Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 31

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M202 — Property Law and Land Title Amendment Act,

A. Weaver

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2017

(continued)

Hon. A. Dix

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Sims

A. Weaver

T. Wat

Hon. S. Robinson

J. Yap

Hon. K. Chen

M. Morris

Hon. J. Darcy

J. Thornthwaite

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 4 — Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner Continuation

Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture (continued)

Hon. L. Popham

J. Rustad

I. Paton

N. Letnick

Estimates: Ministry of Labour

Hon. H. Bains

J. Martin

S. Cadieux

D. Barnett

G. Kyllo

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2017

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a friend of mine who I believe

is here, up in the gallery, Mr. Baldev Singh Nijjer. He’s joined by Baldev

Singh Bajwa from India. Another friend is here, Ranjit Singh Kalsi. Please

join me to give them a warm welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M202 — PROPERTY LAW AND

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT,

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Property Law and Land Title

Amendment Act, 2017.

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Property Law and Land Title

Amendment Act, 2017, of which notice has been given, be introduced and

read a first time now.

Mr. Speaker: Please proceed.

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to introduce a bill intituled the Property Law and

Land Title Amendment Act, 2017. This bill amends the existing Property

Law Act to ensure that land held within the agricultural land reserve is

protected from international real estate speculation. If passed, this

bill would prohibit foreign entities from purchasing ALR land over five

acres without prior permission from the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

At UBCM last week, I met with communities in northern British

Columbia. They emphasized the impact that the foreign purchase of ALR

lands is having on local farmers, their local economies and our food

security. For example, in Cariboo North, 42,000 acres have been bought

by two foreign entities, with a total of 22,239 acres being removed from

local agricultural production. This is affecting the local price of hay

and pricing farmers out of the market.

Many other provinces regulate and restrict foreign ownership of

agricultural land in this way, including Alberta, Saskatchewan,

Manitoba, Quebec and PEI. Our agricultural land reserve should have the

same protection.

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

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: Now 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 M202, Property Law and Land Title Amendment Act, 2017,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1:35 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on Bill 2. In Committee A, I call

the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and, subsequent to that, the

estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2017

(continued)

Hon. A. Dix: It’s great to rejoin the debate on Bill 2, the Budget Measures

Implementation Act.

I think the measures contained within this act, which are

essentially the taxation measures of the budget, demonstrate the good

sense of the Minister of Finance and the good sense of the government in

guiding the economy in these times.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I would say — and members of the House will know this — if you

look at the taxation measures contained overall in the budget and you

include the changes to MSP premiums, which the distinguished opposition

Finance critic mentioned in her speech, you’ll see, hon. Speaker, an

annualized reduction of $1.245 billion.

If you understand how MSP premiums are paid in British Columbia,

that means a reduction in taxes for many individuals, particularly

middle-class individuals, and a more affordable economy for them — more

for them in a time when it’s less and less easy to find housing in many

parts of our province. It makes life more affordable for them. It’s part

of a commitment our leader, the Premier, made in advance of the election

campaign, and it’s an important commitment.

It is true that at the last minute there was an effort in the last

Liberal budget — one not passed by this Legislature — to reduce MSP

premiums. This measure, the measure introduced by the Minister of

Finance, is $374 million more generous than that. That measure, which

was put together at the last minute, was ineffective, impossible to

implement and would have caused serious problems in the economy for

business and for individuals alike.

So they put forward a measure that couldn’t work and wasn’t going

to work. We put forward a measure that was fundamental to our

commitment. I’m very proud of that. It means savings for people across

British Columbia, not just individuals but small businesses,

medium-sized businesses and, indeed, big businesses. That is the most

significant tax measure in the budget.

What it suggests and what it indicates, when combined with all of

the other measures — those that increase taxes and those that cut taxes

— is that there’s a net tax reduction in this budget of $389 million in

this fiscal year and $881 million in the next fiscal year. That is

plain. One can try and separate the tax increases from the tax cuts and

claim something else, but if you take all of the measures, if you take

the budget as a whole, that is what the budget is. That’s what the

budget does.

To argue that the MSP reduction of 50 percent doesn’t count,

doesn’t matter and doesn’t affect people is to misunderstand how

important it is in people’s lives. It’s $900 in savings for many

individuals who are struggling with affordability but also significant

savings for many small businesses and other businesses who, in British

Columbia, pay MSP premiums and don’t in any other jurisdiction. So it’s

a significant change.

Equally, in the budget, you’ll see the extension, through 2022, of

the science and tech tax credit — $175 million annualized, a tax

reduction in this budget. You’ll see a 20 percent reduction in the small

business tax. It’s $81 million but a 20 percent reduction in the rate,

which is a significant advantage to small businesses who live on

Kingsway and throughout British Columbia.

The government has also brought in tax changes that benefit credit

unions all around British Columbia and that extend the previous tax

treatment of credit unions to allow them to fully participate in the

community. It’s something that’s an advantage to the economy in every

region of British Columbia.

We’ve seen the benefits of the tax credits for apprenticeships,

the tax credits for digital industries, the tax extension and supports

around extending the thresholds for the homeowner grant — all of them,

significant tax changes.

[1:40 p.m.]

People like to talk about what the numbers are. The budget that

was introduced in February contained a surplus of approximately a

quarter of a billion dollars, $250 million. This budget contains

approximately the same surplus. That’s the base from which government

was making its decisions. I think that the Minister of Finance — by

reducing costs on business, by reducing costs on individuals, by making

life more affordable — has done absolutely the right thing in this

budget.

The minister has also, in the context of a very significant

overall tax reduction, made some changes to bring about tax fairness —

in particular, for people earning over $150,000 a year. It’s on the

amount they earn over $150,000 a year that the tax changes come into

effect. Those changes are very, very significant, of course. We have to

consider them seriously, but they bring a modicum of

fairness.

Members will recall that a tax cut was introduced under the last

government to essentially give those individuals, the wealthiest 1

percent in British Columbia, a significant tax cut at a time when MSP

premiums were going up during that period, and so on. Those were the

choices made, and government is about choosing. That government chose

tax cuts for the very wealthiest, and we’re choosing a 50 percent

reduction in MSP premiums in this budget. Those are the choices, and

people can judge those choices. The member opposite is welcome to

disagree with those choices, and I expect that she will in her

statements.

Those are the changes that have been brought in. We have brought

in changes to the carbon tax. We’ve ended revenue neutrality so that

those carbon tax revenues can be brought into force to support the

government’s overall environmental and carbon agenda. We’ve made those

changes. Again, this is a subject of debate and choice, but these are

the choices that this government has made and that this Minister of

Finance has made.

It is indisputable, if you look at all of those changes, including

the increase in taxes around the Tobacco Tax Act, that this budget

dramatically reduces the costs on British Columbians and does so in a

more progressive way than the previous government did. This is

indisputable. I encourage people who want to read about it and see the

actual facts, not the rhetorical debate on either side, to actually read

the budget. I recommend that people listening to us do — pages 59 and 60

of the budget. They’ll see what the tax changes are in this

budget.

Those tax changes have been made, including a $374 million

increase in the tax cut on the MSP premium, compared to the failed

Liberal plan from before the election — the one that couldn’t work, that

couldn’t be implemented, that would have been a disaster for business

and that they introduced at the last minute. There’s that and all of the

other things. They’ll see what the actual net tax change in the budget

is. In this budget, that’s a $389 million tax cut in 2017-18, and it’s a

$881 million tax cut in ’18-19. Those are the changes that are actually

in the budget.

I think it’s important, when you look at the budget overall, where

we’ve taken a budget surplus that we inherited and that we acknowledge,

of about $250 million…. We introduced, in this budget, a budget surplus

of about $246 million. In other words, we’ve maintained the surplus in

this budget.

It’s a balanced budget, introduced by the Minister of Finance,

beyond dispute. We have to, of course, throughout the fiscal year, take

care on these questions. But that’s what the Minister of Finance

introduced — a balanced budget that is more progressive, that ensures

that life is more affordable for small business and that ensures that

life is more affordable for individuals who need that.

It also introduces, as you know, the other measures in the budget:

the elimination of tuition fees on adult basic education, amongst many

other initiatives, including raising income assistance rates, which is

something that the previous government had, I think, wrongly failed to

do over a long period of time. It’s a disagreement between our side of

the House and their side of the House.

Our priorities are expressed in the budget. Those priorities — to

support housing, to support low-income people, to support small business

— are reflected in the budget measures that we’ve taken. I think, on

balance, this is why I disagree with the opposition’s no vote on the

budget. They said no to this budget, which did reduce these costs on

people. They have a different view, and it may be their view that we

should have cut other taxes or we should have made other changes. That’s

their view, and that’s a legitimate view to hold, I suppose.

[1:45 p.m.]

Our view — it’s the view that’s clearly expressed in this budget

document — is that life is going to become less and less and less

affordable for people. The level of inequality in our province has grown

over time, and we needed to take measures to ensure and to protect some

people in society and to give them more opportunity in

society.

That’s precisely what my colleague the member for

Vancouver-Hastings has done with the initiatives that he’s brought into

place. That’s precisely what my colleague the Minister of Advanced

Education has done with respect to adult basic education. It’s precisely

what the member for Vancouver-Hastings has done with respect to bus

passes.

These are the changes that needed to be made. If life was

unaffordable for most people, the people who were paying high MSP

premiums that had doubled under the previous government…. If life was

unaffordable for them, it was for many people in the province

unendurable. That’s why the government has taken the measures they

have.

What we have here in the Budget Measures Implementation Act is a

series of measures, balanced measures, measures taken in the whole

budget that reduce the overall burden on people, particularly with

respect to MSP premiums. They’re in the context of a budget that

protects people and that increases supports for some people in a way

that I think is consistent with the values of British Columbians, and

it’s a budget that will encourage and support economic growth in British

Columbia.

I encourage all members to support Bill 2.

P. Milobar: It’s my pleasure to rise and give my comments on Bill 2. I must

admit that I was struggling at first, thinking how I would fill the

time, but there have just been so many things said after the first two

speakers from the other side that I think I might be able to muddle my

way through.

Over the past few years in B.C., we’ve made incredible steps

forward, leading the country in economic growth and development, and

we’ve done that second to none. We’ve had a clear vision on how we

planned to create that economic growth. We’ve seen the highest job

numbers, the strongest economy. That has been verified even as we headed

into this budget update with the public accounts being brought forward,

where even the Finance Minister acknowledges that we had a very strong

financial situation and that we were the envy of all of the country when

it related to what our financial state was at and our $2.7 billion

surplus.

Now we’re faced with this budget update. It does have several

concerning aspects to it. As we just heard, there seems to be a change

in the math. I’ve heard the expression. I didn’t quite understand it, I

must admit, before I came to Victoria. I would always hear this NDP math

phrase used, and I’m starting to maybe understand it a little bit

better.

When we read through the budget documents, what we see is about $2

billion more of taxation with this budget update. Now, I will agree with

the Minister of Health that you cannot just talk about that without the

cuts. So let’s look at MSP. I agree. There’s about $1 billion being

removed from what we were charging people for MSP premiums out of that

and being paid for by that $2 billion worth of taxes. That does

correlate.

Now, I come from local government where, when you give people

their property tax bill, you can’t pretend that the water bill isn’t

some form of taxation. MSP is much the same way. It’s a form of

taxation. Let’s give the benefit of the doubt, and let’s do the math and

say: “Okay. Out of that $2 billion of new taxation that we see in this

budget update, $1 billion of that is actually being used to offset the

change in MSP.” You’re taking from one tax to a different tax. It’s the

same taxpayers, but you’ve just reformulated it. I will agree to that

premise.

However, that still leaves $1 billion. I struggle to understand

how only the members opposite could convey that $1 billion of new

taxation, on strictly a budget update, is somehow making life more

affordable in British Columbia. It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t stand

the test of “are the numbers accurate or not, and are the statements

accurate or not?” You say that you’re taxing an extra $1 billion, yet

somehow people will feel that life is more affordable.

[1:50 p.m.]

I say that…. The public has to have faith and confidence in the

numbers when they are presented, especially by representatives of the

Crown, back out. We’ve just been hearing about several hundred million

dollars worth of tax cuts, when, in fact, we know it’s about $1 billion

of net new taxation that’s going to happen.

In the comments before the break, the minister had indicated that

a 50-plus-one was used in the referendum for proportional representation

in 2009, which is not, in fact, accurate at all. I went back and looked

on the break. This goes back to: how can you trust numbers when they’re

bandied about? In fact, the last proportional representation referendum

needed a 60 percent overall approval and 50 percent approval in at least

60 percent of the ridings — unlike the current option that we are being

presented for the public, which is a flat 50-plus-one, full stop, no

counterbalance with the number of ridings needed.

I say that because…. Again, it’s about building trust around how

we are looking at the numbers. As they say, everyone can look at the

percentages and numbers and make them tell a tale that they would like.

In this case, as we stand here today, between my

interpretation and

several economists’

interpretation of $1 billion of new taxes in this

budget versus the $389 million of tax cuts that the previous speaker

spoke of…. That’s almost a $1.5 billion difference. It seems to be more

than a rounding error.

Now, I was very happy to hear both the previous speakers talk

about supporting the credit unions. I think that’s a good thing. They

obviously hold credit unions in very high regard, as do I and, I think,

as do most people around the province, especially in the smaller

communities. I would note, though…. Hopefully they take a page from the

credit unions, because credit unions, themselves…. When they’re going to

make a fundamental and large change to how their membership functions,

they need a 67 percent threshold, not a 50-plus-one. Maybe a bit more of

the credit union can rub off on the members opposite.

When we look at the increases, there’s an increase to the

corporate tax. It goes from 11 percent to 12 percent. To the average

person, that might not seem like a very big increase. Now, if you’re a

large corporation, however, it is. That’s the difference between us

being a leader in the country and us being in the middle of the pack as

a province in the country. That can make the difference between someone

choosing to invest here or not. That investment, in turn, brings

hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs when you’re talking the types of

corporations that these tax increases would take effect on.

Again, with my local government background…. You sometimes have to

look at the overall budget, and you say: “How does this all make sense?”

It doesn’t. I know that within British Columbia, the level of

inducements you can provide companies, frankly, as a municipality is

very, very limited because it’s illegal. Yet here we think that a

$50,000 bump into an Amazon bid, while we’re raising corporate income

taxes by 1 percent, from 11 to 12 percent, is somehow going to make the

difference for us, on a North American stage, to land the Amazon

headquarters.

I fully applaud the attempt to try to land the Amazon

headquarters. But honestly, if the members opposite feel that a $50,000

inducement for a company that’s looking to locate its next headquarters,

with 50,000 employees, is what’s going to make or break the difference

for a corporation of that size…. I would suggest that the 1 percent tax

hike — and it is an increase, not a decrease, as we’ve been hearing

about all these great tax decreases — will be way more detrimental than

a $50,000 inducement to try to attract an employer that would create

50,000 direct jobs.

In other words, the government seems to feel that the way to

attract Amazon here is to offer them $1, a single loonie, per employee

as a one-time charge, and that will get them here over every other

jurisdiction in North America. When all the other municipalities in

B.C…. I’m not familiar with the Vancouver Charter, and Vancouver

wouldn’t have the land mass, necessarily, inside their boundaries. They

may have. Every other municipality would be bound by the Local

Government Act, which would say they cannot give an inducement to

Amazon.

[1:55 p.m.]

Again, what could the province do to try to get Amazon here? Well,

I would suggest $1 per worker as a one-time inducement probably wouldn’t

get Amazon here. Perhaps looking more aggressively at our corporate tax

structure and making sure we stay as the leader in the country on the

corporate taxation side…. That’s something a company like Amazon and

other companies will actually pay attention to. That’s really how we’re

going to keep growing our economy.

That’s the concern. When you look at year 2 and year 3 of this

budget and this budget update, it’s fine to just say, “This is an

update,” but there’s a reason we ask for, and every government has to

provide, a three-year budget window and a view. Again, with my local

government background…. We had to provide a five-year window. Why did we

ask local governments to do five years, and why do we ask the provincial

government to do three years? It’s so that people get a good sense of

where you’re trying to head as a government, and there’s a sense of

whether your goals are realistic or not.

The reason the following years in the budget are concerning to me

is because here we already have $1 billion of new taxation. We have

almost zero of the bigger-ticket election promises made by both the NDP

and the B.C. Green Party in this budget update. Yet all the money in the

following years in this budget update has already been spent.

We already know this. We know this by looking at the budget

document. We can see that in year 2 and year 3 of a three-year document

here, there is no extra money. There are contingency funds, which is a

good thing, but as we saw this year, unfortunately, with the fire, those

contingency funds can be gone in a heartbeat.

So, again, why is this concerning? Because the projections that we

see on this budget update for future growth in this province, albeit

slightly lower than what other agencies are projecting for growth for

British Columbia over the next couple of years…. That slightly lower

difference does not cover the gap of what they’re hoping to do as a

government in implementing and spending in the future and what would

actually come in. In other words, they’ve already projected very

optimistically for what the growth revenues are going to create for

British Columbia, and they have not shown one dime of new spending of

their promises of things like $10-a-day child care, of things like the

$400 renter rebate, and other issues like that.

Where would that money possibly come from? If you’ve already

shown, in your future look, maximum revenues coming in under our

current, existing taxation regimes, your new policies you’re bringing

in, as well as your growth for the economy, where possibly could all

those extra revenues come in for all of these election promises that

we’ve heard so much about?

Well, one can only surmise they’re going to come from taxation,

which means, moving forward, that for every new election promise that

gets presented after this budget update, that has to come from a new

form of taxation. Somewhere within there, they have to find the money,

because I’m very confident that the new ministers do not want to see the

10 percent holdback of their salary if they ran into a deficit, and I’m

sure they wouldn’t want to see the other 10 percent holdback that their

salary is subject to if their own ministry comes into a

deficit.

Moving forward, it will be very interesting indeed to see how this

is going to happen without any new taxes. Why that’s concerning to me is

that then we look at the budget update and the proposal around the

carbon tax. We’ve now gone, again, from a leader in terms of revenue

neutrality with carbon tax back to the middle of the pack, and that

seems to be a recurring theme. It seems to be: “Let’s figure out how we

can make British Columbia mediocre.” I’m not going to do a play on the

famous down south slogan, because I find that to be entirely

inappropriate in terms of that.

This, though, is truly what seems to be happening in British

Columbia. We seem to have a government right now who is trying to find

ways to intentionally make us middle of the pack — not because of

outside market forces, not because things outside of their control are

happening in the global economy but because they actually are purposely

setting out, and their actual stated goals are, to have us in the middle

of the pack, to make us average, to make us just kind of fit into the

rest of the country, instead of being where we have been over the last

five years, leading the country.

[2:00 p.m.]

I think people in British Columbia want us to be leaders. I think

they want us in this House to be leaders, and I think they, as residents

of British Columbia, want our province to be leaders. This budget does

anything but that. This budget takes us back into the middle of the

pack.

Back to the carbon tax and why that’s concerning. We now see a

carbon tax that’s no longer going to be revenue neutral. In fact, it’s

going to increase, as every province would have to increase, to the

threshold the federal government is mandating. That is a given. However,

we were the only province with a revenue-neutral stance that we had

already implemented and, once again, were leading the pack with. Now

we’re talking about removing that.

There are a few things that are concerning about that. The

government has been very unclear as to whether or not the existing

funds, long term, that we’re currently collecting from carbon tax will

also no longer be subject to revenue neutrality. We know that the added

funds that will start taking effect in April 2018 aren’t going to be

revenue-neutral. We know that those funds, over 2018 and 2019, are going

to generate almost $700 million more for this government to

spend.

Normally, one might think: “Well, that’s because they have to pay

for those promises that they talked about in their campaign that they

haven’t funded yet.” I would understand that except for the fact that

$700 million of revenue has already been accounted for in existing

programming within that three-year budget. Again, we’ve seen an increase

in carbon taxation of almost $700 million over the next two years — net

profit to the government — but that money has already been spent before

an election promise has been delivered upon.

Where will the other money come from? Well, there’s all that other

carbon tax that, now that the rules are changing, suddenly isn’t

revenue-neutral anymore. I guess they might be able to dip into that.

But we’re not really sure.

Even more concerning is that industry still cannot get an answer

from government on what revenue-neutral means or doesn’t mean. The

greenhouse industry, as an example, currently receives about an 80

percent subsidy back for greenhouse gases and their carbon tax. There’s

no commitment whether this new $5,which is no longer revenue neutral,

will be subject to that 80 percent.

Are we now going to disconnect with trying to buy local, trying to

be good for the environment and trying to make sure that there’s a

stable agricultural industry by being punitive with the carbon taxation

on the greenhouse industry?

If that happens, the end result is that not only will taxes go up

for a short time until the greenhouses inevitably close…. The reason

they would close is because then we’d now have made it economically

viable for stores to even buy more produce out of California than they

currently do. We would be directly impacting our own industry. We’d be

increasing trucks on the road, driving all the way up the I-5 from

California. For what? Because we cannot get a clear answer as to what an

increase in carbon tax will actually mean.

The greenhouse industry is not the only industry. There are lots

of other industries. They’re hearing the right things, but no one’s

actually able to point to any policy or even attempted policy that the

government is bringing forward around this new-found slush fund of

taxation.

It’s a three-year budget so you only see the next two years of

carbon taxation. What they don’t show you is years 3 and 4, which still

are subject to another $5-a-year increase. It means you would now be

going from — rough math — $700 million collected over two years to

closer to $1.5 billion to $2 billion by year 4. Where is the plan? There

isn’t one.

It seems that when it comes to taxation, there’s a great plan on

how to pull money out of the economy. There doesn’t seem to be a plan to

put money back into the economy, although I guess I could stand to be

corrected. In all credit, the members opposite have committed to try to

put the princely sum of $50,000 back into the economy to lure Amazon

here.

As I say, I’m sure if a company the size of Amazon…. It’s valued

at, I think, $486 billion. I’m sure a $50,000 inducement should just

really…. Their HR department, I’m sure, is sitting there…. Their human

resources department is sitting back with their accounting department

and saying: “My, do you know what this would do to our labour costs if

we could get a one-time, one-dollar-an-employee out of the province of

British Columbia? Stop talking to every other jurisdiction because

that’s going to make the difference to us.” That’s the disconnect that I

have with this budget and this budget update.

[2:05 p.m.]

Now, I mentioned coming from the local government side a few

times. The carbon tax is very punitive when you start looking at school

districts and at municipalities. There’s a saying in local government,

and a very common saying, that there’s only one taxpayer. We say that in

local government a lot because local governments collect about eight

cents on every taxation-generated dollar collected in this

country.

In this budget, because of the carbon tax no longer being

revenue-neutral — and because municipalities, even though we’ve just had

UBCM, have no clear understanding how this is going to impact them

moving forward…. Or school districts. What we see is to two

jurisdictions that have been doing everything possible to find

efficiencies in terms of building retrofits, fleet management and fuel

consumptions…. In spite of all that, they will now be faced with

increased fuel costs to heat their public buildings and to fuel the

fleets, for the garbage trucks and the fire trucks and the police cars

that we all need to have properly running cities.

Why is that important? Well, that goes straight to your property

tax bill, because there’s only one taxpayer. It’s fine for the members

opposite to say, “Well, we’re cutting taxes,” when in fact they’re

actually increasing taxes by $1 billion net, but they’re also increasing

property taxes in a roundabout way by increasing the carbon

tax.

Not only are they going to pull some money out of your pocket on

the carbon tax every time you go to the pump to fill up your car, and

they’re going to pull it every time you turn your furnace on…. I have to

say, it’s a little balmy down here still, but even though I’m from

Kamloops…. Furnaces are being turned on daily and nightly in Kamloops

already. We already would see those types of carbon taxes impacting your

home heating costs.

Not only are homeowners going to be paying that; their

municipalities are going to have to turn around and say: “Oh by the way,

we had to increase your property taxes because we need to pay a little

bit more carbon tax on our fleets and our heating costs for

buildings.”

Energy consumption, for municipalities, is a huge percentage of

their budget. Most municipalities have done everything they can do to

try to be good citizens and lead by example, as government, to try to

reduce emissions as much as possible. Now they’re being faced with

increased taxation from this government because they no longer want to

have carbon be revenue-neutral.

That, again, is a contradiction on trying to make life affordable,

and affordable housing for people, when you’re essentially telling

municipalities: “Please raise property taxes because we need more money

in our coffers provincially.”

You’re also doing the same with this budget to the school

districts in terms of carbon taxation — school districts that are

looking for money. On the one hand, they’re heralding some of the new

money that may be coming their way, and then it’s going to get clawed

back right away with carbon taxation. Again, a very interesting shell

game, because there is only one taxpayer. That’s the problem with

this.

When you look at, saying that carbon tax is good and we’re going

to do more transit…. Well, coming from one of the larger cities outside

of the Metro area, I can tell you there’s not a lot more that can be

done with transit. We could add a few more hours here and a few more

hours there, but the bottom line is that people need their vehicles to

get around. They need them to drive 70 kilometres out into the bush to

work. They need them to be able to drive to get their kids to school and

back, to their after-school activities, because the bus system just

won’t quite cut it for them.

That’s the reality of living outside of the Metro area. Though I

applaud efforts to increase transit in the metro areas, and I’m a

staunch supporter of transit throughout the province, and I’ve always

supported every minute of transit service offered to our city, it’s not

the final answer for large geographic portions of this

province.

Instead, we’re going to take those large geographic portions of

this province and we’re going to tell the people who need to drive the

most, out of necessity: “You know what? You should pay more for the

privilege of doing that, with carbon tax, so that people in metro areas

can pay less for transit.” That doesn’t sit well when people look at the

budget — not in my area anyways.

[2:10 p.m.]

To sum up, we have a budget update which was predicated on numbers

from when we were government. We were verified by the now Finance

Minister to have had the leading economy in the country, the strongest

economic growth, the strongest job growth and an unheard-of surplus to

work with. And what we’re now faced with, instead….

Interjection.

P. Milobar: I’m glad the fan club showed up finally.

What we’re faced with instead now is we’ve gone from that to a

budget that is increasing $1 billion, net, in new taxation. That is

adding taxation to municipal governments and school districts. That’s

adding taxation every time somebody goes to a pump and tries to put gas

into their car. That’s adding taxation every time somebody moves the

dial on their thermostat, because: “How dare they stay warm? Everyone

can just put on an extra couple of layers of sweaters. That’s the better

way to go.” That’s what we have for a budget.

We have a budget here…. And this is only an update. Then we look

at the forward-looking, as I referenced earlier, and there were none of

the grand promises in that. But all the money has already been spent —

all of it. When you look at it, there’s no grand surplus sitting at the

end of year 2 and year 3. There’s none of that.

We have growth projections that are already close to what the

outside agencies project to be growth of our economy. Out of all of

that, we still have ministers saying that there are actually tax cuts,

that things are actually getting to be more affordable for people. Now,

I agree that things like the extra money for people on disability and

people on welfare…. Rates will help them and ease some of their pains

around affordability in terms of their monthly lives, absolutely. So

there are some people that this budget will be helping.

We’re talking about the global dollars. And the global dollars in

this right now would suggest that there is no money in there for any of

the NDP promises or the Green promises. However, as the Green leader has

so fondly pointed out, promises really are irrelevant when it comes to

an election. I guess that’s maybe why there’s not as much worry about

how to find the funding for moving forward.

After all, what’s the point of worrying about those pesky campaign

promises and the expectations that people may have? Now, I can say…. I’m

on the Finance Committee. We’ve had a few meetings already. They’re all

public meetings. Nothing I’m saying here today is not already on the

record at Hansard or has been recorded or broadcast. I can tell you,

Madame Speaker, there’s a whole lot of expectation by a whole lot of

groups out there that expect to see those campaign promises in the

budget, yet there’s no money in future budgets for any of those campaign

promises.

So where oh where is this going to come from? There are either

going to have to be significant cuts to services and a reallocation,

simply…. I applaud going through the ministries to make sure the money

that is being spent is being spent wisely. I think that’s always a

prudent course for any government of any political stripe to

do.

Thinking that finding the loose change under the cushions is going

to somehow magically pay for all of your promises…. I don’t think that’s

going to happen. Again, I know I’m going to sound a bit like a broken

record. I’ll go back to my local government history. Every election, you

have people that run and say: “You know, if we just purchase our paper a

little bit more effectively and make sure that we reuse the paper clips,

we won’t have to have a property tax increase.” I think we all are aware

of people that run in campaigns around that.

The taxpayers are never fooled by that. I don’t see why they’d be

fooled by this budget update. There is $1 billion of new taxation —

bottom line — in this. It’s a little from here. It’s a little from

there. There are some groups, absolutely, and some of the most

vulnerable that are going to benefit from this. I don’t hear people

complaining about that. I don’t. I don’t hear it in my riding. I don’t

hear it around the province. I think people, generally speaking, all

recognize that those types of supports are needed and they’re critical

and they should be there.

That’s not the type of supports we’re worried about. We’re worried

about the rest of the billion dollars of taxation and, more importantly,

where all the money for future promises is going to come

from.

[2:15 p.m.]

As I say, there’s a reason you’re supposed to show a couple of

years in advance for your budget. And when you look at those couple of

years in advance, not only is there $1 billion in new spending with this

budget update, but when you look at that whole document, there is no

money for future promises that were made in this most recent campaign.

That’s the most troubling and concerning part.

Thank you for allowing me this time, Madame Speaker, to speak on

Bill 2.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s a pleasure today to rise in support of Budget Update 2017,

but before I actually begin to talk about the budget….

As we all know, it’s a very special day today. It’s World Teachers

Day. I want to say what a pleasure it was to be on the steps of the

Legislature, having young children singing and teachers there to

celebrate this day.

Today I’m reminded of all the teachers who touched my life. Mrs.

Brown, who welcomed me, at the age of nine, into my elementary school in

England and was stuck with a young girl in her class who didn’t speak a

place and in such a foreign environment. Mrs. Roe, who inspired me to

fall in love with history — and I would say that she is responsible for

me becoming a teacher eventually. And to all the kids who inspired me

while I was teaching.

A huge thank you to teachers, not only across this beautiful

country but around the world, who take up this noble profession and

devote so much more of themselves into this than the hours they put in,

in front of the classroom. They move for social change. They become

activists, and they look after our children. Thank you, teachers,

wherever you are.

I’ve heard a lot about Budget 2017 Update from my colleagues

across the way. People have asked me: why is it called an update? I want

to start with that.

First of all, the reason it’s an update is because we all know

there were some difficulties in the transition from one government to

the next. It took longer than it would have done normally, but we’re

living in, I would say, different times, and as a result, the time only

permitted for a Budget Update 2017. The full NDP budget will be coming

up in March.

This was all because of time restraints, etc. In this Budget

Update 2017, I am absolutely proud to say that this is a prudent budget.

This is a balanced budget, with reasonable surpluses at the end of each

of the three years, as predicted in here.

It’s a budget that actually is focusing on people, where the

priorities are about delivering services and making life better for

those who live in B.C. It’s a budget that is not only about making life

more affordable but about improving services to British Columbians and

growing decent-paying jobs right around this province.

For the last 16 years, people have faced cuts, whether it’s been

in education, whether it’s been in health care, whether it’s been in

many, many sectors. What we heard from people loud and clear was that

when their government spoke about the budget in the past, they did not

feel themselves reflected in that budget. The budgets and the numbers

that the previous government talked about did not reflect the life that

British Columbians were living.

[2:20 p.m.]

It did not talk to the young couple who live in my riding who,

despite having gone through a university education and having good jobs,

still could not afford to buy a house. It did not speak to another

couple who could not afford to find child care — not only affordable

child care but just child care, period. It didn’t talk to so many people

who live in Surrey, and in other parts of British Columbia, who are

working in precarious work and to many who are working two or three jobs

just to make ends meet.

When this budget was built, it was built to address the needs of

British Columbians. It was built by putting British Columbians at the

centre of the budget. Government is always about choices, choices that

those sitting in this House make to best serve British Columbians. After

16 years of badly thought-out choices and neglect on this side of the

House, we’ve found that there’s a lot of work to do. We’re ready to do

it, and we have begun.

What that means.... It means starting to invest in people.

Choosing to invest in people means we’re investing in a strong,

sustainable British Columbia. For British Columbians, they have to feel

and they have to live the experience that their government is working

for them. We’re going to put people first. We’re going to make sure that

they have the services they need so that they can raise their

families.

We hear a lot about taxes. I’m not going to get into too much

detail, but you know, we had a government, now sitting in opposition,

that has decimated ICBC. We’ve seen the rate increases, and we’ve seen

what would have happened if they had been re-elected. Once the report

came out, it showed how much money had been taken out of ICBC in order

to give payola to some of their friends and by giving a tax break to the

top 1 percent.

What we are going to do as a government…. Taxes are about

fairness. It’s about paying progressive taxes. It’s about paying taxes

that then provide services for people.

I have never, ever complained about paying taxes. As teacher, I

paid my taxes then, and I pay my taxes now. I’m willing to pay those

taxes, so that the governments that are elected will make sure that we

have the services we need as British Columbians — hospitals, education,

highways and freeways — and make sure that we look after those who

cannot look after themselves.

Because of fairness, we are going to be reversing the

top-income-earners tax break that was given out by the previous

government. Those people will now be paying an additional 2.1 percent on

income over $150,000. That’s what a progressive tax looks like. It

shouldn’t be that those who earn over $150,000 should keep getting more

tax breaks, while the rest of the people keep getting cuts in services.

They get to the stage where they can’t afford to buy a house, can’t

afford to feed their children. That just is not acceptable.

We’re also increasing our corporate taxes, which used to be the

lowest, by a modest 1 percent. You know, the sky is not going to fall.

What this will do…. It still keeps us competitive with Alberta,

Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Our corporations that make huge profits, it’s

only fair that they should pay their fair share of taxes to support

infrastructure and to support services in British Columbia.

We’re also cutting another tax by 50 percent. This is a tax, by

the way, the Liberals, when they were in government, doubled. That’s the

MSP premiums. MSP premiums are going to be cut by 50 percent, and that

is a tax break.

[2:25 p.m.]

It always puzzled me, both when I was a Member of Parliament and

now, and even before that, why it is that British Columbians are the

only ones who have an MSP tax when no other province in this country has

one. That is totally unfair.

Under the Liberal government, we watched the MSP premiums double.

Well, one of the first actions we’ve taken is that we’ll be reducing

those MSP premiums by 50 percent. That means the average person is going

to save $900 per year, $900 that’s going to go back into people’s

pockets so that they can spend it on a roof over their head, on food, on

clothing and maybe even a small holiday. Not very much, but a

beginning.

These MSP premium cuts will also help to support some of our

businesses. There are many businesses that do pay MSP premiums on behalf

of their workers, and this will give them a little bit of a break there

as well.

Something else we’re doing, which hasn’t got a lot of attention,

so I really want to emphasize this: we are actually reducing taxes for

the small and medium-sized businesses. Small businesses are going to see

their taxes reduced by 20 percent. That is right, Members — 20 percent,

from 2½ to 2 percent. That is a tax break we’re giving in recognition of

the fact that it is our small and medium-sized businesses that do grow

our economy. During this time, they’re going to get this tax break so

that we can grow more jobs in communities right across this

province.

As we’re looking at the budget, this budget is also about making

life more affordable in other ways. Housing. Under the previous

government, we’ve seen house pricing escalate to a point where, I would

say, many members sitting in this House, if they did not already own a

house, would find it difficult to qualify for one, at least in the Lower

Mainland. That is a major, major issue, so we have a minister who has

started on developing a comprehensive plan to make housing more

affordable for people, to close speculation loopholes and reduce tax

fraud and money laundering in B.C. real estate.

The opposition had an opportunity to do this, to address these

very, very serious issues when it came to affordable housing. But do you

know what? They decided just to look the other way, and now British

Columbians are paying the price. In this budget update, we’re taking

first critical steps. We’re investing $208 million over four years to

support the construction of more than 1,700 new units of affordable

rental housing in communities right across this province.

Supportive housing units. We’re providing $291 million over two

years to construct 2,000-plus modular supportive housing units for

people who are homeless. These are the kinds of things British

Columbians expect from their government. But that’s only the beginning.

We have far more to come yet.

Poverty reduction. For years and years, we’ve been asking my

colleagues across the way, when they were in government, to come up with

a poverty reduction plan. We know that unless you have a plan, have

targets, it’s very, very difficult to address this issue. We’ve seen

other provinces very successfully address the poverty issue, especially

children living in poverty, because they had a poverty reduction plan

and could deliver on their targets. Now we have a minister and a

parliamentary secretary tasked with finding solutions to reduce poverty

and to develop a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy.

[2:30 p.m.]

We’ve increased, within days of being sworn in, income and

disability assistance by $100 per month. For over a decade, those living

with disabilities on social assistance hadn’t seen a significant change

in their income, and this was the right thing to do to address

that.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Minister, here is another example of mean-spiritedness that

confounds you when you sit in this office or you are out in our

communities. That was when my colleagues across the way took away bus

passes from those living with disabilities. That was just an all-time

low.

It absolutely gives me pleasure to announce that we have

reinstated an allowance for bus passes. We know that mobility and the

ability to get around is so, so significant for those living with

disabilities. It is part of their wellness plan, but it’s also an

essential part of going to pick up your groceries and doing some other

things that need to be done, which many of us take for

granted.

We’re moving forward with a $20 million investment in new child

care spaces. We are so pleased to say that our goal is to support more

than 4,000 new child care spaces. This is only the beginning. I know I

keep hearing: “Where is all of it?” But my colleagues across the way

know, when they were in government, that things don’t just happen by

snapping your finger. You have to plan. You have to have targets. I’m

proud to say that our Finance Minister and the cabinet and the

government has put into place a budget that absolutely has targets and

has goals. We’ve begun to work on that, and we will deliver.

K-to-12 education, Mr. Speaker, as you know, is a topic that is

very, very close to my heart. I am so delighted that in this budget, we

are adding $681 million over the three years to help our kids get the

education they deserve. Instead of fighting with teachers and

educational partners, this government is going to work with teachers,

work with parents, make sure that we have the resources we need and make

sure that the additional teachers — 3,500 of them — will be hired so

that they can deliver the quality education every child

needs.

We’re putting additional money into capital funding to make sure

that we have the schools we need and, also, that the kids have the

resources they need in the schools to learn. After 16 years of cut after

cut after cut to key services for some of our most vulnerable students,

also impacting every student in the school system, we now have a

government that is committed to a quality, public education that is the

foundation of our democracy.

I want to say that I am so looking forward to having our kids in

Surrey move out of portables and into classrooms. I’m looking forward to

the schools actually being built instead of announcement after

announcement of promises that never were quite realized.

Also, I’m delighted that for those who leave school and later on

realize they would like to go back and go for post-secondary or finish

their high school graduation, we have made that tuition free.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, in Surrey, we are very, very concerned

with the whole drug issue — opioids, addictions, health care and the gun

violence that we have experienced. I’m so pleased that our government

has a ministry devoted to mental health and addictions but also that we

are making investments to address those issues.

[2:35 p.m.]

We are not only raising them at the national level, working with

our federal government, but also working with municipalities as to how

we are going to handle these, working with schools and the police and

community organizations to make sure that we address this.

This is a very, very serious issue, and all of us on both sides of

the House know that safety and protection of our citizens is a top

priority. And there is nothing more disconcerting for a community than

to have gunshots going off almost every week.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, we’ve made a commitment to building a

sustainable economy. I always say, if you want to get the nod test, run

it by a kindergarten student. If you were to talk to a kindergarten

student and say, “What should we be taking care of?” they would say

their surroundings. They would talk about the planet. And they actually

do. They teach us so much, because they are so in tune. If you were to

say to them, “Should we be looking after our rivers? Should we be

looking after our ocean? Should we be looking after the air we breathe?”

their answer is going to be yes, every single time.

It’s really good that we focus on a sustainable economy and that

we support innovation, and our government is absolutely committed to

that. And we’re so delighted that we’re supporting job creators, like

Fortinet, which announced just recently a large expansion in Burnaby

with 1,000 new jobs. We are so, so delighted with that. And Mr. Speaker

would appreciate that because, as he knows, that’s in his riding, and he

must be very proud of that job growth.

People deserve a government that works hard to control costs and

spends public money to benefit British Columbians, and that is our goal.

Our budget update includes record levels of capital investments — $40.6

billion in capital spending over the next three years. We’ll build the

schools, hospitals, roads and transit that people rely on.

Coming from Surrey, I have to take a few minutes to talk about

public transit, because in Surrey we know what gridlock looks like. And

by the way, a huge thank-you is heard right across Surrey and south of

Fraser as people do a little dance when they find out — well, they

experience it now — there are no tolls on those two bridges.

We’re looking forward to working with the federal government as we

work on improvements to the transit for Surrey. Because it’s not just

about bridges; it’s also about getting public transit down our major

arterial routes so that people are not spending hours and hours in

gridlock.

Colleagues in this room don’t have to be told that getting people

out of the cars and out of gridlock is a huge saving, not only to the

health sector. Actually, mental health issues are greatly related to

that, but so is output when people get to work. If you spend two hours

sitting in a gridlock, watching your watch and shaking your hand and

head and having some unpleasant thoughts in your head, your focus when

you get to work is not going to be 100 percent on your work. So all

around, it is an economic urgency to get people out of gridlock and to

get people moving.

Also, I’m so proud of the fact that we are creating an innovation

commission which will both advocate and be an ambassador for B.C.’s tech

sector, which has been too long ignored by our colleagues on the other

side.

Our budget update presents a strong, responsible fiscal plan that

puts people first. As I said at the beginning of my speech: government

is all about making choices. We’re going to do this while helping to

ensure the long-run fiscal sustainability of our province.

[2:40 p.m.]

Our balanced budget for 2017-18 includes total spending of $51.9

billion, total revenues of $52.4 billion and a budget surplus of

approximately $246 million — and record levels of capital spending,

which creates good-paying jobs around this province while maintaining a

debt-to-GDP ratio that is affordable.

B.C.’s economy is strong. Employment is growing. Retail sales are

strong. Housing starts and exports have all exceeded expectations. The

outlook for this year’s real GDP growth is 2.9 percent, which is prudent

compared to the outlook provided by the independent Economic Forecast

Council.

I am so proud to be a member of a government whose Finance

Minister has put forward such a well-thought-out budget that has people

as its focus, that delivers services, that addresses affordability and

that is focused like a laser on growing decent-paying jobs in

communities right across this province.

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in this debate on Bill 2, Budget Measures

Implementation Act, 2017. As we know, this bill before us is a bill that

sets the stage — the measures put forward in the budget, in the required

legislative changes — to implement those promises in the

budget.

Now, there is some precedent here for there to be unanimity in

supporting a budget measures implementation act. I take you to March 24,

2015, when the member for Abbotsford West said, after division was

called: “In glorious unanimity, we move to Committee of the Whole

House.” That was after the Budget Measures Implementation Act was

supported unanimously by members of opposition at the time and members

of government at the time.

There is precedent, even though a budget was voted against, to

vote in support of a budget measures implementation act. I’m not so

sure, actually, that the official opposition at the time meant to do

that, but the reality is that there is precedent.

I am interpreting that as a sign of good faith. So I look forward

to this government, who had the bold claim, the audacity to state,

speaker after speaker after speaker, that the B.C. NDP budget is largely

based on what the Liberals had already…. If they truly believe that,

then I look forward to hearing them stand and speak in support of each

and every one of the measures that they had in their original

budget.

As we’ve seen yesterday, as we’ve seen here in the House, it’s a

game for the official opposition. This is not about the formation of

good public policy. It’s about a game. It’s about the quest for power

and the game of politics, not about doing what’s right for British

Columbians.

This is a budget, as reflected in this Budget Measures

Implementation Act, that is people-focused. It’s one that recognized

that after 16 years, it’s time to take a look at what is happening to

everyday British Columbians.

We had — I admit, and I support — a strong economy in British

Columbia. There was a strong economy in British Columbia. Things went

awry in about 2010. It was in 2010 that members opposite, those of them

who were here, decided that they would take this province down a

direction and a quest for the impossible, with promises of, as I’ve said

before, unicorns in each and every one of our backyards.

[2:45 p.m.]

They began the quest and journey to the unimaginable, of bringing

to B.C. a $100 billion prosperity fund, a $1 trillion increase in GDP,

100,000 jobs, elimination of the PST, debt-free B.C., thriving schools

and hospitals because of an LNG industry that was going to bring wealth

and prosperity to all.

I wish I had written down the quotes of the then Minister of

Natural Gas. When I stood in this Legislature and questioned the logic,

questioned the facts, questioned what earth they were living on to think

that this was going to happen, I was told, in essence, and I paraphrase:

“The member opposite doesn’t know what he’s saying. He should do his

research. He doesn’t know what he’s doing. I meet with the companies. I

know what’s going on, and I’m looking forward to the member opposite

eating his words.”

Well, two years later…. It’s almost three years now. I think it’s

the former minister of hot air — sorry, Natural Gas — that should be

eating his words.

The danger of this, which was created by going down this quest, is

it sent a signal to the market — now, I’m going to use good free

enterprise language — that if you want to do business in B.C., it’s LNG

or nothing. I’ve had tech leader after tech leader after tech leader

after developer after business leader after CEO tell me that they were

frustrated since 2010. They were frustrated because in B.C., it was all

about LNG. University presidents, schools — re-engineering our education

system, all for LNG.

For the members opposite, it was a big game. They knew they had no

chance of winning the 2013 election, so they had to throw a Hail Mary

pass, a Hail Mary pass of hope that British Columbians would hang their

hats on. Well, they failed to deliver, and they have the gall to stand

here and suggest that our economy is thriving because of their fiscal

mismanagement.

The reason why our economy is thriving is single. No, it’s not

because of a burgeoning resource sector. Frankly, it’s ironic that

members opposite suggest that they support rural B.C. when communities

in rural B.C. are hurting right now precisely because of their fiscal

mismanagement, because they seem to think that, in British Columbia,

we’re going to compete with Indonesia in just digging dirt out of the

ground. No, we’re not. We compete by being innovative, by bringing

broadband to these communities, by bringing the tech sector to the

resource communities, by working on the value-added — precisely the

measures that are reflected in the Budget Measures Implementation

Act.

It’s ironic. I say to rural British Columbia: “Take a look at what

you’re doing voting in the B.C. Liberals, who have put you in precisely

the position you so want to get out of because of their fiscal

mismanagement.” This is an opportunity we have here today to

reinvigorate rural B.C., whether it be the Cariboo, the Kootenays, the

northwest, the northeast, central B.C., southeastern B.C. or

southwestern B.C.

We get it over here. We get it over here that resource industries

are precious, but we have to compete in a modern economy. That means we

have to bring together the tech and the resource sectors and work and

support the value-added, which that government seemed to think didn’t

need to be done because it’s all about LNG.

Hon. Speaker, you wonder why they’re sitting in a time-out. You

wonder why they’re sitting in a time-out and why so many British

Columbians are so delighted by the arrangement we have now. It’s because

of their reckless fiscal management. They have the gall, as I say, to

try to paint themselves as good managers of this economy.

Our economy is booming. We have strong GDP growth. The reason why

is simple. It’s not resource. It’s because of an out-of-control

speculative housing market, largely driven in Metro Vancouver, and the

construction market associated with that. The members opposite bemoan

the loss of construction jobs. We can’t meet construction job demand

right now because of the irresponsible policies or the lack of stepping

in to deal with an out-of-control real estate market. Condos are being

built and presold to offshore buyers before they’re even built so that

when they’re built, they remain empty because people across the world

recognize, in today’s turbulent times, that they need to find a safe

haven for their capital.

[2:50 p.m.]

There are 7½ billion people on this planet and under five million

in the province of British Columbia. If we talk about the 1 percent,

it’s still an awful lot of millions of people, hundreds of millions of

people. When you’re looking for a safe haven in tumultuous times and you

see a jurisdiction, the Wild West, that has no rules, you look to park

your capital in this jurisdiction. You park your capital in one of the

safest investments a person could ever make — real estate, land,

agricultural land.

What is the consequence of this? That British Columbians who have

lived here, were born here, can’t even afford to live and work in the

place where they were born. That’s not good economic management. That’s

reckless mismanagement that many jurisdictions around the world have

dealt with, years ago, through the introduction of policy measures to

deal with foreign speculation in their market.

Today I introduced another bill. I can’t speak about another bill

here, but today before the House…. As we know, measures have been

proposed by the B.C. Green Party and by the government when they were in

official opposition.

The now official opposition, sitting there in a well-earned

time-out, are going to do so for a very long time, because they looked

at this problem like deer stuck in a headlight and refused to take the

necessary steps. Even when they did, introducing the so-called foreign

buyer tax, they botched it. They botched it by essentially taxing you if

you own a passport. But agricultural land was excluded, so you could

actually move speculation into the ALR.

A foreign entity wasn’t actually described as a partnership, so in

fact you could find a loophole to get away from it there. A foreign

corporation isn’t going to invest. A foreign individual can’t invest.

But if a foreigner gets together with a Canadian or a British Columbian

and forms a partnership, that’s exempt from the foreign buyer

tax.

You can’t make this stuff up, except under a B.C. Liberal

government that has no idea about managing the economy, despite the fact

that they have excellent communications staff — or they did; they used

to — who were able to try to convince or, frankly, con British

Columbians that they are good managers of the economy.

They tried to paint the opposition here as fiscally reckless,

based on the tired narrative of what happened in the 1990s. We talk

about the fast ferry scandal, but instead, we should be talking about

Site C.

Just today we hear — as, again, predictable, and we’ve been saying

for a long time — there will be cost overruns on Site C because the

river diversion is delayed by a year because of the fissure on the north

bank and the geotechnical instability there. Was that foreseeable? Yes.

Is it $8.8 billion now? No way. We’re pushing over $10 billion now, and

it’s going to end up closer to $15 billion, a number — $13 billion to

$15 billion — that I’ve been saying, again, for four years.

The people of British Columbia need to take a hard look at this

government’s record. A government that’s investing their money,

taxpayers’ money, to build a project that’s going to produce power at

something like 13 cents a kilowatt hour, which they have to do to

deliver into contracts to LNG industries that don’t exist. So they’re

going to have to sell it on the U.S. spot market for four cents a

kilowatt hour.

What sort of business model is it, other than a B.C. Liberal

business model, to invest capital — your capital, taxpayer — to develop

a business plan that’s going to lose ten cents for every kilowatt hour

of energy produced?

At the same time, what are the lost opportunities? The lost

opportunities involve things like the collapse of the clean energy

sector in British Columbia, the partnerships with local First Nations

across B.C. that wanted to get going. We’ve got Borealis wanting to get

going near Valemount. We’ve got solar projects in the Kootenays. We’ve

got wind projects on Vancouver Island. We’ve got a Prince Rupert wind

project. But they can’t get going.

This is foreign capital, industry capital, private capital that

wants to be invested in B.C. now, where the industry takes the risk, not

the taxpayer. But again, this is B.C. Liberal economics — use taxpayers’

money, put the taxpayer at risk to subsidize corporations that, in the

case of LNG, don’t even exist. It’s remarkable that they have the gall

to suggest that they’re good managers of the economy.

If we go through the Budget Measures Implementation Act, there are

a few transitional provisions. There are a few changes that need to be

made with the cancelling of tolls. And there is a fundamental

change.

[2:55 p.m.]

I must admit that there is a sense of irony here. An irony that

I’m delighted with is that, again, we’re going to hear speaker after

speaker on the other side rail against the opposition, or the now

government — it’s hard to get used to; it’s very refreshing to say, I

might add, but it’s hard to get used to — about the leadership being

shown on the carbon pricing.

Leadership. That’s what this budget shows. Ironically, members

opposite used to have that leadership. It was their government, under a

leader, somebody who had a vision, that understood the direction and the

opportunity that climate change had, a leader who recognized that by

putting in a carbon price, it was sending a signal to the market —

there’s that free-market, free-enterprise language again — that was

telling business that we want to be clean and green here and we want to

show the world that we’re leaders, and it blossomed.

Again, we’re going to hear this. I’ve already heard one person say

it: “Oh, the carbon tax. Oh, it’s going to kill rural communities.”

Again, fear, fear, fear, when in fact it is precisely those rural

communities that are going to benefit from the carbon tax, as they did

when it was introduced the first time by the B.C. Liberals. How do I

know that? Because I served on the climate action team with the B.C.

Liberals then.

I don’t know how many times I went to communities across the

province and listened to B.C. Liberals talk about the importance of the

carbon tax and how it was not going to hurt rural communities and how it

was going to incentivize innovation in these communities and how First

Nations across the province are going to see the opportunity with clean

energy. And they did.

Now they switch their tone, because there are zero principles over

there — zero principles. It’s all about the game of politics and the

quest for power. So we’re going to hear them rail about carbon — fear to

the taxpayer — when in fact what’s happening here is British Columbia is

once again recognizing that mitigation of climate change is the world’s

greatest economic opportunity, just like other jurisdictions in Taiwan,

in China, in India, in Quebec, in Europe, across the world are

recognizing. They’re not chasing LNG. They’re chasing the new economy,

and this budget sends a signal to market that it’s time to do that again

in B.C.

I can’t tell you the number of people who have been so excited

about this development. I have a never-ending stream of clean energy

folk coming to my office, dismayed by what they’ve had to deal with

since 2010 and excited about the potential now. I’m sure they’re opening

champagne bottles tonight as we find out that the fissure on Site C is

going to create cost overruns. With 70 percent of the contingency

already used up — and we’ve just got the project going — this is going

to be a very, very expensive project, and the evidence we need to stop

it is coming in right now. So to the clean energy industry, I’m excited

that you are going to get the opportunity to actually see your projects

start to move forward again.

I’m going to come to the tolls again. Now, I spoke against the

tolls. We were the only party in the election to say we would not remove

tolls because we thought it was bad policy. We thought it was bad policy

because it sent a message that we’re not willing to toll transportation.

No future infrastructure projects will be built with tolling. The

Pattullo Bridge, which was supposed to be built as a toll bridge, will

now have to be built by other means.

We didn’t think that was good public policy, but we understand

that we were in the minority there because both the B.C. Liberals in the

throne speech — the clone speech, I think it’s being called — and the

B.C. NDP in this throne speech and in their election platform were

consistent in promising it. So we understand it’s going on.

We understand, though, and we’re pleased about the recognition

that mobility pricing in British Columbia at least is going to have a

conversation. The mayors in Vancouver are commissioning reports on this.

The government has said they’re interested in exploring and working with

the mayors.

That’s how policy is built. You gather information, you build it

from the bottom up, you seek support from mayors and communities, and

you move forward. That is why the Massey Tunnel cancellation, or on hold

for further review, is something that we too are so excited to support.

Now, the reason why, of course, is if we just flash back to 2012 — oh,

that magical year 2012 keeps coming up — we were supposed to be moving

forward with a plan to twin the tunnel. But no, no. The Liberals nixed

that and have the gall, once more, to tell British Columbians that

somehow this government is irresponsible by saying that spending $4½

billion on a ten-lane mega-highway that’s going to put the traffic

jam….

An Hon. Member: It’s 2.6.

[3:00 p.m.]

A. Weaver: It’s 2.6? We can challenge the numbers. A member opposite is

saying 2.6. I’ll go check afterwards. The number in my mind was 4.5. I

will withdraw it and correct it to 2.6 if that is indeed the

case.

The reality is that twinning a tunnel is a fraction of that cost —

one. Two is it kicks the traffic jams down to the Oak Street Bridge.

Three, every mayor in the region, except Delta, said: “Let’s not do

this, because we have a transportation plan. This isn’t part of

it.”

The members’ opposite’s response, or at least one of their

responses, was to take out some billboards, in and out of the Massey

Tunnel, thinking that somehow the picture of my face and the Premier’s

face saying…. It’s scary. I admit it’s scary. There are some good smiles

there. Have you seen it? It’s pretty impressive. They say:

“Thanks.”

The members opposite have no idea how many people have written,

phoned, emailed — Facebook, Twitter — and have thanked us for doing

this. I put out a Facebook post, just quickly, and I would

look….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: It’s interesting. I’m glad that I got a reaction now. I’ve got a

reaction now. I’m so excited.

In fact, most of them live south of the Fraser, if you read the

Facebook comments. They want a twinning of the tunnel, because they’re

fiscally responsible.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

A. Weaver: The councillor Harold Steves from Richmond pointed out, through a

approved, which was moving forward to twin the tunnel, which the B.C.

Liberals nixed, which was supported by the Richmond council, which was

supported by the people there because it was cost-effective…. Again, the

gall of members opposite to suggest that somehow it’s fiscally

irresponsible to be fiscally responsible is unbelievable. It’s

unbelievable.

Coming back to the budget measures act. I wish I could look at

electronic devices, because then I’d have my Facebook post here, and I

could tell you that there are more than 20,000 impressions on the post

that I made. In 24 hours, there were more than 500 likes. There was no

boosting of posts. It was just all organic. There were more than 100

comments. It was shared I forget how many times. The overwhelming

response was, “Thank you,” just like the sign said.

It’s pretty clear that since things have changed, there’s been

some suffering in the communications department for the members

opposite, because this has got to be one of the most hilarious failed

smear campaigns I’ve ever seen. I thank the member for Delta South, I

believe it was. I thank him sincerely for, I understand, his role in

putting up the billboards, because it has given us enormous support from

across Metro Vancouver and, in particular, those people who live in and

around Richmond and Delta. Thank you, sincerely, from the bottom of my

heart.

Moving forward, there are a couple of other important measures

here. You know, it’s hard to actually see…. I’m very grateful to the

minister and to the civil service who provided briefing opportunity on

this. That’s

section 15, on the homeowner grant changes, and coupled to

changes later, as well, in terms of the assessment authority’s ability

to allow some exchange of information between these organizations — the

province, essentially, and Ottawa, the CRA, Canada Revenue Agency — for

the purpose of being able to track capital gains.

This is important, because this information was not shared. It was

information requested by the CRA in order to be able to track to see

whether people were paying — based on the assessments, based on the

homeowner grants, claiming that as your principal residence — the

capital gains when they’re supposed to pay the capital gains under

present federal law.

For example, if you claim the homeowner grant under the homeowner

grant and then you sell the property and claim it was suddenly an

investment property and you try to write some of that capital gains off

in one way or another or, if you didn’t claim the homeowner grant and

you claimed that this was your primary residence and you sell that

residence and you don’t pay any capital gains, now the CRA can get you,

because now they have access to that information.

That’s important for putting a clamp on speculation. It’s the same

with the assessment authority. These are really good pieces of

legislation that are being added, in my view.

[3:05 p.m.]

The small increase in tax for the wealthy and the slight increase

in corporate income tax, to 12 percent from 11 percent, obviously, are

supported by the B.C. Greens. We campaigned on precisely these

things.

What it translates to is asking those who can afford it to pay a

little bit more. I’ve talked to thousands of British Columbians over the

campaign, over the years, and let me tell you, this neoliberal idea that

somehow “if tax, then bad,” is not supported by the vast majority of

British Columbians. What they don’t like is a waste of taxpayers’ money.

They don’t mind paying taxes, provided taxes are used efficiently,

appropriately and for helping the better good. Not for helping your

donors but for helping everyone.

People realize that we need to have people go to schools. People

realize that without education, what sort of society are we? People

realize that taxes going to hospitals are important. They believe in

transportation. They don’t think that we should be using public money to

subsidize corporate donors, though. That is why I am so very thrilled

with the budget, as illustrated in some of these measures. It actually

focuses on people in terms of helping them get the help they need at the

stage they need.

The one thing that I caution on, but we do support, of course….

Caution not because it’s not that good policy; caution because of what’s

happening as we increase corporate and reduce small business tax. We are

beginning to create a disincentive for growth. Why I say that is we now

have a step function tax change when you go from small business to

corporate. I believe it’s $500,000 net earnings — correct me if I’m

wrong, someone — and that jump now, from 2 percent to 12 percent, is a

10 percent increase in tax.

We have to be careful, because that says to corporations that are

earning just under the threshold that you don’t necessarily want to get

above the threshold — you don’t want to earn more — because then you’re

going to be taxed more. So this is a caution that I think we need to

start exploring. We need to start exploring about making, perhaps, a

more graduated change so that we don’t disincentivize small businesses

becoming bigger businesses, at the same time recognizing that something

like 98 percent of businesses in British Columbia are small businesses

and they need a break, as they are the engine of our economy.

Coming to some of these bizarre boutique tax credits: the child

fitness tax credit, the B.C. back-to-school tax credit. Now, the B.C.

Liberals laud the praise of these tax credits. Let me tell you what they

actually are.

The back-to-school B.C. tax credit, if you claim it, is $12.65 a

year per child — $12.65. You’re going back to school on $12.65. You

know, with the cuts to education, you might have to take the bus, and

this $12.65 might get you three round trips on the bus. That’s a great

tax credit. How much was it to administer a tax credit of $12.65? I bet

if you look at the numbers, it’s probably costing more to administer

than you’re bringing in.

What about the B.C. children’s fitness equipment tax credit? Guess

how much that was. I’ll see if anyone can guess how much a year you’d

get on the B.C. children’s fitness tax credit. It’s $12.65. The member

for Vancouver–West End has got incredible insight. It’s $12.65. If you

buy a hockey stick, you get $12.65 back.

Now, first off, most people don’t even know that you can do this,

unless you have an accountant. But the government has to actually budget

as if every child is claiming it, so what we create is bizarre systems

where the government’s budget is basically budgeting in a known surplus.

They know that a large number of people aren’t going to collect it, but

they have to have it in the budget. And you have to administer…. It’s

just silly. It’s just silly, and this money could be better used

elsewhere. Obviously, I support those.

Also with the B.C. children’s fitness credit and B.C. children’s

arts credit. Now, I know that those were much more than the $12.65 tax

credit. They were $25.30 a year more. Those are being eliminated because

they’re being eliminated federally. Again, this legislation is

consistent with federal legislation.

[3:10 p.m.]

What’s interesting about the Budget Measures Implementation Act is

the means and ways this is being done. They actually have it entered

into legislation, so the legislation before us brings these credits into

place and then removes them, because they’ve already been claimed in

last year’s tax submissions.

I see that we’re winding down in time here, but please let me say

that I’m absolutely thrilled with this budget. I think British

Columbians are thrilled. I’ve seen it in emails. I’ve seen it on social

media and in phone calls. Everywhere I go, across British Columbia,

people come up and say thank you: “Thank you for putting us first. Thank

you for working with the government to ensure that these people opposite

are put in a time-out.”

They have forgotten what it means to be a hard-working person in

British Columbia. They’ve forgotten what it means to try to make ends

meet. They’ve lost touch with the people. They lost vision. They lost

ideas. They didn’t know their direction. And here they stand in

opposition, trying to suggest that somehow they were good stewards of

the economy.

I think there needs to be some hard soul-searching over there. I

look forward to when their true colours emerge, when we see the new

leader, Ms. Watts, emerge as the new leader of the B.C. conservative

party opposite. Honestly, there’s nothing liberal about the B.C.

Liberals.

T. Wat: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 2, Budget Measures

Implementation Act, 2017.

I find it so intriguing to listen to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon

Head be so critical of the fiscal policy of the previous Liberal

government. I respect his position. Yet I don’t understand why, in the

last four years, when I was in this Legislature…. I remember — correct

me if I’m wrong — that he supported most of our budget.

I wonder why he changed his position. Did he change his position

because he wanted to pursue his aspirations to be part of this NDP

government? I wonder when he will change his position again, when we

become the government. Just wait and see how he changes

position.

On this particular Bill 2, I must say that there are certain

components that I support, such as the cut in MSP and the cut in the

small business tax. Those two tax cuts were included in the February

B.C. Liberal budget. There’s nothing new by the NDP government in

introducing this initiative. They just copied what we had and put it

into their budget.

I have to say that there are many components of the bill that

concern me greatly. There are a lot of young families in Richmond, and

these parents all work so hard to provide for themselves and their

children. We all want to be able to give our children everything in

life, but some families have to do away with the extras if they are

facing financial challenges.

That’s why I cannot understand the changes being made to tax

credits that benefit families, things like — I know that the member for

Oak Bay–Gordon Head does not support this — the children’s fitness tax

credit, the children’s fitness equipment tax credit and the children’s

arts tax credit. They will be eliminated for 2018 and the following

taxation years. These are tax credits that help local kids stay active

and engaged in sports and the arts. Why on earth would this government

want to get rid of them, despite the fact that the NDP is inheriting the

best performing economy in Canada?

What’s more, the B.C. back-to-school tax credit, which was

introduced in February 2017, is continued for the 2016 taxation year

only and eliminated thereafter. It was supposed to be available for the

2016, 2017 and 2018 tax years, as per the February 2017 fiscal plan. It

helps parents with the costs of purchasing school supplies, but the NDP

are getting rid of it. Another questionable decision.

[3:15 p.m.]

Next I want to touch on the hike to personal income tax. The

Income Tax Act is amended to include a new top personal income tax

bracket with a higher rate of taxation, starting in 2018. The income

threshold for this bracket is set at $150,000 and is subject to a

provincial income tax rate of 16.8 percent. Before it was 14.7 percent.

So there is a big jump for those individuals.

I want to present a quote from the Fraser Institute, which is

raising concerns about this tax hike. The organization said: “Put

simply, the personal income tax rate hike will make B.C. less

competitive for attracting and retaining highly skilled workers such as

entrepreneurs, business professionals, engineers” — or the high-tech

people — “and scientists, as the evidence shows higher tax rates play a

role in the decision-making of high-skilled workers on where to live and

work.”

We already see signs of highly skilled entrepreneurs, business

professionals, engineers, high-tech professionals, doctors and

scientists leaving B.C. for other places that are offering more

competitive income tax rates. The other side is talking about promoting

our high-tech industry. How are we going to attract all those skilled

professionals to the high-tech industry?

Keeping taxes low is an essential part of maintaining a

competitive tax environment to attract investment, create jobs and

continue to grow B.C.’s economy. Unfortunately, we see more and more

examples of the NDP chipping away at B.C.’s competitive

advantage.

The Income Tax Act is also amended to increase the general

corporate income tax rate from 11 percent to 12 percent. That means B.C.

is going from having the lowest corporate income tax rate across the

provinces to being tied with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba for the

fourth-highest general corporate income tax rate. Perhaps most troubling

is that it sends a message to investors and business that it’s going to

be more expensive to do business in British Columbia. And again, it

means we risk losing our competitive advantage over our western

provinces.

Alberta and Saskatchewan will now be attracting B.C. business to

their land. I’m deeply concerned that B.C. workers might soon lose their

jobs and have to leave B.C. for other provinces. Remember what happened

in the ’90s, the so-called ten-year disaster. Thousands and thousands of

British Columbians had to leave B.C. because they didn’t have a

job.

The corporate income tax rate increase is also not good for

consumers because we know that higher taxes are always passed along to

them. And you know where else the consumer will feel the pinch? At the

gas pump, because the Carbon Tax Act is amended to increase carbon tax

rates substantially. Starting April 1, 2018, the carbon tax rates are

increased by $5 per tonne of carbon dioxide–equivalent emissions

annually until rates are equal to $50 per tonne on April 1,

Under the previous B.C. Liberal government, British Columbia was

the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a revenue-neutral

carbon tax. British Columbians are so proud of such an innovative

initiative. In November 2016, the United Nations awarded B.C. one of the

13 Momentum for Change Awards in recognition of our revenue-neutral

carbon tax. In a December 2014 speech, World Bank president Jim Yong Kim

praised B.C.’s Carbon Tax Act as one of the most powerful examples of

carbon pricing.

Now

Part 2 of the Carbon Tax Act is repealed. That means the

principle of revenue neutrality and the requirement to prepare the

carbon tax report and plan will no longer apply. So the act will

essentially be silent on any requirement for reporting, as no other

requirement for reporting is substituted. Although the Finance Minister

insists that taxpayers will receive a reporting out and know how their

additional dollars will be spent, we will see about that.

The result of this NDP tax hike is that the costs will be passed

on to consumers and business. The increase, through the carbon tax, will

see an estimated $500 million out of the pockets of taxpayers over the

next three years, which hardly makes life more affordable.

[3:20 p.m.]

When we consider all of these different tax increases, you have to

wonder why they are even needed, considering the NDP are so lucky as to

have inherited the best-performing economy in Canada, as confirmed by

the Auditor General’s latest report near the end of August: five

consecutive balanced budgets, a $2.7 billion budget surplus and a

triple-A credit rating — the only province other than Saskatchewan to

enjoy this rank.

I worry because the NDP have no concrete plan to grow jobs or to

grow the economy, and they simply do not know how to create jobs or to

grow the economy. The only thing they know how to do is to hike the tax

to pay for their expensive promises. I think that’s a dangerous

direction for us to be heading in, and that’s why I cannot support this

bill. It puts all of the things we’ve been so proud of in the past at

risk.

As a result of the B.C. Liberal government’s strong fiscal

discipline, B.C. families generally have one of the lowest overall tax

burdens in Canada, yet already we see the NDP raising taxes for those

making $150,000 or more, and from the September budget update, we

already see that any room that has been created by the number one

economy in Canada has been used up. So if the NDP intend to keep the

rest of their promises, and they have no plan to grow jobs or to grow

the economy, we are left to wonder if there might be further tax hikes

along the way.

Another point of pride for the previous government was keeping

business taxes low, which is an essential part of maintaining a

competitive tax environment to attract investment, to create jobs and to

continue to grow B.C.’s economy. But that’s clearly not a priority of

this NDP government, especially when the now Premier said in 2011: “The

lowest tax jurisdiction in North America is not something we should

strive for. Why wouldn’t we strive to be the middle tax jurisdiction in

North America?”

As my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson stated so eloquently,

I don’t understand why the Premier wants to strive for the middle of the

pack. Why he doesn’t want to be the top, the number one? It seems that

the Premier doesn’t get it.

Finally, B.C. received global recognition after being the first

jurisdiction in North America to introduce a revenue-neutral carbon tax,

but now the ending of revenue neutrality is a move that will absolutely

harm business and consumers in our province. I know that the Minister of

Health and the Minister of Citizens’ Services kept saying that this is a

choice the NDP government has to make. That’s a choice they make to

drive away business, to drive away investment. That will eventually lead

to job losses, and that’s what happened in the ’90s. I have to remind

British Columbia about what happened in the ’90s — the ten-year

disaster.

All of these measures are sowing the seeds of uncertainty in this

province and sending a negative signal to investors. So with all of this

in mind, as the critic for Trade, I reiterate once again that I cannot

support this bill or the tax hikes and the negative impacts on

consumers, on business and B.C.’s reputation that come with

it.

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s my pleasure to get up today on my feet and speak to this

bill, speak to the budget implementation act. I think it’s just really

important to remember that we just came out of an election, and people

were really clear. They were really clear that they were seeking a

government that represented people. It’s really important that we as a

government respond to what people want. It’s really important to have

people at the centre of our politics and to actually have people at the

centre of this place. I want to remind all the members of this House

that this is the people’s House.

The bill that we’re speaking to speaks to making sure that people

have the kinds of things that they need to have a life that works for

them. So we’re making life more affordable. We’re improving the services

that people can count on and creating good jobs for people throughout

the province.

For too long, people couldn’t get the services they needed. They

couldn’t, and can’t, afford to live here. It’s time to fix some of those

problems by putting people first, because that’s what is good for

families, that’s what is good for the communities, and that’s what is

good for the province.

[3:25 p.m.]

We do know that there was a Liberal government here for 16 years,

and life had gotten harder and harder for people over those years. So

it’s time for us to really pay attention to what’s good for people and

what’s going to make a difference. This budget update is just some of

the first steps — the first steps to change the tide, to change the tide

on affordability, to change the tide on services and to make sure that

the kinds of jobs that people need to live a robust and full life are

available for them, that they can participate in the economy.

Our economy needs to be a place where everyone can participate —

not just a few people can participate, but everyone can participate. We

know that when everyone can participate in the economy, the economy

itself is better. People who have the kinds of jobs that allow them to

pay the bills, to pay for their housing, to pay for their hydro, to pay

for their car insurance and to pay for the kinds of things that they

need to have lives, and to have some money left over at the end of the

day — that money is going to go right back into the economy, and that’s

good for British Columbia.

When we talk about this bill, we’re talking about taxes and tax

fairness. We’re asking people at the top to pay a little bit more,

because it’s really important that we have an opportunity for everyone

to get the services they need, for everyone to have affordable living

and for everyone to be able to participate in the economy. When you have

your top income earners paying a little bit more, it provides us with an

opportunity to do just that.

We know that the previous government gave those top earners a

break. That was important to them because those are the same people who

were also funding their election campaign, so we know what that was

about. This is really important — that we make sure that we have a tax

system that is fair and a tax system that works for everyone.

We’ve also increased the corporate taxes by just a modest 1

percent. This is keeping us competitive with the western

provinces.

We’re also cutting MSP in half. Now, remember, the previous

government kept increasing MSP every year. It just kept going up and up

— ten times.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the Minister of Education for reminding me. I lost

track of how many times that tax kept going up.

Let’s be really clear. It’s a tax, and a flat tax at that. It

didn’t matter if you were making $40,000 a year or $400,000 a year. You

paid the same tax. Well, those days are over. It’s time to roll it back

so that we have an opportunity to make sure that’s addressed, that the

unfairness…. That’s what that was. That was an unfair tax. We’ve

addressed that unfairness in this bill.

The other thing we’re doing is lowering the small business tax

rate from 2½ percent to 2 percent, because we heard from small

businesses that they needed some help. So we’re responding. We’re

responding, because we know that they work hard. We know that they put

in long hours, and we know that they want to be able to pay their

employees a living wage. So we’re making it easier for them to thrive,

because it’s really important to us.

It’s really important to the people on this side of the House that

they have a government that is on their side, that is working for the

people, because it’s time that we put people in the centre of

politics.

I want to take a few moments to talk about making life more

affordable for British Columbians. It’s so critical. It’s so hard. I

mean, I certainly remember when my kids were younger, and I was getting

started in my career. There were so many difficult decisions to make

about making sure that I could pay my mortgage, that I could pay my

taxes, that I could pay for child care, that I could pay for all those

things that I needed.

Sometimes, at the end of the month, there was nothing left. It was

a time in my life when I didn’t even get haircuts. I didn’t get new

clothes, because there just wasn’t anything left. That’s so hard. That’s

so hard on the psyche.

It’s also really hard when you have to start making other kinds of

choices, where you have to start saying, “Do I get all of my medication

this month? I don’t know if I’ll be able to also pay my property tax

bill,” or, “I don’t know if I’ll be able to make rent.”

That’s part of what we’ve seen. We’ve started to see real

challenges, where people are making very, very difficult choices that

affect the quality of their life, and I’m not talking about whether or

not they’re going to take their third vehicle and be able to get

insurance for it. We’re talking about whether or not they have enough

money at the end of the month to pay for transit that’s going to get

them to their doctor’s appointments.

[3:30 p.m.]

We have a serious situation here, particularly around housing

affordability. I just want to say that our government has taken some

initial first steps to address some of those challenges. I’m very proud

that we’re working on a comprehensive plan to address housing

affordability.

We know that we need to address not just supply but also demand

and what’s creating some of those challenges on the demand side. The

previous government chose to play a sort of whack-a-mole. They would see

some challenge around some speculation, so rather than take a

comprehensive look, they would just throw something on that hole where

the speculators were showing up. Then, lo and behold, they would show up

at another hole and another opportunity, so you’d jump in on that one.

You’d just play this game of whack-a-mole.

Our government is taking a more thoughtful approach and a

comprehensive approach. We are putting together a comprehensive housing

strategy and making sure that we pay attention to all of the levers and

to all of the opportunities to address speculation, to address tax

fraud, to reduce tax fraud and money laundering and to address the

speculation loopholes so that we can stop playing whack-a-mole and

actually just sort of cover off the holes.

We’re also taking a look at the supply side. We’ve already started

the first critical steps in addressing some of those challenges. We have

made an announcement of $208 million over four years to support the

construction of more than 1,700 units of affordable rental housing in

communities right across this province. I know that that’s welcome news

to many renters and to many people in our community who are really

struggling to find housing and to make sure that they are living within

their means.

We know that many, many renters are paying more than 50 percent of

their income to housing and that that’s not sustainable. It’s not

sustainable for them as individuals, and it’s not sustainable for an

economy. We know that when people are pouring all of their resources

into housing, there is nothing left at the end the month for them to do

the things that keep our economy going. We’ve also made an announcement

to provide over $290 million over two years to construct 2,000 modular

supportive housing units for people who are homeless.

I know that the hon. Speaker is well aware, and I know that

everybody in the House is well aware, of how homelessness has sort of

taken over many communities. Here in Victoria, it’s a significant

challenge. Throughout Vancouver, we see those challenges. But we’re also

seeing it in Maple Ridge, in Surrey, in Terrace and in Smithers. There

are communities all throughout our province.

This has been happening for many, many years. Our government is

committed to addressing the problems now. These 2,000 units of modular

housing are going to make a significant difference in the lives of those

people. But what’s really important to acknowledge is that what’s coming

with those housing units is not just a roof over someone’s head. It’s an

opportunity to have a home.

Someone asked me, as I was describing them…. They said: “Will they

be able to bring their buggies, their shopping carts, with them?” And

you know what? They won’t need them anymore, because they’re going to

have a place to put their stuff. That’s what the difference is between

having a shelter system, which is what the previous government

preferred, and our preference, on this side of the House, to give people

a home. That’s really what they need.

What’s more is that we’re wrapping it with services. People are

homeless not because they don’t want to live in a structure or they

don’t want a roof over their head. We know that more than half of those

people are living with mental illness and addictions. They need

services. They need supports. If we don’t provide those, we’re not going

to be able to get a handle on this.

It’s really important that we have the opportunity to wrap

services around people, to support them so that they can stabilize, so

that they can get the medication, the counselling or the opportunities

to participate in the economy, the opportunities to have a stability

that will allow them to find some work and allow them to move into other

kinds of housing that will better meet their needs as they stabilize.

That’s what it means to have a comprehensive housing strategy. It’s to

take a look at the whole picture, — not just piecemeal, not just to

throw money at something to see what sticks, but the whole

picture.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

That’s something that I’m very proud of. It’s something that we

have to do in order to get a handle on this.

When it comes to improving services, which is something that has

been a real challenge over the last number of years…. I see my colleague

over here, the new Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

[3:35 p.m.]

I want to just tell a story about why it’s so important that we

improve services. I want to tell the story about a young man who came

into my office and who was high on fentanyl. This was a year ago August.

He was desperate for service, and his mom was desperate for him to get

service.

He came to my office because I had spoken to his mom earlier that

week, and I’d said: “Listen, in my previous life I was a counsellor.

Maybe he’d be willing to come and talk to me.” Lo and behold, he showed

up. He showed up pretty fidgety and then sort of sleeping and

slumbering, because he was high. I was like: “Okay, we’ve got to get him

into service.”

He said: “I hate myself. I hate my life. I hate who I’ve become.”

I have to tell you, hon. Speaker, he smelled a little ripe. It’d been

some days since he’d had a shower. And he was talking about picking up

cigarette butts off of the ground and smoking them and how disgusted he

was. His self-loathing was palpable.

I said: “Okay. Well, when was the last time you ate?” He said: “I

don’t know.” So we got him some food. The first thing we did was we got

him some food. As he was eating, we called his mom. I got her on the

phone, and I said, “I want you to know that your son is here in my

office,” and this woman wept. She just wept with relief, because she had

tried to find services for her son. She tried, and she tried, and she

couldn’t get the system to work for her. She couldn’t get the system to

work for her son.

Now, this young man had been a good student. He’d graduated. He

was an athlete. He was a cyclist, mountain biker. His introduction to

painkillers was when he broke a leg, and he liked the painkillers. They

were really good. A doctor prescribed 250 of them, and he became

addicted. It destroyed their family, and it destroyed this young man.

Here he was four years later, full of self-loathing and full of

self-disgust.

I thought: “Okay. Well, it can’t be that hard to get him into the

system. I used to be a counsellor. I’m an MLA now. I’m going to find him

a resource.” So I went on line. He was dozing now. He was fed and

satiated, and his mom was fine. I said: “We’re going to find him

something.” I went on line, and I couldn’t find anything. It wasn’t

clear.

I thought: “Okay. I’m a resourceful person. I’m going to pick up

the phone. I know people in the counselling field, and I’m going to make

phone calls.” I managed to reach out to our local addiction services

provider, and I said: “So, how do we get this young man, who is high in

my office, who needs a shower, who needs a safe place to be, who is

saying, ‘I want to change. I want this to be different….’ What do we

do?”

She said: “Well, you need to get him on the list for detox.” So I

said: “Okay. Well, how do we do that?” It’s like, okay, let’s call

detox. So we called detox, and they said: “We don’t have any room.” I

was like: “Okay then. So what are we going to do?”

He couldn’t go home, because he was high and it was too disruptive

to this family. There were younger children at home, so it wouldn’t have

been appropriate, because he lashes out when he’s coming down and gets

really itchy for finding something to use. So we strategized, and we

said: “Okay, well, let’s get him on the list.” They said: “Well, you can

get him on the list. It might be the next day or the day after.” So what

are we going to do? If we’ve got two days, what are we going to do for

two days?

We managed to the contact the youth shelter downtown. The name

eludes me right now, if anyone remembers.

S. Chandra Herbert: Covenant House.

Hon. S. Robinson: Covenant House. Thank you very much, Member from the West

End.

Covenant House said: “Well, our doors open at eight o’clock” — or

ten o’clock — “so he can come then, and we have a space for

him.”

It was like, oh, thankfully, we could get him somewhere. By this

time, it was, I don’t know, one o’clock in the afternoon. So we needed

to keep this young man busy and keep him from using until about ten

o’clock that night.

I called up his mom, who is a teacher. It turns out this was

summer, so she wasn’t working. She said, “You know, I could come and get

him. We’ll get him a shower. We’ll get him some fresh clothes, and I

will drive him around” — just drive, for eight hours; keep him in the

car, keep moving, so that he can’t bolt — “and get him to Covenant

House.”

That was five hours of my day to make all of that happen. Now, I

don’t think anyone would call that good service. No one would call that

good service. So this….

Interjections.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Sorry? Oh, good MLA service. But it wasn’t good service, and I’m

doing the job that I would like to believe that anybody here in the

House would do.

This is not a story about me. This is a story about people needing

services, and they were just not around. Our government is committed….

This budget is about making sure that those services are there. I’m very

proud to be the first province in the nation that would have a minister

dedicated to mental health and addiction. If we don’t get a handle on

this, our children are going to continue to die. They’re going to

continue to die.

I would love to tell you that this story has a happy ending. We

did manage…. It took a lot of work, a lot of effort and a lot of phone

calls to get him from Covenant House and into detox, to get him into a

treatment centre. It wasn’t seamless. I had to intervene at every step.

I had to push. I had to challenge. I didn’t threaten, because I don’t

believe in threatening, but it just got to the point where…. This is a

young man who has his entire life ahead of him. He’s 22 years old. He

has an opportunity to grow up to be an old man. If we don’t get services

to him, he will be a dead man.

Having to fight every step of the way is not right. I’m proud of

the steps that we’re taking to make sure that we are a seamless system.

It is critical for young people like this that we make sure they get the

supports they need when they need them.

I’m going to just finish off that little story because I think

people need to understand that this is hard work, and it’s going to take

a lot of effort on behalf of a lot of people. It’s another example of

where the system is incomplete. Even though we were able to push through

and get him things that he needed and he was stable for eight months,

that still wasn’t enough. When he got out…. He was on Suboxone, and

Suboxone was working for him. He was working. He’s a strong man. He has

a good work ethic. He was working. And he’s charming. That’s the thing

that was, through all of this…. A charming young man.

What was heartbreaking was that there were no follow-up supports

for him after. When he wanted to go into a recovery house — and there’s

no plan, no system of recovery houses — he was told that he couldn’t be

on Suboxone because they’re clean houses. So he said: “I’m not ready to

go off Suboxone. It’s working for me. I am not craving fentanyl. I’m not

going out on the street. I am not engaging in that self-loathing

behaviour. I’m not picking up cigarette butts off the floor. I am eating

properly. I am doing good self-care. I am working. But I need to have

people who aren’t using around me.”

He was looking for community. Everywhere he turned, they were what

they call “clean houses.” Suboxone was not considered a medication in

those houses. So he didn’t stay, because he wanted to stay on the

Suboxone. Things fell apart because he didn’t have community. The system

failed, and I would argue that we failed.

Here we have a new government, and this new government is taking

on the challenge of making sure that services are there for people. This

budget is about that. It’s about making sure that young men like this

one have the opportunity to become full adults and to become old

men.

I’m very proud of the fact that we are making sure that we have a

$265 million increase to the Ministry of Health that’s going to address

this fentanyl emergency.

I’m very proud of the fact that we are providing $681 million over

three years to help get our kids the education they deserve. It’s the

education that they need. People will think of this as a social

investment, and I agree. It’s absolutely a social investment. It’s also

an economic investment. If our children can’t learn, if our children

can’t read, if our children can’t think critically, then they’re not

ready to participate in the economy.

Why would any government ever hold back on education? Why would

any government ever hold back on adult basic education, like the

previous government? I just can’t understand that. I’m still agog at

that decision. Our government has made a different decision, a decision

to invest in people. It’s people that drive the economy. It’s people

that make life better for their families. It’s people that actually

strengthen our communities. That’s what this budget is all

about.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’m also proud of our investment in child care. Again, while many

people will think of child care as a social investment…. And it is. I do

believe that it’s good to have child care that meets the needs of

children, that provides them with the opportunity to learn. It

absolutely has to be safe and accessible, and it also needs to be

affordable. But it’s also an investment in the economy. Because when we

have both parents participating in the economy, the economy is more

robust, and it’s also more resilient.

Certainly, in my life as a family therapist, I come across

families that are struggling, where they have one parent staying at

home. They’re struggling financially. It creates tension in the

relationship, because they could only manage one income because child

care just isn’t available or it’s unaffordable, so it creates these

financial pressures. If they had access to affordable child care, then

they would have two people in the economy. It would reduce some of the

pressures on the family, and they would have more money to spend in the

economy. So it really is a good investment for our community and for our

province.

The other thing that I think is really interesting to speak to is

the non-traditional support for investing in child care and

non-traditional support for investing in housing. I want to give kudos

to the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. About 18 months ago they came

out with a very good report about the importance of investing in these

things because it’s good for the economy. And I’m very proud of having a

government that’s making these investments, recognizing their social

value but also recognizing the importance of investing here so that the

economy is more robust going forward.

These investments are going to be playing out not just

immediately, but they’re going to be playing out for the next 20, 30, 40

years, and if we don’t make those investments now, our children and our

grandchildren are going to be the ones that pay the price. So I’m very

proud of our government’s commitment to start that process now so that

we have these good investments in the long term.

Our government is also going to be building schools, hospitals,

transit and transportation infrastructure because not only will they

create healthy communities, but they also do create jobs, and those

infrastructure projects are very important. The other thing I really

like about this — and I’m just going to go back to the fact that I’m a

family therapist, and you don’t really ever walk away from your first

career; it sort of stays with you — is that these are projects that are

going to happen throughout the province.

What that means is that there are going to be jobs throughout the

province. It always breaks my heart when I work with families when dad

or mom, but it’s usually dad, has to go away for three weeks and comes

back. Three weeks out, one week back. It’s hard on the family. It’s hard

on the kids. It’s hard on the adults, as a parent. We have many in this

House who have to leave our children, and that’s hard. I mean, you get

used to it, but it’s hard on families, and I’m proud of our commitment

to build infrastructure projects throughout the province so that there

are local jobs, so that people can go home at night. That’s good for

people, and that’s good for families.

I’m also very proud of the fact that we’re creating an innovation

commission, which will advocate and be an ambassador for the B.C. tech

sector, and an emerging economy task force. They’re going to be looking

at made-in-B.C. solutions to look at how government can encourage

innovative and sustainable industries to drive economic growth into this

current century.

It’s really interesting. I believe that government’s job here is

to facilitate the growth of the economy, to be at the forefront and to

bring the players together to make sure that we’re ready, that we’re

poised. When you invest in communities, when you invest in families,

when you invest in children, and when you invest in the initial steps,

then the rest of it follows.

It’s really interesting that everyone’s all atwitter about Amazon

and the fact that they’ve got 50,000 jobs to bring to a community. I

would really like to see it come to B.C. But when you don’t make sure

that you have your housing affordable, when that’s out of whack, then it

becomes a barrier to that economic investment. It becomes a barrier to

that opportunity. We have to make sure that we address these pieces to

make sure that we’re ready for the next phase, whatever that might look

like.

[3:50 p.m.]

I’m really proud that we’re paying attention to all of these

pieces, because each of them is another lever, another opportunity for

us to grow as a province, to make sure that we are ready for what comes

next.

We are also moving forward to phase out the provincial sales tax

on electricity. That’s going to be helping B.C. businesses compete while

also encouraging a transition to low-carbon energy sources, like

electricity. This is a real opportunity. We’ve been hearing really good

things. We know that it’s a good thing not just for our environment, but

it’s really good for business. It provides them with an opportunity to

transition over, and it allows them to invest those dollars that they

would normally be paying. So that’s another opportunity to move

forward.

I’m really very pleased about the steps that we’re taking — this

initial budget update. It presents a strong, responsible fiscal plan

that really does put people first. It also helps to ensure, in the long

run, that we have fiscal sustainability and responsible investment —

investment that makes us better.

I’m proud of our balanced budget for 2017-2018. It’s a total

spending of $51.9 billion, total revenues of $52.4 billion, a forecast

allowance of $300 million, a bu