about, about how we can

work together to try to find a solution.

Greyhound has been wanting to pull out from northern B.C. for many

years. I don’t think it came as any surprise that they put in another

application. The members opposite, when they were government, would have

seen, really, the writing on the wall. They’ve tried to pull out for

many years.

We are working closely with local government, with First Nations,

to try and find a solution to make sure that people have access to safe

and reliable transportation across the north.

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

M. Morris: I suppose a five-second conversation in the hallway could be

considered as consultation.

Greyhound posted their application on this on September 13 last

year. In 162 days, all that’s been achieved is the cancellation of this

service, nothing more. This raises significant concerns for public

safety throughout northern B.C., throughout British Columbia, for winter

travel.

Again, to the Minister of Transportation, what concrete actions is

she taking to bring this service back?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m not sure what the member is talking about, about a five-second

chat in a hallway. I have sat down in my office with members of the

opposition from the north, early in the process, to talk about the

potential withdrawal of Greyhound.

The member for Prince George–Valemount knew from many years ago

that Greyhound was likely to pull out. We are working to find a solution

that will create safe and affordable transportation. I’ve been talking

with mayors from the north, and when we have a break from the

Legislature, I will be going to the north to sit down with them to talk

about just how we can fill a very desperate void that Greyhound has

left.

I’d like to remind the member that the Passenger Transportation

Board is an independent tribunal. I did write to them early on when we

heard about Greyhound pulling out and asked that they have consultations

around the north. They held those consultations. They went out. They

talked to people, at my instigation. They still decided, as an

independent tribunal, to pull out from the north.

It is something that I’m extraordinarily concerned about, but

we’re not going to be rushing in to say: “This is the solution.” We

don’t go top-down like the previous government. We work with

communities. We will work with communities to ensure there’s a safe and

affordable mode of transportation for the north.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

BUSINESSES

T. Wat: Flying Fresh Air Freight employs 48 workers in Richmond, and they

transport fresh B.C. products around the world. This family-owned local

business contacted me to express their deep concern about the new

employer health tax. It will cost Flying Fresh an additional $40,000

more a year.

To the Minister of Finance, does she understand that her new tax

will kill opportunities for Flying Fresh to expand and hire new

employees?

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

I’m very proud, in this budget, that we are eliminating medical

service premiums in this province, saving families and businesses money.

As the member knows, we are moving to an employer health tax, as other

provinces have done, and we are protecting small business in our

province. If you have a payroll of $500,000 or less, you will pay

nothing when it comes to the employer health tax. If your payroll is

between $500,000 and $1.5 million, you will pay a portion of the payroll

tax. If it’s over $1.5 million, you’ll pay the full tax. So 85 percent

of businesses are exempt from paying this tax because of the size of

their businesses.

We continue to support small businesses by lowering the small

business tax and by eliminating PST for businesses, and we’ll continue

to support small businesses to grow our economy in B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond North Centre on a supplemental.

T. Wat: The minister is trying her very best to minimize the devastating

impact that her taxes will have on our local business. But Flying Fresh

knows their business much better than the minister does, and they say:

“This tax will effectively reduce our ability to offer a new

position.”

Does the minister really think that Flying Fresh is wrong, or will

she admit that her new tax will hurt business and workers?

Hon. C. James: I’d remind the member that if businesses have been paying MSP,

they in fact have 50 percent savings this year — $1.3 million for

businesses and for individuals. So I’m not really sure what the member

is advocating. Does the member advocate raising personal income tax?

Does the member advocate moving back to the HST, perhaps? Does the

member want to keep a regressive tax? We say get rid of a regressive tax

for businesses and for individuals, and grow the economy.

D. Clovechok: I’m very proud to stand here today fighting for jobs in my riding.

Justin Atterbury owns several restaurants in the Columbia Valley and

employs around 60 people.

[2:25 p.m.]

For this business alone, the minister’s new double-dipping

employer health tax will cost Justin an extra — and I stress this —

$22,000 a year and threaten good-paying, family-supporting jobs in my

community.

Does the Minister of Finance think that Justin should raise prices

for customers or lay off hard-working employees to pay for her new

tax?

Hon. C. James: I’ll say again that for those businesses that are paying MSP, they

will in fact be saving dollars in 2018, by 50 percent of MSP premiums

being cut for businesses and for individuals. In 2019, yes, the employer

health tax will be in place, with 50 percent of MSP. By the third year,

you will see MSP premiums completely eliminated in this province, and

those dollars will shift over.

I say to the member once again: 85 percent of businesses in this

province will not be paying anything. On the employer health tax, we

will be fiscally responsible in ensuring the resources are there and

eliminating a regressive tax that people have been asking for years to

be eliminated.

Mr. Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

D. Clovechok: MSP payments on the backs of small businesses across this

province. Well, Justin is not buying what you’re putting down. Justin

deserves a straight answer from this minister. After all, she’s forcing

local businesses to make a choice. To quote Justin: “A new annual cost

like this is impossible to absorb without raising prices.”

To the minister, does the minister not understand about this

dilemma she’s created for businesses like Justin’s? Should he raise

prices or fire people?

Hon. C. James: I will say again that we are the last province left with a medical

service premium plan. We are the last province left with a regressive

tax. We are eliminating this tax. As other provinces have done, we are

moving to an employer health tax so that businesses will contribute to

the excellent health care system and to improving services in British

Columbia so that we protect small businesses with payrolls under

$500,000 and provide families and individuals in British Columbia with

savings of $900 up to $1,800 a year.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON NON-PROFIT

AGENCIES

S. Cadieux: Unlike this tax-and-spend NDP government, non-profits have to

manage their budgets carefully. One large non-profit in Surrey has told

me that the employer health tax is going to cost them, on top of the MSP

they currently pay, an extra $39,000 annually, forcing them to make some

pretty tough choices.

To the Finance Minister, does she think non-profits should reduce

services in order to balance their budgets?

Hon. C. James: Many not-for-profits are paying MSP premiums. By 2010, MSP

premiums will be eliminated. They will not have those resources to pay.

I would also remind the member that we have a year’s transition. The

transition is to ensure that we have conversations to ensure that this

works. We will continue to support families, to support individuals and

to support small businesses in our province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.

S. Cadieux: Well, I guess it’s not surprising that we’re hearing NDP math from

an NDP Finance Minister in an NDP world, but the reality is it’s an

additional $39,000 that this particular not-for-profit will face after

the MSP premiums are deleted.

The question was clear, and there wasn’t even a hint of an answer

for those non-profits that are worried about staff. In order to pay her

new tax, does the minister think non-profits should reduce

services?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: There was a 50 percent reduction in MSP premiums this year, a 50

percent saving to not-for-profits, to businesses and to individuals. I

would remind the member across, and all of the members across, that this

is the government that doubled MSP premiums, which hurt not-for-profits,

school districts, businesses and individuals in this

province.

We are going to continue discussions with not-for-profits and

others, and we look forward to eliminating the MSP in 2020.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

BUSINESSES

M. Stilwell: This new health tax will hit small businesses hard. Bruce

Alexander’s Parksville Chrysler is targeted with an additional annual

tax of $60,000. Small business owners like Bruce can’t afford this

double-dipping NDP tax.

Does the Minister of Finance think that family businesses like

Parksville Chrysler should lay off staff, or should they increase prices

to consumers?

Hon. C. James: Our first September budget: a reduction in the small business tax,

from 2.5 to 2 percent — supporting small businesses. Our first budget in

September: a 50 percent cut in PST on electricity for businesses. In

2019, PST for businesses will be eliminated completely.

In this budget, we have invested in the areas that business told

us that they need for recruitment and retention — major investments in

housing and in child care to support businesses in recruitment and

retention.

That’s just after seven months. Just wait until the next budget

and the next budget as we continue to support families and businesses in

British Columbia to grow a strong sustainable economy.

Mr. Speaker: Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: It’s so fair. It’s all on the backs of small businesses, business

owners like Bruce, who create jobs, who are at the forefront of our

communities and who’ve worked incredibly hard to get their businesses to

where they are today. They deserve better than to have their serious

concerns brushed off by the NDP.

Will the minister stand up and justify why she is attacking family

businesses and their workers with this tax hike?

Hon. C. James: I’ll just reiterate again: 85 percent of businesses in British

Columbia will not be paying the employer health tax, 5 percent of

businesses will be paying the full tax, and other businesses will pay a

portion.

Contributing to our health care system is important for everyone.

Getting rid of a regressive tax is a step in the right

direction.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

[2:35 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

G. Kyllo: It is truly a privilege and honour to rise today and continue with my

remarks in response to Budget 2018. I also would like to say that, this

morning, I had the opportunity to present a private member’s motion to talk

about B.C.’s competitiveness and about the importance of supporting small

businesses across our province, providing them with competitive tax rates so

that they are able to compete in an ever-growing global economy.

Here we are at this time where we should be looking to attract

investment and telling companies from around the globe that B.C. is the

right place to station their headquarters. Here we have the NDP hammering

our businesses’ bottom lines, reducing our international competitiveness. As

made clear in recent question periods, this government believes that local,

family-owned businesses somehow don’t understand how taxes work, dismissing

them and their concerns.

Businesses in my riding have been reaching out to me, expressing their

grave concerns with respect to the impact of some of the increased taxation

that has become part of Budget 2018. My friends at North Enderby Timber

reported that a payroll tax of 2 percent would cost an additional $120,000 a

year and that most businesses would be looking to cut benefits when faced

with a burden similar to this tax increase or looking at cutting back and

reducing employment.

Another firm in my riding, Valid Manufacturing, would see costs

increase to the neighbourhood north of $150,000 a year. Another small

business in my area, Waterway Houseboats, would see an increase of $23,000.

These new payroll taxes, as laid out in this year’s budget, send a clear

message to businesses in B.C., to job creators and to investors. That is: if

you are successful, we will bleed you until you are no longer.

It’s extremely concerning when we see a number of different issues

that have been presented as part of Budget 2018. We have an increase in

minimum-wage rates. We had, in September of this past year, the NDP mid-term

budget that came out with a 1 percent increase in corporate taxes as well as

a 2 percent increase on the tax rates for B.C.’s brightest and

highest-income earners. It’s really important that we have a look. We can’t

have a look at….

Interjection.

G. Kyllo: The member is chirping at me here from across the aisle.

I think it’s really important that we have a look at the need to

continue to look at growing the economy. We have been extremely successful

in the previous Liberal government of taking British Columbia to having the

fastest-growing economy in Canada. Rather than taking the existing pie of

taxation and trying to determine how we can actually pull more and more

taxation away from existing businesses, we were looking at how we could grow

the economy, create a bigger pie so that those businesses that are actually

operating in British Columbia are not faced with increased tax pressure

which, again, as I mentioned earlier, only forms to reduce our

competitiveness.

We have an increasing global economy. We have small companies

operating throughout British Columbia. We’re a small economy here, and for

most companies to continue to grow and to provide economic opportunity and

to create those family-supporting jobs, we need to have a look at

encouraging British Columbian companies to export.

Whether you’re a small manufacturer up in the interior of British

Columbia at the Salmon Arm industrial park and you’re looking at growing

your business, and you’re looking at expanding by sending products and

services into other jurisdictions around the globe, the tax competitiveness

of your business is extremely important. It has a critical role in ensuring

that you are able to compete at an international stage.

[2:40 p.m.]

No different when we have a look at our tourism sectors, whether we’re

looking at houseboat rental operations on Shuswap Lake or folks that might

be up at Silver Star Ski Resort, people that are coming skiing. We have to

have a look at how taxation is going to impact the overall pricing, because

in a global economy, folks have a choice to determine where they’re going to

spend their holidays.

We’re also seeing the recent initiatives undertaken by the NDP

government to make unconstitutional demands causing grief with the Trans

Mountain pipeline. It is doing nothing to improve relationships with other

provinces across Canada and certainly not with our federal counterparts in

our Canadian government. I’m extremely concerned about some of the

initiatives that our current government has undertaken with part of Budget

2018 to reduce the competitiveness and to stifle the growth of businesses

here in British Columbia.

When we have a look at rural British Columbia, areas of the province

are not having the record growth and not seeing the record reductions in

unemployment levels that we’ve seen in larger major centres — areas that

actually rely extensively on the resource community, whether it’s mining,

forestry or natural gas development. We need to have a look at how we can

provide that support for small communities across British Columbia to have

that opportunity to take advantage of the resources that are within their

communities and provide those family-supporting jobs that I know we so rely

on.

Yet what do we see? The now Premier and former Environment Minister,

prior to the last election, writing a letter to the federal government

asking them to rescind the environmental permit for Pacific NorthWest LNG.

Now, what kind of a message does that actually send to folks that are trying

to develop LNG facilities in British Columbia?

It was of no great surprise this past summer when Pacific NorthWest

LNG decided to pull out of a $34 billion investment that had created huge

economic opportunities for rural parts of our province. It’s of no great

consequence when we see what actually went forward.

As well, the budget mid-term update in September of this past year….

What did we see the NDP do to help to support and encourage and attract

other businesses? They raised the corporate tax rate by another full

percentage point to 12 percent. They raised the income tax rate for B.C.’s

brightest and most productive workers by another 2 percent. These do not

send messages to our international investment community that B.C. is open

for business.

Budget 2018 — I share the critic role for Jobs, Trade and Technology —

actually shows a reduction of 12½ percent for the Ministry of Jobs, Trade

and Technology. The one ministry that is there to actually help support

business growth in our province, to help encourage businesses, saw a 12½

percent reduction in the budget for this current fiscal. Obviously, that

shows there’s little support for growing B.C.’s economy and providing those

necessary supports for businesses across B.C.

I must say, it’s really starting to feel like the 1990s all over

again, the decade when B.C. went from first to last in terms of GDP growth

in Canada. In fact, GDP growth was negative, a far cry from leading the

nation like it has under the leadership of the B.C. Liberals.

In 1996, B.C.’s GDP per capita was below the Canadian average and 33

percent lower than Alberta’s. Investment dropped by 10 percent between just

’94 and ’96 alone, and B.C. ranked last, dead last, in investment growth.

For the first time, B.C. was a have-not province. Shameful.

B.C. also had the highest unemployment rate west of Quebec, and in the

latter half of the decade, it experienced some of the greatest job losses of

any province. In 1998, the Business Council of B.C. said: “We are deeply

concerned about the state of British Columbia’s economy, public finances and

long-term competitiveness.”

The Toronto Dominion Bank of Canada said: “B.C. is on the verge of

recession.” A headline from the Vancouver Sun on March 14, 1998,

read: “Jobless rate hits four-year high. Bucking the national trend, B.C.’s

unemployment rate rises to 9.7 percent.”

[2:45 p.m.]

The sequel is upon us. Last week — just last week — what did we see as

far as a response to the NDP budget from the Business Council of

B.C.?

“The new employer health tax, the EHT, comes as an unwelcome surprise to

the business community. Set at 1.95 percent of payroll for all but the very

smallest firms, the tax will generate almost $2 billion a year by

2019-2020…. The EHT spells higher labour costs for B.C. employers, even

those who currently pay MSP premiums on behalf of their workers. Moreover,

in 2019, many employers will find themselves paying both the new payroll tax

and MSP premiums as the government effectively double-dips for almost a

year.”

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan.

G. Kyllo: They go on to say:

“The most glaring missing piece in Budget 2018 is the failure to

acknowledge or tackle B.C.’s lagging investment performance…. British

Columbia is losing ground to the United States on competitiveness, capital

formation and business attraction, owing in part to higher taxes, increased

regulation and rising carbon and energy prices on our side of the border, at

a time when the U.S. is moving in the opposite direction. Nothing in Budget

2018 suggests the government is keen to confront that problem.”

Economists know full well that if we intend to spur investment, we

should lower taxes on the earnings of capital, and if we intend to increase

employment, we should lower taxes on workers and the businesses that hire

them. What the NDP have done with Budget 2018 is going in the opposite

direction, reducing the competitiveness of B.C. businesses. Their supposed

elimination of the MSP premium is clearly falling flat, squarely right on

the backs of small businesses across British Columbia.

We seem to be heading back to the dark days of the 1990s all over

again. Higher taxes, broken fiscal framework, uncompetitive taxation and

policies — clearly, an assault on businesses — all efforts of an NDP

government that appears on the path to destroying B.C.’s economy.

Hon. D. Donaldson: It is my pleasure to rise today to respond to the budget presentation,

the budget speech tabled by our Finance Minister last week. Before I start,

I will just take an opportunity to acknowledge the people in Stikine who

elected me MLA three times now and the incredible responsibility I feel to

represent their views — views of northern, rural and remote rural

communities — in this Legislature.

It’s been, as I say, an honour, a privilege and a pleasure. I ran in

2005 and wasn’t successful and then was able to be elected in 2009, ’13 and

2017. That’s after ten years sitting on the Hazelton municipal council as a

councillor. It’s been a real pleasure to be able to articulate, even in the

pathetic way I’m able to sometimes, the views of people, like I say, living

in areas of the province that aren’t necessarily familiar to a lot of the

population.

Of course, all members of this Legislature understand that it’s an

incredible effort by family when one gets elected, and also the continuing

support, so I just want to acknowledge my wife, Anne, for the continued

support and incredible encouragement and really positive criticism of the

role I play in the Legislature, as well as the two constituency assistants I

have now.

[2:50 p.m.]

One is in Hazelton — Julie Maitland. It’s the first time there’s been

an MLA office in the community of Hazelton, the community I come from. As

well, there’s Shelley Worthington in Smithers, the community office

there.

They do an incredible amount of work and relay to me, especially now

that I’m a cabinet minister, the concerns that are brought through the

doors. We’re always looking for individual cases to work on, and they do a

lot of that work these days — much more so than when I was an official

opposition MLA. Also, they help us to aggregate themes that can mean a lot

to government policy and legislation.

Stikine, the constituency I represent. I know many of the members of

the Legislature on both sides are new, so I wanted to spend a couple of

minutes on Stikine. It’s the largest geographic constituency in the

province. You could fit several European countries into it and still not

fill it up. It’s also the least populated of any constituency in the

province, at about 21,000 people. That’s just a real representation of what

it means to be in a remote, rural area and a constituency that represents

that.

If I was able to jump in a car in Hazelton — which is in about the

middle of the constituency, in the bottom half — and drive continuously,

without stopping for snacks or any of those other breaks, I would eventually

get to Atlin, in the northwest part of the constituency, in about 16 hours

straight. It gives an idea of the largeness of the landscape. That landscape

impacts the way people approach the world and approach life in

Stikine.

There are six First Nations whose traditional territories are part of

Stikine. Up in the northwest corner are the Taku River Tlingit. In the

northeast corner are the Kaska. In the central area are the Tahltan. A

little further south, they border with the Gitanyow. Then there are the

Gitxsan along Highway 16 and, a little further east, the Wet’suwet’en.

There’s a small part of Nisga’a territory in Stikine as well. The First

Nations people who have called this area home for time immemorial have a

huge influence on the way I approach my duties in this

Legislature.

For the people in Stikine, much of the lifestyle — some people call it

a lifestyle, but it’s really a way of life — is a connection to land and a

connection to kin. There are a lot of settler families, as well as First

Nations families. People are connected to each other in large, extended

families. For that reason, many people find it undesirable to leave. They

have extensive family networks that really kick in, in times of need. Also,

it’s simply a way of keeping connection to those who are closest to

you.

As well, there’s a close connection to the land. That can’t be

separated from the culture, whether that’s settler culture, First Nations

culture or newcomers to the area. You know, we’ve had several waves of

newcomers to the area, whether it was during the ’70s, during the days when

the U.S. was involved heavily in Vietnam, or even more recently.

We’ve had many newcomers in the community I live in, which is an

unincorporated area in a regional district, who have become priced out of

the communities that they lived in, in other parts of B.C. and Alberta, and

have found areas in Stikine where the land is relatively inexpensive and the

ability to own a home is higher than in other areas of the province. We’ve

had an influx of people recently in that way as well.

What I want to emphasize, though, is that although in many parts of

the province people are connected to a career that’s the major consideration

about where they live and the kind of education they pursue, many people in

Stikine organize their work for money in order to continue a way of life.

That way of life, as I said, is connected to the land and connected to kin.

So it’s a different way of proceeding with how you continue in your life,

and it’s no less valid in other areas of the province.

[2:55 p.m.]

That’s something I continually advocate for, whether it was during my

days in opposition or now when I’m in government and able to advocate with

my fellow cabinet ministers and government caucus around the way of life

experienced in rural communities.

That is why I was very pleased in the budget speech when…. In a

general sense, I’ll talk about impacts to rural life that were enhanced in

the budget, as well as those that have more, and some impacts on the budget

that directly dealt with my ministry.

In child care, that connection to kin — in the rural communities I

represent and when I look around the province — is really, really high in

First Nations communities and in other smaller communities. Youth are seen

in the Gitxsan terminology as majagaleehl gali aks . The youth are

the flowers of our culture. So when we have introduced in this budget ways

to improve quality, secure and very high-standard child care, it really

speaks volumes to those in rural communities as well.

The affordability issue is always an issue. If you look at

unemployment numbers across the province, for those living in smaller rural

communities, the unemployment numbers are higher than in urban areas. That’s

been what we’ve been left with as we’ve inherited government.

That is why the initiatives that the Minister of Finance announced

last week around more accessible child care through improving the cost

aspect has been so important. It’s not just important from the aspect of

children, but also of the workforce.

There are many companies that I run into in rural communities that are

finding it difficult to attract, let alone retain, qualified workers. So

when you have people already living in the community, and if you can unleash

that labour force by making child care more accessible and more affordable,

which this budget does, it supports small business in communities to a huge

degree.

This isn’t lost on the organizations in the province that look out for

small business like the B.C. Business Council and the B.C. Chamber of

Commerce. They’ve advocated for more affordable and accessible child care.

We’ve listened to them, as well as to parents, and made that

happen.

When I hear about logging truck companies not being able to find

drivers because of a lack of labour in small communities, I directly think

about child care and how that’s going to free up a huge number of people,

men and women alike, to pursue jobs that are vacant right now in rural

communities.

When you have a job vacant in a rural community, especially when it’s

a resource-dependent rural community — such as many are dependent on

forestry — then it means there’s impact on being able to do all we can do

from the economic standpoint in harvesting resources, the natural resources

that are abundant in this province, in a sustainable manner. So you can see

how I view the child care initiative as an economic initiative and an

initiative that supports rural communities.

Same with housing. We have needs in rural communities that are across

the spectrum in housing. The budget addressed those needs. The budget update

in the spring also addressed those needs when it came to modular homes for

those who are challenged when it comes to finding a safe place to put their

bag and their head at night. The modular units were a welcome addition to

the communities I represent — Smithers was one of them — when it was the

budget update in the fall.

Now, this full budget that was announced last week has two items that

are of particular interest to me when it comes to affordability. The rental

assistance program, as announced by the Finance Minister, will mean an $800

average increase per year for those needing rental assistance.

[3:00 p.m.]

Even though I said there have been a number of waves of people coming

to the constituencies of Stikine and the communities that I represent,

because of the housing prices, it’s still a matter of a very difficult

rental situation. We can work on the supply side and the demand side. Being

able to provide an extra $800 a year, as an average increase for the rental

assistance program, will make a difference in rural communities because rent

can be tight in those communities as well.

The same with the announcement around the SAFER program, where there’s

a $930 average increase for seniors, when it comes to rent. Seniors in rural

communities often don’t have a lot of options. For a senior who doesn’t own

a home and can’t necessarily enter into a seniors facility, having an extra

$930 a year to help towards their rent will mean a safer, cleaner and more

secure housing situation.

Those seniors are, really, in rural communities, the lifeblood of the

volunteer organizations in many cases, especially when we have those who are

employed often being unable to stay for extended periods in the communities

in which they live — where they’re in camp for two weeks or three weeks at a

time. So the seniors component is a real important part of the social fabric

of communities when it comes to the volunteer efforts that really hold small

communities together.

I was also pleased to note the announcement around medical services

premiums being eliminated within this three-year-cycle budget. Under the

previous government, the MSP premiums doubled. It was a regressive tax in

that those who made $60,000 and those who made $250,000 were paying the same

amount. I don’t think anybody with any common sense would say that’s a good

way to have a taxation system. We’ve joined the rest of Canada. No other

province in Canada had a medical services premium.

I see it as a benefit to the very small businesses that populate rural

communities — those under a $500,000 payroll. In the communities I

represent, those are the majority of the businesses.

What this will mean…. Once the MSP premiums are eliminated, it’ll

mean, on average, $800 to $900 for individuals and up to $1,800 for families

in savings. That’s money in people’s pockets that they didn’t have before

and that can go directly back into the retail sector if it’s discretionary

income. That can support the small businesses at a retail level in small

communities.

Education — another announcement that I think is essential for rural

communities. Investment in K-to-12 education is an imperative for the kind

of society that we want to create and become in B.C., but it’s also

important from an economic point of view in small communities. People do

have the ability to choose where they live. Some people do,

anyway.

When it comes to education and health, those are major determining

factors about: “Okay, I’ve been offered a job in a small town in Stikine. I

have a family. What’s the education system like?” When we know, through this

budget and the budget update, that there’ll be 3,700 new hires when it comes

to teachers, that has an impact on people’s decision-making about where

they’ll locate.

As well, $2 billion over this budget cycle invested in education

infrastructure. There are many schools in small rural communities that need

upgrades, that need replacement. By investing $2 billion, you’re investing

in rural communities and in infrastructure that will make rural communities

more attractive for people to populate. I think that the diversity of having

populations within the rural areas, as well as the urban areas in B.C., is

what makes this province great. We’ve got to make sure that continues to

happen.

In health, as well, I consider investments in health as an investment

in the economy of rural communities. There’s $3.1 billion over this budget

cycle, these three years, investing in health infrastructure. I think about

Williams Lake, where we’ve committed to $125 million to redevelop the

hospital there. I know that the member from that constituency was

appreciative of that in one of her columns in the local paper. When I think

of that, that’s an investment in rural communities. It’s rural

development.

[3:05 p.m.]

As well, in this budget, under that $3.1 billion, there was an

investment of $375 million in a new hospital in Terrace — Mills Memorial. I

can tell you, that hospital needs that kind of investment. Many people from

my constituency end up for further medical assistance in that hospital, and

it is a hospital where there are buckets in the hallways, collecting water

from the roof.

Again, it’s an investment in the economy in rural communities. I

consider that rural development. If you don’t have the fundamentals of the

health infrastructure in place, if you don’t have the fundamentals of the

education infrastructure in place, then it’s going to be very difficult for

rural communities to be all they can be, for people in rural communities to

contribute to the economy in the province and for rural communities to

remain viable.

Seniors. Once again, I was thrilled to hear and read the announcement

of $548 million over three years for seniors care in this budget to hire

qualified staff and improve quality of residential senior care.

Having been an opposition MLA for eight years and a government member

and cabinet member for about seven months now…. The issues that come through

the door in our constituency offices are varied. You could always expect

that you’d be hearing about highways. That’s a prime example for people in

rural areas where they see their tax dollars being spent, and when they

don’t see highways in good condition or being maintained properly, they let

you know at the constituency office.

One of the things that I was particularly interested in is the theme

of seniors care that has consistently come through our constituency offices.

I wasn’t necessarily ready for that as an opposition MLA. It was a real

shock to me that so many people had so many concerns about what was going to

happen to their aging parents.

Again, we’re talking rural communities here. You don’t necessarily

want to see an aging parent in a rural community have their children say:

“Okay, we’ll send them 300 or 400 kilometres away to a residential care

facility.” That’s not the kind of policy work that we agree with, and that’s

why we’re making these changes.

As well, the care that people do receive…. We heard incredible stories

about elders and seniors in residential care facilities being restricted

about how often they could get a bath. Let’s talk about human dignity

here.

I’m so happy that the $548 million is going to improve those kinds of

issues and see that the seniors in rural communities, whether they’re First

Nations, settlers or newcomers, are actually going to be acknowledged for

the work they’ve done throughout their lives, what they’ve contributed to

community and what they’ve contributed to the provincial taxation budget and

get the kind of care and services they need as they live out their lives in

rural communities.

As far as my ministry is concerned…. I could go on and on in the

budget, there’s so much good to talk about.

From a First Nations perspective, the $50 million that has been

allocated for this coming year when it comes to revitalization of First

Nations languages is phenomenal. Before I became an MLA, I worked in

community economic development. One of the projects I worked on was creating

a language lab for the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en Education Society. It’s

integral to culture to have language retained, and we know many of the

languages are on the brink in B.C. — many of the First Nations

languages.

That infusion of $50 million is going to go such a long way to

improving languages and, therefore, improving culture. We know that

especially with young First Nations people…. Young First Nations people who

have a connection to their culture do better in life. They can become even

better at contributing to the communities in which they live.

[3:10 p.m.]

Connecting that, again, from an economic point of view, that $50

million for language, as it improves culture, as it improves young people’s

lives and connection to their culture and makes them more ready to be

capable and contributing members of their communities, is seen by me as an

economic initiative in rural communities as well.

As far as my ministry goes, it’s been a pleasure to head up such an

amazing ministry the last seven months. I have to mention, quickly, some of

the close staff that we have in the ministerial office — Tim Renneberg,

ministerial assistant; Kenn McLaren, ministerial assistant; Tristan Jones,

the executive assistant; Lisa Silverio, my administrative coordinator; and

Sandra Purdy, administrative assistant.

They’ve been phenomenal as we’ve moved through. We’re a government

that wants to get a lot of things done. So there are often times it puts a

lot of burden on the shoulders of staff and the public servants as well —

through Deputy Minister Tim Sheldan and the 11 assistant deputy ministers in

the ministry. That’s right, 11. That shows the wide extent of the ministry.

They have been, really, people who I respect for their passion, their

knowledge. They’re willing to consider new ideas and put forth solutions.

It’s been a very, very interesting experience for the last seven

months.

As far as this particular budget and this particular ministry, the

Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development budget

focuses on forest-dependent communities and on communities in rural areas.

That’s the foundation. I know that people understand that if you don’t have

healthy populations and viable rural communities, we are never going to

achieve all we can achieve in the province of B.C., because they are the

foundation of caretaking and a sustainable economy around the natural

resource extraction industries.

As I said, a number of the initiatives in the budget, when it came to

child care or health or seniors care or education, are all around addressing

affordability and services in rural communities and forest-dependent rural

communities.

I can’t not mention the wildfire situation that many in the province

lived through this past summer. I mean, the impact was tremendous — 1.2

million hectares impacted by forest fires, 65,000 people displaced from

their homes. It was the largest fire season on record in B.C.

At first, I thought…. Ten days after a provincial state of emergency

was declared because of the forest fire situation, I became the minister,

and I toured many parts of the Interior. I didn’t want to get in the way. I

knew that when I was touring, they would draw people away from their jobs,

but it was also important to get an idea of what was going on, on the

ground.

After a while, in visiting some of the emergency centres and the

operations centres, I’d be introduced to staff — 35 staff working in an

emergency operation centre. They’d introduce themselves and where they work.

And 99 percent of them were working for government ministries. Many were

working for the ministry that I represent. They were on, maybe, their second

14-day rotation after three days off. So it started to dawn on me that: “Oh,

sure. People are fighting fires, but this is something big. This is

something unprecedented.” Ten weeks of a provincial state of

emergency.

That impact, people being on fires, wasn’t just on the people on the

front line. It was on all the people working from all different government

ministries. The fact that they were able to do that and still keep work

going when they returned or while they were away…. You know, permitting

times didn’t drop in other areas of the government.

I just want to say a big thank-you to those people working in the

public service for the above-and-beyond effort that they displayed during

the fire season and, of course, the front-line B.C. Wildfire Service

personnel and contractors. Not one life was lost as a direct result of the

forest fire situation. We can be so thankful and grateful for that,

especially in the light of what happened in California this fall and early

winter.

[3:15 p.m.]

Speaking to that, we did create the Above and Beyond Awards, just to

make sure that people knew they were appreciated. We asked British

Columbians to nominate anyone they felt should be recognized, including

firefighters and first responders, friends and neighbours. We had a total of

1,630 people nominated. Each received a certificate signed by the Premier.

It was just a small token of appreciation. So thank you to those who

nominated others, and thank you to those who received the awards as

well.

As was mentioned in the budget speech, $873 million was spent

addressing the fire season this year. That was $648 million in direct costs,

direct firefighting costs, and $225 million in emergency response funding

through the Canadian Red Cross and emergency management B.C.

It really puts a fine point on what we can do into the future. We have

$72 million allotted in this budget for resilience and recovery. We were

able to allocate, in the previous budget update, $150 million to the forest

carbon initiative fund and have leveraged that to another $140 million from

the low carbon economy fund from the federal government. All this will be

put towards the reforestation and protection of natural assets, whether it’s

in range, forest, water storage, infrastructure or other ways for land-based

recovery.

In the budget, there was $16 million for land use planning. This will

bring more certainty around investment and more certainty for communities

and First Nations about areas surrounding their communities that will be

developed. And there’s $14 million into creating an updated, refurbished,

renewed wildlife management and habitat conservation model. That’s something

that recognizes that the values in the forests are multifaceted. Timber,

water, wildlife, to name a few, are values that we manage for in our

forests. We want to make sure that one value doesn’t become dominant over

another value. Wildlife is very important.

I’ll finish off by highlighting rural development. As well as the

other aspects I talked about in health and education, we are reinvesting in

rural communities, with $75 million over the next three years under the

rural dividend fund. We have begun a rural development strategy that will

address the fact that rural unemployment is higher than urban unemployment,

that 30,000 jobs have been lost in forestry, mainly in rural areas, and that

over 100 mills have shut down. This is a rural development strategy from the

bottom up.

Thank you very much. I’m very pleased to speak today to Budget

M. Morris: I sat here listening to the budget and going through the budget. I

find it impressive, actually, that we left this government with a $2.7

billion surplus that evaporated before everybody’s eyes. They, in turn,

decided that they were going to increase taxes — many taxes. We’re seeing

many, many taxes coming into play, and the rates are going up…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, we’ll hear the member who has the floor.

M. Morris: …and up and up.

Income tax. Here’s an example — $1 billion a year in increases in

income tax. Just for the member from Nanaimo, the $2.7 billion surplus that

we had, did go to the debt, but we were projecting a $2.7 billion surplus

for ’17-18 as well that they have virtually sucked right up into who knows

what.

We also see the carbon tax increase. That is no longer

revenue-neutral. It’s increasing every year. We see the speculation tax, as

they call it. That, to me, is just another sly way of saying: “We’re going

to take more money from people’s pockets.”

In the House this last week, I did hear the minister say her goal was

to drive house prices down. I would like to hear what her response would be

to the men and women and the families who have bought their first house some

time over the last two or three years and who have seen a bit of an

increase.

[3:20 p.m.]

They have mortgaged themselves to the hilt to try and get a foothold

into the housing sector in the Lower Mainland and throughout British

Columbia, and now we’re going to see those house prices crash. The president

and CEO of the Urban Development Institute said that a housing price drop

could trigger a recession. Is this a chance that the minister is willing to

take?

Andrey Pavlov specializes in real estate finance at Simon Fraser

University. He was part of a group of B.C. economists and business

professors who jointly called, in 2016, for a tax targeting speculators. He

said last week that the B.C. government has only followed half of the

prescription that they recommended. In a media interview, he said that the

tax needed to be revenue-neutral and that the revenue that was coming in was

supposed to help the locals, reduce taxes for the locals. Without this, it

doesn’t improve affordability, at all, for anybody.

The other tax that we see coming on line here is this job-killing

health tax to replace the MSP premium and doubling down, no less, on local

business. The NDP is growing government, and they have no plans in place to

pay for it except from the taxpayers’ pockets.

I’m going to look a little bit on public safety, which is the area

that I had responsibility for and, of course, as a critic for that role

right now. I’ll quote from the throne speech here. It says: “Government will

continue to invest in police officers and specialized units to tackle gang

and gun violence. Government has committed to ongoing funding for successful

community programs like the Surrey Wrap program, to keep at-risk youth out

of gang life.” But in the budget, there was no mention of police or security

increases.

I also want to know what happened to the commitment that the Premier

announced on September 29, 2017, of an additional $31.3 million to critical

enforcement and public safety issues, to dedicated anti-trafficking teams

with additional officers and support staff as part of the government’s

fentanyl response.

In the fall estimates, the Solicitor General addressed this extra

funding by stating that for this year — this fiscal year, ’17-18 — it would

actually be $4.08 million that would be spent, and subsequently more than

that would be spent in the following budget year. I’m anticipating it to be

$10 million for this fiscal year and another $10 million for the following

one.

The payroll for provincial policing in British Columbia is

approximately $210 million. That equates to approximately $4 million or more

in this new health tax that is levied on employers. It pretty much swallows

up this $4 million that they were going to spend in ‘17-18, and it’s going

to take a big chunk out of the revenue for ’18 and ’19. I don’t see any

increases in the policing budgets. The NDP giveth, and they taketh

away.

Police do not have the capacity to respond to the fentanyl crisis that

we have right now, with extra teams, if they don’t receive any additional

funding to do that.

How will this health tax impact municipal policing budgets? The

provincial policing budget…. There are about 2,600 or 2,700 provincial

policing officers in the province here. On the municipal side, we have 6,000

or 7,000. So 6,000 or 7,000 are receiving some pretty good income. Just

going off the top of my head, I would say that this health tax is probably

going to have an impact of close to $10 million on municipal policing

budgets. Pretty significant. That takes that money out of the operations of

a police department and further hinders their ability to respond to

calls.

Not only that. How about the carbon tax increases that we see coming

down? Police vehicles, police boats, police aircraft — all use fuel. The

increased carbon taxes for these police vehicles will impact their budgets

to a significant degree.

[3:25 p.m.]

I recall back in 1998, from 1998 till 2001, when the B.C. Liberals

were elected into government. As a senior police manager in the province, we

had to park police vehicles because we didn’t have gas money. We had to park

police airplanes and boats because we didn’t have gas money. The

conservation officer service had to park vehicles because they didn’t have

money for gas for their operations.

This was during the previous NDP government in 1998 until 2001. I

recall that they would give us our budget figures fairly late in the year,

and we would start planning our fiscal plan for the upcoming fiscal year.

Partway through that fiscal year, probably by May or June, they would take

money away from our budgets. And that caused a significant impact on how we

would deliver those services.

In examining the budget and the allocations within the budget, the

actual budget for policing and security has decreased by $5.6 million for

the upcoming fiscal year. It’s gone down $5.6 million, even though the

Premier had committed to an extra $31.3 million. Even though this government

has said they’re going to put more money into fentanyl issues, which the

police have a significant responsibility for. Even though there are 18

pieces of legislation that are going to be impacted by the legalization of

cannabis and marijuana in this province. There was no extra money. It

decreased.

Again, I feel sorry for the police managers out there trying to figure

out how they are going to meet the needs of the public, meet the needs of

their investigations, with less money. And it’s not only less money in the

budget but less money to use because they’re paying this health tax, they’re

paying the carbon tax, and who knows what other taxes might be impacting on

the delivery of services for our communities across the province.

Looking at priorities of this government with respect to public

safety. I look at provincial detachments like Vanderhoof, which has a

criminal caseload of 113 criminal case files per police officer in

Vanderhoof. There are other detachments. Takla Landing has over 100 as well,

and there are a number of provincial detachments that do have high caseloads

like that.

In my experience as a police officer, once a constable or a police

officer gets much over 40 or 50 criminal files in addition to his or her

workload, it becomes an impossibility to provide proper investigations and

proper rigour to those investigations, just because of the nature of

criminal investigations in these days.

We have remote communities that are suffering from a

higher-than-average incidence of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, alcohol

dependence and persons crimes in general, which take a greater amount of

effort and resources to investigate. In communities that have seen an exodus

of young women escaping to larger communities from the life they had there,

with alcohol and the sexual abuse, only to succumb to some more tragic

circumstances as they move into an urban environment….

When we look at that and then look at the government’s priority now —

the member before me was commenting on it — to invest $50 million to

preserve Indigenous languages…. It’s important. In all of the First Nations

communities that I’ve lived in, Indigenous languages were important. But

here we have people suffering every day from alcohol abuse and domestic

violence and sexual abuse, and preserving languages is a higher priority

than putting that money into extra policing resources. From a risk

management perspective, I think that this really needs to be

re-examined.

We add to the mix the elimination of our Greyhound bus routes now, a

significant safety measure for people travelling throughout rural British

Columbia, northern British Columbia, particularly in the

wintertime.

[3:30 p.m.]

We’ve had a lot of snowfall in rural B.C. We’ve had some cold weather.

That is a lifeline for a lot of people from our First Nations communities,

from our smaller remote communities throughout rural B.C. It’s gone. It’s

eliminated. And nothing in the budget speech, nothing to determine this a

priority for government to look at.

Speaking about buses, let’s talk about transportation. We hear they

are freezing ferry rates, reducing ferry rates, reinstating the rates for

seniors. I wonder who’s left to pay the bills at the end of the day. Who’s

going to pay the increased carbon tax as a result of the carbon tax

increase?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

When I was responding to the budget from the fall of 2017 and looking

at the impact that the carbon taxes were having on the ferries, I calculated

it out to be approximately $100,000 a day to the entire B.C. ferry fleet by

the time the full implementation of the carbon tax is felt. So 100 grand a

day. Add that up, day by day, over the course of a year. It’s a lot of

money. So when we’re freezing ferry rates and reducing ferry rates, where is

that extra money going to come? Where is that extra $100,000 a day going to

come from? It’s going to come from the taxpayers. It’s going to come from

you and me and anybody else that crosses the ferry and uses the

ferry.

Rural British Columbians contribute, on average, 78 percent of B.C.’s

total exports. There was a report done by the Northern Development

Initiative Trust recently that indicated that. Over the past ten years, this

has averaged to equal about $24 billion to $30 billion every year from rural

British Columbia. So 78 percent of British Columbians’ exports come from

rural British Columbia — up to $30 billion a year that we are contributing

to the economy of British Columbia. Pretty significant. As I said before,

rural British Columbia is punching well above its weight when it comes to

the economic contributions that are made to the province here.

When you look at it — when we look at forestry, mining, oil and gas —

all of the resource sector uses diesel fuel, gasoline, natural gas, various

fossil fuels in order to generate that $30 billion. With the increased

carbon tax, let alone the other taxes that this government has announced,

we’re going to see these companies take another hit on their bottom line, a

significant hit on their bottom line.

As my colleague from Skeena was saying in a speech at the Natural

Resources Forum in January, he wonders whether government believes that the

resource sector runs on unicorn spit. I kind of wonder the same thing

myself. When you look at the impact that it’s had on the resource sector,

are they trying to cripple the resource sector? Are they trying to limit the

amount of employment they have out there? Something has to give at the end

of the day. Prices go up, and the consumer ends up paying for it.

How about the Pattullo Bridge announcement? I think it was $1.4

billion. It’s a TransLink responsibility that the government has taken on.

Is government now wanting to change the legislation that was enacted by the

NDP back in 1998 creating TransLink, creating the Greater Vancouver

Transportation Authority Act?

I want to read from the Finance Minister of the day, Joy MacPhail,

from July 29, 1998. I quote from the reading, during the second reading of

that particular bill:

“I just want to address funding briefly. The concept of local control

clearly is meaningless unless the new authority is also given control over

funding for transit and transportation, including the power to set its own

budget and raise its own revenues through existing revenue sources and new

funding opportunities. That’s why, in addition to creating the new

authority, the GVTA Act also provides new funding arrangements in the

greater Vancouver region. These arrangements provide for the division of

existing assets and debt, cost-sharing for new assets and ongoing powers for

the authority.

[3:35 p.m.]

“They ensure that the GVTA will have sufficient revenues to cover

current debt servicing and operating costs and sufficient new powers to fund

substantial growth.”

She goes on to say:

“I’ll just highlight some of these. In an unprecedented move, our

province has agreed to transfer 4 cents of the existing gas tax to the GVTA,

growing to 6 cents by the year 2005.”

I believe that’s close to 20 cents today.

“As well, a forecasted $51 million in property tax revenues which now go

to pay a share of hospital-related debt will become a revenue source for the

GVTA. The responsibility for hospital debt will be assumed by the

province.”

The reason I bring this up is we now have a playing field that’s not

really balanced. In addition to the $1.4 billion Pattullo Bridge, we’ve

heard that government is looking at building a Surrey light rapid transit

system, perhaps another system along Broadway.

I’ll go back to that level playing field here just for a second as

well. Every taxpayer outside of the GVRD continued to pay a hospital tax.

The rest of British Columbia continues to pay that hospital tax. Every

capital project outside of the GVRD, every hospital capital project, has had

to contribute up to 40 percent of the capital costs for new hospitals or

upgrades.

From 2001 to 2017, there was $4 billion that went into capital

hospital projects in the GVRD — four billion bucks. I just heard recently —

I think just read somewhere — that a group has taken the Premier to task for

promising a new $2.1 billion hospital for Burnaby during the election

campaign. That, of course, didn’t show up in any of this. That’s another

significant amount of provincial money that has been promised to be spent in

the GVRD.

Government has removed tolls on bridges and assumed responsibility for

TransLink infrastructure, all in the pursuit of fairness. But fairness for

whom? In the pursuit of fairness, is government now planning on reinstating

the hospital property tax in the GVRD?

The budget talks about jobs and the economy. The Finance Minister took

great delight in speaking to the $26 billion in infrastructure spending over

the next three years, saying it will contribute to a strong economy where

people are rewarded for hard work with good wages and job security and help

businesses create more jobs.

She also stated in her speech that 4,100 full-time jobs were created

last month — 4,100 full-time jobs created last month. How many of those jobs

are government jobs? How many are new teachers? How many of them are new

staff in the Premier’s office thanks to the $2 million increase in his

budget for staff? How many of them are government jobs within the

ministries, accounting for the 14 percent increase in costs to run those

offices?

The economy doesn’t grow because of government jobs. The economy grows

because of private sector investment. You don’t attract private sector

investment by increasing taxes.

You talked about reducing the small business tax by half a percentage

point. You put $1 back in their pocket. But you cut a hole in the bottom of

the pocket, so the dollar and whatever other money was in the pocket falls

out. You pick it up, calling it a health tax or whatever other tax that

you’ve implemented — a carbon tax, a speculation tax.

The increase in taxes, the increase in the carbon taxes and the

increase in the health tax, is going to cause small businesses to increase

their costs or to lay people off. We’ll see our employment numbers going

down. The Economic Forecast Council has already predicted that they’re going

to see a decrease in the resource sector, in the contributions that the

resource sector makes.

[3:40 p.m.]

That is going to impact the small businesses in the resource sector in

rural British Columbia to a significant degree. Added on top of that is this

health tax and increases in income tax and increases in the carbon tax. It

looks pretty dismal for the folks in British Columbia to make ends meet in

order to try and move this economy and this great province of ours

forward.

I don’t see much light at the end of the tunnel in this budget. It’s

got a significant increase to the services that British Columbia offers

everybody, but it does nothing to ensure that we have money coming in, in

order to pay the bills at the end of the day. I’m certainly not going to be

voting in favour of this. I think it’s a detrimental step for British

Columbians, and it’ll be proven out over the next several months.

M. Dean: Today I will start with an acknowledgment of the traditional

territories of the Indigenous people within the constituency of

Esquimalt-Metchosin — Songhees, Esquimalt, Scia’new and Tsawout

nations.

I also want to take this opportunity to say thank you to everyone in

the community who elected me and to say how proud and committed I am to

serving everyone in Esquimalt-Metchosin. We have a beautiful and a diverse

constituency, a number of municipalities, neighbourhoods, different school

districts, police services and fire departments and a long

coastline.

Today, while I talk about serious matters, I am also going to try and

smile some more. I have had some feedback from people in the constituency

that, clearly, I’m paying so much attention and taking my business here so

seriously that I haven’t been able to express, actually, how beautiful and

adorable our home is across the constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin. It

really is a beautiful community and a beautiful part of the

province.

I’d also like to say a special thank-you and mention to my

constituency office team, especially Lawrence Herzog, Leslie Mahoney and

Andrew Barrett, and appreciation for my staff here in the Legislature, too,

particularly Solenn Madevon.

As I’ve heard from so many of my colleagues on both sides of the

House, this is an opportunity for me to pay homage to Dave Barrett, such an

influence in our province for all British Columbians and leadership in the

history of our party. I know Shirley, his widow. She lives in my

constituency. She’s adorable and a force of nature. She lives her life with

such depth of wisdom and experience, and she has such generosity of sharing

her insights and her support.

Thank you, also, to Dave’s sons, Dan and Joe, who have been so

supportive and such important team players in my constituency, and to Dave’s

grandson, who has such a backbone of strong values and commitment to the

province and powerful motivation to pursue the best for all British

Columbians.

I remember a time earlier on this year when we were door-knocking

together in our community. We visited this house. It was early evening, and

there were a couple of guys in the backyard having a beer. So we got

chatting to them, and they started to tell us — reminiscing stories

themselves — of when Dave Barrett was out door-knocking. This was obviously

the story they loved to tell and dine out on in the community. Dave came and

knocked on the door. They were sorting out their wood in the backyard, and

he just mucked in. He opened a can of beer and joined them, and he helped

them with stacking wood as well.

We all smiled and thought what a fantastic old story they had that

they’d been sharing with the community. Of course, then my door-knocking

partner turned around and said: “Oh, yeah. That’s my granddad.” So now

they’re dining out on that story.

I’m also indebted to the legacies of other elected representatives who

have blazed trails and set high standards of service in our community —

Frank Mitchell; Moe Sihota; Maurine Karagianis; also Ray Rice, the previous

Esquimalt mayor; and our MP, Randall Garrison. Special thanks, as well, to

our Finance Minister, who has been just such an awesome mentor to me in my

journey here.

That brings me to the budget. I am so proud to stand and talk in

support of Budget 2018 and explain how it’s going to benefit our province

and everyone in Esquimalt-Metchosin.

[3:45 p.m.]

This budget is a reflection of our commitments, our values. It can

truly be described as a people’s budget, making life better, increasing

opportunity and promoting success for all. It was clear when we were sworn

in as a new government that British Columbians wanted and needed a better

B.C. Families have been working harder than ever and are unable to get

ahead. Young people starting out can’t find affordable housing, and seniors

can’t get the services they need and rely on.

It’s time for a different approach, one that puts people at the heart

of our work. It’s time everyone in our province is part of our prosperity.

This budget clearly illustrates this core goal. We’re implementing bold and

historic initiatives, especially with investing in child care, housing and

services.

People are at the heart of every choice we have made in this budget,

because your government should be working each and every day to make life

more affordable, improve the services you count on and build a strong,

sustainable economy that supports jobs in every corner of the

province.

To start, I want to highlight and emphasize that all of our work in

government is framed by our work with Indigenous people. Addressing

reconciliation is a shared responsibility and is taken seriously across our

government. Our commitment to adopting and implementing the UN declaration

on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the calls to action of the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission is evident in our plans, our approach and in this

budget.

For example, and as a start, Budget 2018 invests $200 million in

Aboriginal housing, child care, skills training and Aboriginal friendship

centres. Critically, we are also investing $50 million this fiscal year to

support the preservation and revitalization of Indigenous languages in B.C.

Of the 34 First Nations languages in our province, eight are severely

endangered and 22 are nearly extinct. This funding will flow immediately,

because there is no time to lose.

Another urgent matter we’re taking bold steps to address is the child

care crisis. For too many parents, child care is nearly as expensive as

housing and even harder to find. It is not an exaggeration to say that there

is a child care crisis in B.C. For years the situation just got worse and

worse, instead of better.

In Budget 2018, our first full budget as government, I’m proud to say

we’re taking action to end that crisis and bring affordable, accessible

child care to all British Columbian families who want and need it. The old

government neglected child care for years, choosing to give tax breaks to

their rich friends instead of helping families. As a result, families have

been struggling.

For those who have been fortunate to find child care, the cost is

prohibitive — in some parts of the province, as much as a mortgage payment.

For others, trying to find a space has been a constant worry. We’ve heard

from so many young families who put their names on wait-lists for child care

spots that never came, who’ve had to delay their return to work because of

the lack of available spaces or who end up cobbling together part-time

solutions and makeshift arrangements.

Some never find the peace of mind that their child is even in a safe

place. Most tragically, we can think of the case of Baby Mac, who died on

his second day at an unlicensed child care that was being operated

illegally.

Now, there is a misunderstanding that anyone looking after children

who is not licensed is illegal. That is not the case now, nor will it be

going forward. There are, of course, many wonderful people looking after

children for whom a licence is not required as they look after only two

children in addition to their own, whether it’s their child’s friends, their

neighbour’s kids or so on. That is the situation now, and contrary to some

misinformation provided in this House last week, this will not change under

our new child care plan.

Nor do all parents want or need child care. Those families will

continue to have access to early learning programs provided by government,

such as StrongStart.

What is clear is that there are currently thousands of parents across

the province who are very anxious about child care. As a result of the

previous government’s neglect of this issue, there is a drastic shortage of

licensed spaces and an affordability crisis.

Families across the province are struggling to find affordable child

care — in particular, infant and toddler care. As any parent knows, if

you’re worried about finding child care, worried about the well-being of

your child, worried about the high cost and whether it’s even affordable to

go back to work, it’s going to be hard to be your best at work.

[3:50 p.m.]

If you can’t get child care, you might just not go back to work, and

you certainly won’t move to take a job in a city where child care is

notoriously unavailable and unaffordable, even if you’re able to find it.

Employers get this. Municipal leaders get this. Boards of trade and chambers

of commerce get this. For some reason, the official opposition critics for

MCFD and for Child Care do not seem to.

For example, the member for Chilliwack-Kent said in the House last

week: “The government wants to pull those providers into the public sphere,

so it will have to get unlicensed providers — that is, people who are caring

for one or two children now, usually in their own home — into the public

system. It wants them to get licensed. This is how the government will do

it. I think it’s a very ingenious plan. It is also quite coercive, in my

view.”

Our comprehensive child care plan has been built based on the input of

families across the province. No parent should ever feel pressured, because

of either a lack of available spaces or information, to forgo licensed care

when that is their preferred option. We’ve heard loud and clear through

talking with parents across the province that they want better access to

licensed early care and learning. Parents want quality care that is safe and

gives them peace of mind when they’re at work.

Will many families wish to keep arrangements they already have with

their license-not-required caregivers and babysitters? Yes. We fully expect

they will, and that is anticipated by the plan. But is the member for

Chilliwack-Kent really suggesting parents shouldn’t be given the option of

licensed care? We disagree, and we are proud to be working towards a

universal child care system.

The importance of quality early learning is made very clear by a

recent Conference Board of Canada report that shows there’s close to $6 in

economic benefits for every $1 spent on expanding early childhood education

enrolment of children under five years of age.

For those caregivers who are currently looking after only two children

other than their own, as license-not-required providers, and who wish to

become licensed to care for more children, our plan will also support them

in this process.

The focus of our new investments is to reduce the cost of licensed

care, so that we can meet our commitment for quality care and work to

replace the current fragmented system. However, parents who currently get

subsidy and whose children are in unlicensed care will continue to receive

support under the new, affordable child care benefit each month.

The amount of benefit that a parent receives depends on their income

and type of care their child is in. If your child care provider opts to get

licensed, parents may also be eligible for a monthly cost savings via the

province’s new child care fee reduction initiative starting in April 2018 —

as long as your provider chooses to opt in to the new initiative.

We’re also working hard to build more licensed child care spaces

faster, so parents have more options available for their children no matter

where they live in B.C. And we are making the largest investment government

has ever made to reduce child care fees in British Columbia.

Now, the issue of homelessness in my community is a hidden yet

pervasive issue. Many families and vulnerable people are living in

situations of risk — unstable and overcrowded situations.

Esquimalt-Metchosin communities are full of individuals, families, students

and seniors who have been struggling for years to find homes. The biggest

issue in our community is the lack of secure, stable and healthy

housing.

Even if people find homes, they’re unhealthy, at risk of eviction or

unfair rent increases and cause the most stress to members of our community.

Families are working as hard as they can, and they can’t get ahead because

of the burden of such high costs of housing. My community needs not just the

basics of shelter. They need safe and secure shelter that protects them and

their families and supports them in participating in their family life,

business activities and other economic activities.

Across my community, renters have seen vacancy rates drop while prices

rise dramatically. Young adults attending school haven’t had access to

student housing. Young professionals have been faced with moving out of

their communities or the province.

[3:55 p.m.]

Seniors who have struggled to meet rising housing costs on fixed

incomes are at risk of homelessness.

I hear from local businesses, chiefs of police and fire departments

that they are struggling to attract, hire and retain workers and

professionals because of the lack of affordability of housing in our

community.

People want government to take action. That’s why we’re setting out a

30-point plan that commits to long-term solutions. Our comprehensive housing

plan is working to curb speculation, crack down on tax fraud, support

renters and build the homes people need. It starts with taking action to

stabilize the market and curb demand.

We will introduce a new annual speculation tax, starting in B.C.’s

urban areas. It will tax foreign and domestic speculators, and this tax will

apply to property owners who don’t pay income tax here, people who leave

units vacant and satellite families — those households with high worldwide

income that pay little income tax in B.C. Primary residences and long-term

rentals will generally be exempt, and their owners will be able to claim an

upfront exemption. It will penalize people parking their capital in our

housing market simply to speculate, driving up prices and removing rental

stock.

To curb demand, we’re also increasing the additional property transfer

tax rate, known as the foreign buyer tax, to 20 percent. We think that

foreign buyers should contribute to the high quality of life they enjoy when

they move to our province. Currently this tax only applies in Metro

Vancouver. We’re extending it to include other urban areas, including the

capital regional district, which, of course, includes the

Esquimalt-Metchosin constituency.

Of course, the other dimension of tackling the challenge of affordable

housing is the supply of housing for people who need it. We need a mix of

housing stock. Across my community, we need housing for families, people

with disabilities, youth and seniors. The housing that will be provided will

range from social housing to market rentals for people with moderate

incomes. Importantly, especially for our community, is the investment that

we have committed to preserving and protecting our existing social housing

for everyone who already lives in them.

A significant area that is brought to my attention is the need for

students to have student housing. This will liberate other units and

increase the rental stock, as well as provide more appropriate and

affordable homes for students. Our government is finally allowing colleges

and universities to borrow to build much-needed student housing. Together,

we will help finance 5,000 new student housing beds. The level of investment

required is historic. We will invest more than $7 billion over the next ten

years. Our investment will support almost 34,000 units of affordable rental,

supportive and student housing.

Now, we know that we need to work in partnerships to be able to

deliver on this ambitious plan and address the housing shortage. There are

opportunities across the province that could offer solutions yet aren’t

being developed — for example, entities that own land and are not equipped

to know how to partner with the province and other stakeholders to develop

it for housing needs. This might include religious bodies, non-profits and

others that own land that could be developed and deliver housing to meet

needs in that community.

That’s why we’re creating a new housing hub office at B.C. Housing, to

bring everyone together to facilitate the building of affordable homes. It

will develop partnerships to find, use or redevelop available land in

communities hardest hit by the housing crisis. I know from my own experience

that it would have been of great benefit to my community if this resource

had been available a few years ago.

When I was running a non-profit organization — it wasn’t a housing

operator; it was a social service organization — we strategically invested

in a piece of land to build a new centre for well-being. The piece of land

available had some surplus to our needs, and in the interest of the

community, we built a partnership with a housing association to bring

affordable housing to the community.

Now, if the housing hub had been operational at that time, we would

have had the benefit of their expertise and their help to build and deliver

the vision and create the project in the community at best value and on a

completely sustainable model. The government’s new housing hub underlines

the importance of partnerships and the coordinated effort it will take to

address housing affordability.

[4:00 p.m.]

A critical aspect of the housing crisis is the lack of security for

those who are in housing. Families and individuals are at risk of losing

their homes through increases in rent, evictions, renovictions, demovictions

and, in particular in my community, evictions from manufactured

homes.

I’m very proud that some of the 30 points in this comprehensive plan

address these issues, too, and our support for renters is strengthened.

We’re going to make improvements to our two rental support programs: our

rental assistance program, known as RAP, and Shelter Aid For Elderly

Renters, known as SAFER. We’re going to increase the benefits of the RAP so

that low-income families will see their average payment increase by

approximately $800 a year. Seniors who receive SAFER will see their average

payment increase by more than $930 a year. These important program changes

will help more than 35,000 households.

In September 2017, we also increased funding to the residential

tenancy branch. We’ll be taking next steps to strengthen protection for

renters and manufactured home owners who are at risk of losing their home.

These measures will help so many people in need in my community. This

strategy will help families find homes that are suitable for their families

— healthy, secure and affordable. This will help seniors stay in their homes

in our community and will continue to support local families. This strategy

will help youth in my community who are couch-surfing and putting themselves

at risk of exploitation in vulnerable situations where they are just seeking

basic shelter.

Another major concern I ofte