Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 9, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 288

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Supply Motions

Reports of resolutions from Committee of Supply

Hon. K. Conroy

Funds granted for public service

Hon. K. Conroy

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates)

Hon. K. Conroy

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates)

Hon. K. Conroy

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 9 — Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates)

P. Milobar

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates)

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2023 (continued)

A. Singh

S. Furstenau

P. Milobar

B. Banman

M. Bernier

D. Davies

D. Clovechok

T. Halford

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 2 — National Day for Truth and Reconciliation Act

Bill 3 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2023

Bill 4 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2023

Bill 6 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 5)

Bill 7 — Land Owner Transparency Amendment Act, 2023

Bill 8 — Real Estate Services Amendment Act, 2023

Bill 9 — Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates)

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2023 (continued)

T. Halford

G. Kyllo

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport (continued)

B. Stewart

Hon. L. Popham

T. Wat

T. Halford

J. Sturdy

A. Olsen

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2023

The House met at 1:04 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In Committee A, I call continued debate on main estimates for the Ministry

of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

In the main House, I call for the consideration of reports and resolutions

from the Committee of Supply.

[1:05 p.m.]

Supply Motions

REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS FROM

COMMITTEE OF

SUPPLY

Hon. K. Conroy: I move:

[That the reports of Resolutions from the Committees of Supply on

March 2, 6, 7 and 8 be now received, taken as read and agreed

to.]

Motion approved.

FUNDS GRANTED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Hon. K. Conroy: I move:

[That there be granted to His Majesty, from and out of the

consolidated revenue fund, the sum of 2 billion, 715 million dollars

towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the

Province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023. This sum is in

addition to that authorized to be paid under

Section 1 of the Supply

Act, 2022–2023 .]

Motion approved.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — SUPPLY ACT, 2022–2023

(SUPPLEMENTARY

ESTIMATES)

Hon. K. Conroy presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary

Estimates).

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the said message and the supplementary estimates

accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of Supply.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: I’m just turning to the Clerks here for a moment.

Hon. K. Conroy: In keeping with the practice of this House, the supply bill will

be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. For greater clarity, the question is first

reading of Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates).

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: Now I’ll say, hon. Speaker, it is the intention of the government

to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

Bill 9, Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates), introduced,

read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading

forthwith.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — SUPPLY ACT, 2022–2023

(SUPPLEMENTARY

ESTIMATES)

Deputy Speaker: We’ll pause while the bill gets circulated to all members that

would require it to read it.

[1:10 p.m.]

We will resume shortly. We’re just waiting for the bill to make

sure that it gets to all electronically who might not be here to receive

it.

[1:15 p.m.]

All right, Members. In keeping with the practice of this House,

the supply bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one

sitting.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 9 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 9 be committed to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration forthwith.

Bill 9, Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates), read a

second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 9 — SUPPLY ACT, 2022–2023

(SUPPLEMENTARY

ESTIMATES)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 9;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 1:16 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill 9,

Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates).

On clause 1.

P. Milobar: I wasn’t going to actually speak at committee stage, but the

Government House Leader seemed to want to jump the gun here.

I thought it would be important for the public to understand that

this is a routine, moving this supply bill through as quickly as it is

today, because it has not really been quickly. We’ve dealt with these

issues all during supplemental estimates, which have garnered much

attention, in terms of how the opposition has or hasn’t been

voting.

I want to make it very clear that although, with the concepts

contained within this bill, the opposition doesn’t take issue, we do

take issue with the lack of process, lack of detail, lack of government

ability to explain some basic premises on how this will be distributed,

how it will be tracked. This is $2.715 billion, after all, that we are

talking about. This is not a small sum of money to be added to the

expenditures of the government from taxpayers.

I wanted to make that abundantly clear out there, as it relates to

clause 1 in this bill. I guess it’s more of a more of a statement than a

question, but I thought it important before we do the final vote or two

on this bill, as it proceeds through.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:19 p.m.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

[1:20 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — SUPPLY ACT, 2022–2023

(SUPPLEMENTARY

ESTIMATES)

Deputy Speaker: The question is third reading.

Division has been called.

[1:25 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.]

Bill 9, Supply Act, 2022–2023 (Supplementary Estimates), reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the

following division:

YEAS — 44

Anderson

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D’Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Elmore

Furstenau

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Olsen

Osborne

Paddon

Popham

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

NAYS — 24

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Oakes

Paton

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Tegart

Wat

Deputy Speaker: We’ll just take a moment to let the House breathe, so to speak,

and then we’ll return to the House Leader.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main House, I call continued debate on Bill 10.

Deputy Speaker: There’s another committee that needs to sit, and I believe the

Government House Leader is going to appoint it.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In Committee A, I call continued debate on the main estimates for

the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

Deputy Speaker: Now we’re returning back to the bill.

[1:35 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2023

(continued)

A. Singh: I’m happy to stand up and speak about the Budget Measures

Implementation Act, which is very self-explanatory. It implements the

budget that our wonderful Minister of Finance introduced the other day.

It’s quite a hefty bill, about 130 pages, 185 sections. I’m not going to

go through the sections one by one.

Interjection.

A. Singh: I will absolutely do it if you want me to, but I can see the

restraint there.

So again, Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act, is

essentially a vehicle by which the budget is implemented, how the

government implements the budget. One thing that did strike me was — I

don’t know if anyone else noticed — on the title paper, now it says:

“Fourth Session, Forty-second Parliament, 1 Charles III.” When I first

saw that, I was just struck by that, because it is a change.

Like I said, what the act does is provide a vehicle for

implementing the budget.

Section 5, the Carbon Tax Act…. For all of the

wonderful things that there are in the budget concerning health, the

environment, public safety, housing, all of those things, advancing

British Columbia’s sustainable economy, furthering our phenomenal

CleanBC plan…. Almost $1.4 billion in the new operating capital funding

over the fiscal plan.

This budget sets the absolute groundwork for a greener, more

sustainable future powered by good-paying jobs, holistic management of

our natural resources, which belong to all British Columbians, healthy

and active communities, reducing emissions, responding to a changing

climate and, ultimately, partnership with Indigenous people.

This is coming, obviously, at a very key time. As I’ve said here

before, I started speaking about the environment a long time ago, back

in the ’80s, speaking about our emissions and what we were doing to our

world at that time. No one really…. Very few people were paying

attention at that point.

I think the world has changed substantially, not fully but

substantially. We’re not fully there yet, but the world has changed

substantially. You can’t avoid it now. We are in a climate emergency.

We’ve seen that firsthand with the heat dome, with the atmospheric

river, with what’s happening here in British Columbia, and also around

the world — air pollution poisoning our rivers and waters everywhere. So

it’s really…. To me, $1.4 billion in new operating and capital funding

is welcome. This is a beginning. We can always do more, but you have to

start somewhere.

The focus of the budget and the focus of this whole plan is skills

for jobs of the future. We can’t keep on going back and looking at the

industries of 50 years, 100 years ago. There are some phenomenal new

technologies coming up. They won’t come around tomorrow or the day

after, but just yesterday I….

The House will be surprised to know that my background actually

isn’t originally in law. I originally went to university to study

physics.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

If people are going to have a side conversation, could they step

outside, please?

Please continue.

A. Singh: I grew up as a physics nerd and went to university to pursue an

undergraduate degree at the University of California, Berkeley in

physics. Just yesterday or the day before yesterday, I was reading about

some phenomenal…. Two new discoveries that, in the future, could have an

enormous impact on technology.

One is a bacteria that creates an enzyme that takes hydrogen out

of the air and creates electricity. Obviously, that’s at a very, very

experimental level right now.

Then the second, which has a huge impact for our electrification.

Scientists have now managed to create a superconductor that you don’t

have to cool. It can be pressurized, which is much easier, and that has

some fantastic implications. Alas, they probably won’t come around for a

few years, but that has some impressive implications for the future —

for the future of electrification, for magnetic travel, for all sorts of

things.

[1:40 p.m.]

I won’t go into that now, but what this budget does is it lays the

groundwork for that, for the skills for the jobs of the

future.

B.C.’s people are key to building a strong, sustainable economy,

with more than one million jobs — this is what we’re expecting —

anticipated over the coming decade. Our Future Ready plan is there to

ensure that everyone that comes here has the opportunity to learn new

skills and secure good-paying jobs that will support them, their

communities and their families for the future, and that we’re ready to

respond to the biggest challenge that we’ve heard from people, from

businesses: the need for more people in industries.

Budget 2023 lays out $480 million, almost half a billion dollars,

over three years to support Future Ready’s work to break down barriers

to post-secondary training, so more people can get the training they

need for in-demand careers, and employers can access the talent that

they need for the future that’s coming.

The Future Ready plan also includes initiatives such as a new

grant for short-term skills training, which will help people get the

relevant skills and training that they need to succeed in good-paying,

high-demand jobs. These are the jobs of the future. There’s also new

funding to assist small and medium-sized businesses in finding and

implementing practical solutions to current labour market challenges and

preparing for a changing economy.

There will be more opportunities for Indigenous peo­ples,

including funding to support Indigenous-led programs, such as a new

guardian training program that will be co-developed with Indigenous

peoples, and also creating thousands of new training seats for in-demand

fields to help build up a workforce that’s ready and able to meet the

demands of the future.

In addition to that, $58 million over three years will help expand

supports for newcomers and immigrants and speed up foreign credential

recognition for professionals, such as health care or child care

workers. This disproportionately helps marginalized communities,

communities of colour. I can’t tell you the number of people that I know

that aren’t working in their profession who welcome these changes. I

think we’re going to see quite a phenomenal change in the whole

atmosphere of British Columbia coming in the future.

Future Ready will help maximize our workforce participation

throughout British Columbia by offering supports, programs and access to

targeted training that’s affordable, accessible and recognizes the

individual needs of different learners. People have different

capacities, different ways of learning, and we’re cognizant of that.

It’s focused on opening economic opportunities, including those for

people who are underrepresented or who face barriers in the workforce,

such as Indigenous, Black people and people of colour; women; people

with disabilities; 2SLGBTQ+ people; immigrants; people with multiple

barriers; youth and former youth in care. The full Future Ready plan

will be released later on in the spring of 2023.

Clean and sustainable economic development is also at the core of

this budget. We here are fortunate to have many natural resources that

shape our province’s landscape, that can help us grow a strong economy

and that support vibrant, diverse communities. It’s essential that all

of these resources are taken care of, in collaboration with the

Indigenous peoples, to create a sustainable economy that will continue

to benefit all of the people of British Columbia for generations to

come.

Budget 2023 invests more than $250 million, a quarter of a billion

dollars, over the next three years to protect, maintain and care for

B.C.’s abundant natural resources, including $21 million to partner with

First Nations on eight more forest landscape planning projects to

protect more old growth while providing greater certainty on where

sustainable harvesting can occur and $77 million to speed up natural

resource permitting and then to begin modernizing B.C.’s permitting

service delivery model.

This will help reduce backlogs, move projects that can be moved

forward and continue to advance electrification and connectivity in

remote, rural and Indigenous communities. And $6 million over three

years for a new critical minerals strategy to leverage B.C.’s natural

resource advantages and continue to assess the critical minerals value

chain potential.

[1:45 p.m.]

So $101 million in operating and capital funding over the fiscal

plan to help preserve and enhance outdoor recreational opportunities in

B.C. parks and outdoor recreational sites and trails — I’m especially

excited about this, because this is part of part of the work that I do —

and $49 million in operating and capital funding over three years to

maintain and upgrade forest service roads

All in all, this budget really speaks to the future. It speaks to

taking care of British Columbians, and it speaks to the values that this

government has.

S. Furstenau: I just have to rise, to stand to speak to Bill 10, the Budget

Measures Implementation Act, 2023, today. I just have three sections

that I want to speak to as briefly and efficiently as I can.

One

section is on the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and

Control Act. Bill 10 proposes significant changes to the Greenhouse Gas

Industrial Reporting and Control Act, GGIRCA, which establishes the

regulatory framework and infrastructure for offset units, which are

required to fulfil the province’s commitment to have carbon-neutral

government operations under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

Act.

Amendments to GGIRCA, as laid out in Bill 10, exempt large

emitters from paying carbon tax up front — the way, Madam Speaker, that

you and I and everybody else in British Columbia will be paying carbon

tax, which is up front — and introduce a new made-in-B.C. output-based

pricing system, OBPS, to match the federal carbon-pricing

schedule

beginning April 1, 2024.

I just want to take a moment. I was part of an organization called

Citizens Climate Lobby in — I don’t know — the before times, 2010, 2011,

2012. We were advocating for a price on carbon pollution as a means to

put a price on the pollution that is driving so many of the

climate-related disasters and weather events, one of which I spoke about

this morning, the heat dome that we saw in 2021.

We are hearing more and more about the growing impacts of climate

change. Just this week, we are hearing about the potential for sea level

rise each year in British Columbia. That could have catastrophic impacts

on Vancouver, in particular, but other coastal regions. Climate change

is the most pressing existential crisis that we face.

Those of us in these seats who have asked to be here, who have

been elected to be here, have a particularly heavy burden on us because

our predecessors, for decades, have not done the heavy lifting and the

work on climate action and response that has been needed. Now we are at

a point where we are having to look at mitigation. We are having to

recognize that the storms and the weather events that are climate

change–driven are going to become more severe and more

frequent.

We had the largest mass-casualty event in B.C. in 2021, when 619

people died because of the heat dome. That’s climate change. Madam

Speaker, in your own riding, a town does not exist anymore. That’s

climate change. The smoke that fills our skies and our lungs through the

summer months and into the fall now — that’s climate change. The

droughts that we are experiencing — that’s climate change. The floods

that we saw in the atmospheric river that literally devastated

Abbotsford and the Lower Mainland, devastated travel infrastructure

across the province — climate change.

We don’t have the luxury anymore to tinker around the edges of

policy on this. The benefit of a very clear program that puts a price on

carbon pollution and returns those funds to people to incentivize them

to use less carbon in their lives — to be able to purchase, say, a heat

pump, move away from a car that uses gasoline, insulate their homes,

find all sorts of ways to reduce their own carbon impact…. This was the

simplicity of the price-on-pollution program that we were advocating

for. That is the federal program, in essence.

[1:50 p.m.]

Again, this is what happens. We get a made-in-B.C. program, and it

gets a whole lot less simple. It gets a whole lot less transparent.

Industry really appreciates these kinds of programs because all sorts of

things can be done behind closed doors that we don’t have a say on in

here, in this House, in our job as legislators. This is what concerns me

a lot about this particular part of Bill 10.

Under this new system, which exempts large emitters from paying

carbon tax up front and introduces this new made-in-B.C. output-based

model system, large emitters like oil and gas operations and large mines

will pay a carbon price on emissions that exceed established performance

standards. But does that mean they don’t pay a carbon price on emissions

that don’t meet those standards? I think that’s a really important

question: the largest emitters are paying less on carbon pollution than

the rest of us?

Emissions will be evaluated at the end of each year based on

required reporting, which then must be verified and validated by an

accredited third party. So now we’ve got a whole bunch of bureaucracy

added to this. These changes exempt large industries from paying the

regular carbon tax up to a certain limit, but what that limit is, is set

via regulation, by this government, without the input of the Legislative

Assembly and without the ability for debate.

Bill 10 does not establish emissions thresholds or a complete

framework on verification and validation processes, although these

details are crucial to assessing the merit of B.C.’s new made-in-B.C.

system.

This legislation leaves huge gaps to be filled in regulation, with

many unanswered questions, a trend we’ve all spoken about a lot in this

House and a trend that is not healthy for ensuring that there is the

kind of transparency that we should expect in a democracy. When things

get set by regulation, they get set behind closed doors. We find out

about it through orders-in-council. There is no debate that happens

about that in this House, which is where that debate should be

happening.

My questions: how are the emissions thresholds de­signed?

What is the process for reviewing the thresh­olds? How often are

they reviewed? Do they keep up to date with changing technology? Are

there any commitments around timelines in consulting stakeholders? Which

stakeholders are consulted? Were there attempts to consult groups

outside of industry? Don’t know.

Regulations which are set out in GGIRCA were actually a focus of

the professional reliance review — close to my heart. These regulations

rely on external professionals to validate plans for emission offset

projects and to verify project report and emission reports in order to

receive offset units administered by the B.C. Carbon

Registry.

When it becomes really complicated to explain to the public how a

program like this is going to work to ensure that the biggest polluters

in the province are actually paying their fair share of carbon pricing,

I think we have a problem.

In Budget 2023, the government suggested that additional policy

development and engagement on the new OBP system will occur throughout

2023, with more details likely to be unveiled through regulations. The

environmental success of this program will ultimately rely on its

ability to incentivize emissions reductions through stringent emissions

thresholds, regular updates and the validation processes that hold

emitters to account.

I feel some trepidation about that. I think when these programs

get more and more complicated, it gets harder and harder to know if

they’re actually working effectively. There’s less and less

transparency, and it’s very hard to hold either industry or government

accountable for the outcomes that we should be trying to achieve. And

let’s be really clear. The outcome should be massively reducing our

carbon pollution from British Columbia.

We are instead hurtling headlong into creating what are being

described as carbon bombs or methane bombs, with a massive uptick of

fracking in this province at a time when the rest of the world, mostly,

is getting on board with reducing their carbon emissions. Not the

direction that we need to be going in 2023. So we will be asking

questions around that at committee stage.

[1:55 p.m.]

Then, the second thing I wanted to just touch on was the Income

Tax Act changes — amendments to the Income Tax Act in Bill 10 which

establish a renters tax credit. A rebate will come in, in the form of a

tax credit, and unlike what was proposed back in 2017 — I think it was

sold as a cheque to every renter in British Columbia — this tax credit

will be distributed based on income rather than one universal

amount.

Establishing the renters rebate was in the minister’s mandate

letters in 2020 and again in 2022. I think, while people will welcome

the relief of $400, $33 a month to those who are eligible, this does not

bring lasting change. This does not solve the systemic problem we have

in British Columbia around housing unaffordability. Unless we’re willing

to really recognize that this can’t be on individuals getting a couple

of cheques a year when we have a housing crisis that is so enormous in

this province, I worry about this being held up as, “Well, we’ve

actually solved the problem for renters,” when we know that we

haven’t.

In Metro Vancouver, renters are spending 51 percent of their

monthly income on rent, and 30 percent is considered affordable. That’s

what’s considered to be affordable rent — 30 percent of your income. So

very few, I would say, people in this province can be assured that they

will be paying 30 percent of their income on rent.

I think the other question around this is: how does this rebate

support people in perpetuity? I would argue it doesn’t; $33 a month is

not going to make a lasting change in people’s lives.

People who legally rent from a family member are not eligible for

this credit, nor is a cohabitating spouse or common-law partner of a

renter who already claimed the credit for the tax year. In the midst of

an intersecting and debilitating housing and affordability crisis, I

wonder about the justification for excluding people who have need in

this province.

It takes courage to make lasting changes that support people over

the long term and change the fundamental structural and systemic

foundations that are resulting in these outcomes that we’re seeing.

Cheques, renters rebates, tax credits aren’t going to solve those

structural or systemic issues.

Finally, the property transfer tax. The changes to the property

transfer tax are intended to incentivize building purpose rent builders.

Sorry, purpose-built renters. Oh my gosh, Madam Speaker. I’m going to

get it. Third time’s a charm. To incentivizing building purpose-built

rentals.

Interjections.

S. Furstenau: Thank you. Thank you very much. She sells seashells by the

seashore. We’ve got this. A little bit of levity in the House is never a

bad thing.

These changes do not seem to have parameters on who would be

eligible for this tax exemption, and that is a concern for us,

particularly when it comes to REITs, which are real estate investment

trusts.

Having this tax exemption be eligible to anyone opens the door for

greater movement of real estate investment trusts into the B.C. housing

landscape. I would argue that multi-billion-dollar corporations or

trusts building high-cost rentals really shouldn’t be eligible for tax

exemptions in this province. We want to deincentivize the

commodification and financialization of housing, and I worry that this

tax exemption might actually produce the opposite outcome to, hopefully,

what’s intended.

It’s also unclear if this exemption applies to existing buildings

that are bought and renovated. For example, will a non-profit housing

society be able to buy an existing building, renovate and expand on the

units and put those up for rent and receive the same tax exemption?

Another question we’ll be asking.

Just for some data, over 36 percent of condos owned in B.C. are

owned by real estate investors. British Columbia has the most real

estate investment trusts in the country.

[2:00 p.m.]

I think that we have to ask ourselves very serious questions

about, again, how we are going to structurally change our housing market

in order to ensure that, first and foremost, housing is a right, housing

is for people to live in, and that we are not continuing to create the

conditions where housing is, as I describe it often, a safety security

box for people to put their money in and watch it grow as an investment,

when we have….

I look forward to hearing the results of the homeless count, but

the last data I saw in this was over 20,000 people in British Columbia

who do not have a home. I think we have to really treat that as the

emergency and the crisis that it is and recognize that we can’t continue

to contribute to the conditions that are creating these

outcomes.

Madam Speaker, on that note, I thank you for the opportunity to

speak to this bill.

P. Milobar: I actually have some of the similar speaking areas that we just

heard from the leader of the Green Party, as well as some broader

comments around Bill 10, which is the Budget Measures Implementation

Act.

I think it’s important that we recognize the Budget Measures

Implementation Act. Although it sets out a lot of detail around the tax

changes in this year’s budget, those tax changes are all necessary to

connect back into the budget, to be able to fund things at the level

that the government is hoping to fund. It’s really difficult to try to

talk about one without the other. The budget itself is directly tied to

the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

That’s why some of our previous speakers, and speakers moving

forward — you’re going to hear a lot of that interconnection. We’ve

heard that already from government speakers as well. The reality is that

the government, in their budget and in this bill, will prioritize how

they feel they should be spending taxpayers’ dollars over the next

fiscal year and then two years after that as well.

They need Bill 10 to enable themselves to collect the requisite

dollars they need and adjust various taxation levers that they have at

their disposal to generate the revenues needed. That’s why it was so

disappointing when we saw such an uninspiring budget in terms of clear

direction of what this government was actually trying to accomplish,

despite the level of taxation that they’re bringing in with all these

changes on Bill 10.

What I’m going to do today is, really, highlight a few of the

areas. Originally hearing the leader of the Green Party speak about the

oil and gas industry and the carbon tax provisions that are built into

this bill, I was going to start there, but then she started talking

about REITs and the real estate measures in here in terms of the

property transfer tax. So I think maybe I’ll start with that area,

because it’s going to be very questionable how effective the property

transfer tax changes in this Bill 10 will actually be to be able to

accomplish any of the goals or discussion within the budget around

housing.

We’ve already seen the government move away from their 30-point

housing plan. This government, on year six, has decided to abandon their

ten-year housing plan.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

They’ve abandoned any discussion or reference to trying to build

114,000 housing units. We no longer even know what it is exactly the

government is trying to achieve with housing and what they would

consider a success or not for the public to be able to judge whether or

not they’re having success.

When you look at the property transfer tax changes in Bill 10,

it’s exempting the new purpose-built buildings from that additional 2

percent property transfer tax applied to the portion of residential

property value that exceeds $3 million, starting January 1, 2024. There

are some qualifications in there as well.

But the uptake will likely be low, given the strict conditions.

And, in fact, it appears that only $5 million in tax expenses are

projected by the full implementation in 2024. Now, contrast that with a

$2 billion-ish range of property transfer tax that gets collected in a

year in British Columbia, and this is going to be a very small piece

overall.

[2:05 p.m.]

Now, our Premier loves to rail about the REITs that are out there.

We just heard the leader of the Green Party express concern around

REITs. In fact, this is what our Premier has said in Hansard of

February 15 of this year: “There were these big corporations called real

estate investment trusts buying up these properties, doing these

superficial renovations, evicting people, increasing rents. The

behaviour is decreasing affordability and hurting British

Columbians.”

Now, certainly, we’ve never seen affordability under siege like it

has been under the six years of this government. This is as close as I

think we’ve had to the Premier acknowledging that under his watch, we

have seen rents climb to the highest level they’ve ever been in British

Columbia.

In fact, I can give a direct example. I have a rental apartment in

Victoria for when I’m down here on government business instead of

staying in a hotel. That’s all within the housing provisions that MLAs

have. Everything is declared and all of that. After the 2020 election, I

had been in that building for a year, so I was able to move internally

if I so chose. I was in a studio, because that’s all that was available

at the time when I first moved in. That would have been around 2019,

because I stayed in a hotel for the first year or two after the 2017

election. That studio apartment was around $1,100 when I

moved.

I moved to a one-bedroom in the same building in 2020. It would

have been after the October elections in 2020, so probably November or

December, to a one-bedroom that was $1,400. Just yesterday I happened to

go on the apartment building website to check to see if they have any

units available, and if so, what they are renting for.

A studio in that same building that I vacated in late 2020,

basically 2021, that I was paying $1,100 for is now on the rental market

in Victoria for $2,000 a month. For a studio apartment. That’s under

this government’s watch. That’s what’s happening to the real estate

market under this government’s watch in a rental building renovated to

become a purpose rental.

Now, why that’s important is that the Premier will characterize

that these REITs are these big corporations. Well, so let’s take a look

at some of the people that have significant real estate holdings in

British Columbia, some of these big corporations, the public sector and

union real estate investment portfolios.

BCI owns QuadReal, which is $33.6 billion in real estate holdings.

WorkSafeBC — their investments are handled by BCI. B.C. Hydro. College

pension plan. The municipal pension plan. Public service pension plan,

which is managed by BCI. The 2020 reports a 16 percent of market holding

in real estate and 4 percent in mortgages. Teachers pension plan.

Vancouver Coastal Health via the municipal pension plan. Those are all

managed by BCI, which has $33.6 billion in real estate

holdings.

Other institutional investors. SFU pension for admin and union

staff — the 2021 report has a 10 percent real estate

benchmark.

The UNBC pension plan says that Sun Life has managed the pension

plan since 1997, and Sun Life has $112 billion in real estate assets

under management. That’s as of 2013.

UBC faculty pension plan, co-administered by the same Sun Life,

and UBC pension administration office. UBC staff pension plan 2021

annual report shows investment in real estate assets at 11 percent asset

mix in real estate.

IWA forestry pension 2021, 5.8 percent in real estate.

The SPP, Steelworkers pension plan, asset mix holds 15 percent in

Canadian real estate.

The Boilermakers 191 pension plan 2019 year-end report shows

assets allocations of 10.1 percent on mortgages.

The pulp and paper industry pension 2023 pension facts — the

majority of planned assets invested in bonds and mortgages.

[2:10 p.m.]

Now, there is nothing wrong with pension plans trying to get a

return for their members. That’s actually what they’re supposed to do by

law. But this Premier wants to characterize the exact same investments

these people are doing as large real estate investment trusts. The

reality is that they’re tied into the real estate market so that people

actually have a pension because they can get a rate of return. How

they’re getting that rate of return is this government has failed on

their 30-point housing plan.

So the sections in Bill 10 that deal with the property transfer

tax simply are inadequate to make any real, substantive change to the

housing market. Instead of seeing a new housing plan, after six years in

government, with a Premier that was the Housing Minister for 2½ years….

Instead of seeing a plan….

The Premier can’t come up with the plan. The new Housing Minister

can’t come up with the plan. We had to go and hire an outside

consultant, a high-priced consultant, a former mayor of Victoria, to

write the plan, behind closed doors, and to tell the government what

they should be doing on housing moving forward. But we’re not going to

see that for at least six months. So another six months of rents

skyrocketing.

As I say, a studio in my own building, which I live in, went from

$1,100 at the beginning of 2021 to, just this week, being listed for

$2,000 in the exact same building.

We also heard, from the leader of the Green Party, about the use

of regulations around greenhouse gases that are built into this budget,

around carbon taxation and other measures.

Again, I think part of the problem the public is starting to have

is understanding just what exactly this Premier truly stands for or not.

A lifetime as an activist trying to figure out how to have people

protest and not get arrested and how to sue the police has now evolved

to: “No, I’m not soft on crime. I’m not the architect of catch and

release. Trust me. As Premier, I’m going to be tough on

crime.”

Deputy Speaker: If you wouldn’t mind, Member. I see another member…. If you would

just hold that thought for a second.

F. Donnelly: Thank you, Speaker. I seek leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

F. Donnelly: In the gallery today, we have students from Scott Creek Middle School

along with their teacher Mr. Devaney.

I’d like for all members to make the students feel welcome.

Debate Continued

P. Milobar: As I was saying, people start to have trouble knowing what exactly

this Premier truly stands for, or not, when you look at past actions

around crime and safety, both as an activist but also as an Attorney

General, versus the language we hear now. Just saying something doesn’t

mean there’s actually true buy-in.

When we look at the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and

Control Act…. We look at what’s going on in Bill 10 around carbon

taxation and the fact that industry will now be self-reporting and some

of those changes. I think it’s important for people to understand what

they might have thought the Premier stood for in the past versus what

this budget is now indicating the Premier stands for.

As we heard from the leader of the Green Party, it’s all going to

be left to regulation behind closed doors. One would have thought it

would have been a golden opportunity for the government to change that

by bringing forward legislation, as they are, with Bill 10.

When this was introduced in 2014, this is what the Premier had to

say: “This government wants a broad and generous opportunity to write

this legislation in private, and that is unacceptable on an issue as

important as restricting greenhouse gas emissions in British

Columbia.”

Nine years later the Premier is in the position, as the head of

government, to change that. And do we see those changes in Bill 10? No,

we don’t.

[2:15 p.m.]

In fact, I can remember when the LNG agreement was going to be

signed, in committee stage, as the critic, talking with the Environment

Minister and highlighting the fact that on that specific agreement, it

was enabling the minister to set greenhouse gas targets for LNG without

ever having to come back to this chamber again, to be able to do it

behind closed doors by regulation — the exact thing the Premier was

speaking out against when he was in opposition in this

chamber.

The clarity in Bill 10 — and lack of clarity, more importantly —

around things to do with the carbon tax and the act itself is

problematic. As we’ve just witnessed, through supplemental estimates, a

government that continually just says, “We’ll figure it out later; just

give us the cheque,” is not really an effective way to govern a

province. It doesn’t provide the transparency one would want. So when

you read Bill 10 and you see that those details are missing and going to

be left for later discussions with industry, with later targets to be

made, that’s a problem.

Now, we were happy to see clause 2 actually recognized, and it’s

retroactive to 2020, when this House all agreed to take a pay freeze in

2020 during COVID, and that in clause 3, the government is actually

following through on the leadership shown by the opposition during

skyrocketing inflation to enact our demand for a pay freeze for 2023 for

MLAs.

The government could have taken the step further to get back to

the accountability measure that cabinet would be held accountable for

their spending instead of ensuring their extra 10 percent in pay with a

deficit or not, but we don’t see that level of responsibility and

accountability coming out of the government on this budget or on this

implementation bill.

The renters rebate, as we’ve heard about…. Again, this has been

six years in the making by this government. Six years, and this is the

best they could come up with, a refundable tax credit that actually

can’t be actioned until you start filing your paperwork for taxes this

time next year. You have to have a household income — not a personal

income, a household income — of $60,000 or less to qualify. The average

affordable rental in Vancouver now…. You need to have an income of

$110,000 a year to afford a one-bedroom apartment.

The government in their wisdom has brought in a renters rebate

that says: “Anything over $60,000, we’re going to start clawing it back,

and at $80,000, you get nothing.” It’s too bad that everyone in

Vancouver needs to be earning $100,000 plus to be able to afford the

rent.

So how the government comes up with that — that 80 percent of

renters are going to qualify, with the small asterisk that says: “Some

or in part of the $400….” It would be really nice if the government was

a little more transparent with that and actually shared what the true

breakdown was. We’ll undoubtedly get to that in committee stage on Bill

10, to find out exactly how that 80 percent of renters is

calculated.

How many of the 80 percent are actually going to qualify for 25

bucks versus how many of them are going to actually qualify for the full

$400? What does “household income” mean? How is the government defining

that? If you have a roommate, technically, there are two of you living

in the household, whether you’re married or not.

[2:20 p.m.]

It’s going to be a bureaucratic mess, where people, in times of

financial stress that this government has brought upon through the

housing market, will be tempted to maybe check a box off on their tax

form that they really shouldn’t be checking off. As we saw with the

used-car tax, this government’s penchant for going after lower-income

people and calling them tax cheats and tax frauds knows no

bounds.

Just as we saw with the supplemental budget items, with scarce

little detail — in fact, not even finalized negotiations with the groups

that were supposed to be receiving the money…. In Agriculture, the

minister wasn’t even sure which two groups were going to get the money,

didn’t want to publicly say their names, which is shocking, and couldn’t

say how much each group was going to get out of the $111 million. But

they somehow came up with the random number of $111 million — not $110

million, not $115 million, but $111 million — and couldn’t provide any

detail.

That’s what we see in Bill 10. We see more things being punted to

regulation around taxation, around the rules that will govern that

taxation, more lack of actual detail.

It does start to matter as people start to see carbon tax climb to

$170 a tonne from $50, when they see it go from $50 to $65 this year.

When people are already paying more in carbon tax on their home heating

bill than the cost of the gas to run your furnace, at $50 a

tonne….

The carbon tax refunds and offsets to heavy industry, and the

detail around that, are critical. It’s critical for people to understand

how that’s going to work while they’re paying the full freight. But as

with all things with this budget and supplemental budgets, the

government says: “Don’t worry about it.” Well, we are worried about

it.

When you look at the budget measures in this bill that are meant

to pay for things like addictions and treatment and recovery and complex

care, and the government can’t provide a clear answer where the capital

is for treatment and recovery centres…. The only reference we can find

is actually a contradictory reference of $169 million, which, on page 10

in the budget book, very clearly spells out is for complex care capital.

Complex care is not treatment and recovery. That is not, when our Better

is Possible plan was rolled out, what we were talking about as treatment

and recovery.

Then you go to a backgrounder document that is a very easy and

quick document to be able to have edited and reinserted back into

background budget documents. That $169 million pops up as part of the $1

billion plan that was announced just days before the budget was to be

released. The government can’t clearly point to where any of those

dollars actually intersect to what the words they’ve been saying

are.

Even a week after the budget has been delivered, it makes you

wonder just how accurately they calculated things in their Budget

Measures Implementation Act to make sure the funding is actually

adequately going to be there to fund something as life-and-death

critical as proper recovery treatment in an expedited fashion to

actually get them built, not just talked about.

That’s the problem that we have with Bill 10. That’s the general

problem we have with the budget overall. As I say, the two are one and

the same document, frankly. You can’t have one without the other. You

can’t have a budget without budget measures implementation. Unless

you’re not making one change to any tax rule anywhere, it’s

impossible.

[2:25 p.m.]

When all we see are budgetary changes to facilitate this

government throwing more and more money at programs, expecting a

different result than the disastrous results we’ve seen over the

previous six budgets, that’s a problem.

We’re not seeing any new dollars to any new, fundamental,

transformative type of programs or services or capital projects that

would justify why they need to make this many changes to taxes to

generate the literally billions more of tax dollars they’re going to

need, to use the words like “historic” and “record” that they’ve used in

six previous budgets. It doesn’t add up. The results certainly aren’t

there. The results that have been happening will continue to

happen.

That is a result of a caving housing market that is skyrocketing

out of control, highest prices in North America, highest rents in North

America, highest purchase prices in North America, largest lack of

affordability, highest gas prices in North America, taxation being

collected at levels we have never seen before.

Last year — the result of previous budget measure implementation

acts under this government’s watch — the Auditor General made it clear

that from 2017, when this government took power, to the end of the last

fiscal, they were now collecting $12 billion, with a “B,” more in

taxation each and every year. This budget shatters that.

Bill 10 is the vehicle to enable the government to do that. When

this government says no new taxes, well, Bill 10 is setting the stage

for them to collect more taxation than they’ve ever dreamed of having in

this province, yet they’re still going to run a deficit. Usually, when a

government runs deficits, it’s because revenue is a problem, not because

revenue is at record levels. It makes you wonder what situation we’d be

in with this government if revenues do slump at all.

They will slump. Their own budget recognizes that corporate taxes

are going to drop significantly this year, and the very next line in the

budget collects record levels of the employer health tax, which is

collected whether you’re profitable or not as a company. This government

is recognizing that small businesses are going to take it on the chin

this year, not be profitable, not have much profit to pay tax on and be

taxed on, but they’re going to dig a little deeper just to make sure

they get their employer health tax out of them.

We don’t see any changes in Bill 10 to address that inequity,

either changing the threshold upwards so that people need to have a

higher payroll base before they start paying employer health tax or just

adjusting the overall percentage paid on your payroll so that people

could pay a little bit less of the employer health tax. The government

will say, well, that means we don’t want to fund health care. That’s not

what we’re saying.

The employer health tax is not the sole way health care gets

funded in this province. It will be $2.7 billion in this budget. The

health care budget is what? Around $30 billion overall? Seems to me

there’s still $27 billion out there they need to find anyways. To try to

paint the fact that we’re saying that small businesses need a bit of a

break on payroll costs, which have gone up by 24 percent under this

government…. We were hoping to see that in Bill 10, but there is no

relief for small businesses.

[2:30 p.m.]

That’s the fundamental problem we have, as we stand in this

chamber. We have a government that seems to think the bigger the dollar

figure, the bigger the success, and that doesn’t actually want to be

held accountable with any form of measurable numbers, never wants to

tell anyone what they would consider a success, what the desired outcome

of a program or the spending actually is It’s like they think that if

they just announce the money, their job is done, and things will just

operate itself.

By every measure, things are worse now than they were six years

ago. Bill 10 was a golden opportunity for this government to try to make

some adjustments to some of the taxes that are being paid in a wide

range of areas. It was a golden opportunity to provide some clarity on

how some things are going to be calculated, but as with most things with

this government, that opportunity has been missed. The accountability

measures are missed, and the transparency is completely missed, as well,

with Bill 10.

I thank you for the time. I look forward to committee stage on

Bill 10.

B. Banman: As we’ve heard from the leader of the Greens, as we’ve heard from my

colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson and as we’ve heard from other

speakers here today….

It’s very difficult to separate the budget from Bill 10, because Bill

10 actually talks about the implementation of the budget. It becomes

virtually…. They’re one and the same, in a way. They’re highly connected.

This is a rather extensive bill. It kind of reminds me a little bit of Bill

36, which went through this floor. It was considerably larger.

Unfortunately, closure was invoked on Bill 36, and we did not get a chance

to actually discuss and go through the clauses.

This one here has, if memory serves me right, 185 clauses. It’s an

extraordinary piece of paper on how government can change the rules and

figure out how they are going to collect what, as we are discovering, is one

of the largest budgets ever.

I think it’s worth going over. As I sat, I was reminded, as I listened

to my colleague from Abbotsford West…. I think it’s important to understand

that it took us 135 years, approximately, to reach an approximately $40

billion deficit. I think $42 billion is the exact number. It took 135

years.

This bill will implement what is now going to be the largest deficit.

In the last six years…. It’s worth noting that we are now looking at over a

$100 billion deficit. I think it’s important to talk about that. Who is it

that’s going to have to pay that? What implementation…?

What I don’t see in here is it talking about, by far, the largest

burden that will be placed upon those who will have to pay that back. It is,

actually, going to be those that are much, much younger. It’s as if we are

asking generations to come to pay for what we fail to implement and control

now.

To put that in perspective, there are approximately five million

people in British Columbia. A $100 billion deficit works out to

approximately $20,000 for every adult and child in British Columbia. That

doesn’t even include the federal debt. That’s just the provincial

debt.

I look at this particular bill, and it talks about a lot of things.

There are some things, I think…. There were some groups that would have

liked to have seen some things that were in this bill. I think it’s

important that some of the implementation of what they wanted to see…. I’ll

just take a moment to go over some of them.

[2:35 p.m.]

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce said that the budget and Bill 10 provide

“little support to businesses who are struggling with the cost of doing

business.”

Here’s why that’s important. Rather than charging more and more tax on

a smaller and smaller pie, it would seem wise that we figure out how to make

that pie bigger. We figure out how we can make the economy boom so that

there are actually more taxes coming in because the economy itself is doing

better. What this appears to be doing is the exact opposite.

What Fiona Famulak said…. She is the president and the CEO of the B.C.

Chamber of Commerce. “In order to have healthy communities, we need to

ensure we have healthy businesses.”

Unfortunately, Bill 10 and the budget will do little to take any

meaningful steps towards addressing the concerns that the B.C. Chamber of

Commerce has raised. They said one of the things…. We heard some of this

mentioned. “Of particular concern to small- and medium-sized businesses is

the increase to the carbon tax of $15 per tonne per year, through 2030, with

little to offset the costs they will incur.”

It would have been nice to have figured out how this would have gone

revenue neutral, but the carbon tax doesn’t do that. If you take a look at

it, it’s going to go into gross revenues, and it won’t be neutral at all. I

am sure that many small businesses, those that did their duty, especially in

households…. I think they could have used those revenues coming back to

them, but it’s not anywhere in this bill.

The importance of that is…. It’s going to impact our supply chains and

raise the costs of producing goods in British Columbia. What that means is

that we are going to become less competitive as a result.

Whether we want to admit it or not, we cannot isolate ourselves from

the fact that we live in a world economy. So if we make business too

difficult here…. Business is fluid. It can move somewhere else. We’re seeing

that, also, in the forest sector. The forest sector is putting their money

where their feet are, and they’re moving to other places.

What the B.C. Chamber of Commerce suggested is a small step, which is

not addressed in Bill 10. Adjusting the employee health care tax threshold

would have demonstrated that this government is willing to address the

challenges that many of their members face. As Famulak said, unfortunately,

that was an opportunity that was missed. It would have been nice to have

seen that addressed in the implementation in Bill 10.

Those are not the only people that had something to say. The B.C.

Business Council said that government spending is set to advance at a record

pace. I’ve mentioned that. We have more than doubled the debt in six years,

what it took 135 to get to.

The B.C. Business Council says: “Government spending is set to advance

at a record pace, which is likely to pose financial risks over the medium

term. In addition, the budget contains no substantive measures aimed at

driving long-term economic growth, improving business investment conditions,

boosting productivity or reducing business costs.” That was Ken Peacock. He

is BCBC’s chief economist.

The B.C. Business Council is “particularly concerned over the

competitiveness of the province’s leading export industries, which play an

outsized role in underpinning B.C.’s prosperity.”

“Unfortunately, the budget does nothing to address or even acknowledge

challenges stemming from high business taxes, levies and fees,” which are

directly implemented in Bill 10, “and uncompetitive personal income tax

rates for” what all businesses are screaming for, which is “highly skilled

workers and entrepreneurs.” They go on to say: “These are significant

shortfalls.”

[2:40 p.m.]

The bottom line is that the budget and Bill 10, which implements the

budget, significantly expand the role, reach and cost of the public sector

in the economy, while offering little new to support the prosperity of

business or families in British Columbia.

As we heard the prior speaker talk, this side of the House did try to

come up with ways to help families by implementing and removing the PST on a

used car at the threshold of $20,000 or less. It could have helped people

that really were looking for a reliable used car and that are struggling to

get ends to meet. That’s not mentioned in Bill 10, and quite frankly, I

think it should have been mentioned in Bill 10.

Families who end up buying a car like that are on the lower end of the

economic spectrum, generally. It’s worth mentioning that a car that is now

down to that level…. There are points where the tax collected, if it has

been sold numerous times, will actually have surpassed the price, the

purchase, of $20,000 or less on the car. Implementing in this Bill 10 does

nothing to help those people get a break, and I think they deserve a

break.

The B.C. Business Council goes on to say that: “Considering that the

private sector accounts for at least 75 percent of all economic activity,

including jobs in B.C., the Business Council does not believe British

Columbians can expect much in the way of sustainable and prosperous economy,

nor real per-capita income growth, against a backdrop of an ever-expanding

public sector.”

Within Bill 10, I would say to that…. I go back to that rather than

expand the pie and take a smaller amount on a larger amount of money, these

185 clauses seem to do the exact opposite. We are asking for more and more

and more. And what is going to become less and less and less…. I believe

that is a self-fulfilling way to the bottom of the barrel. Unfortunately,

Bill 10 doesn’t mention that much, if at all.

The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade gave the overall budget — I’m

explaining this for a minute, because they will talk just about the budget —

a C-minus for the ’23-24 provincial budget. On economic vision, which is

what I’ve been talking about, expanding that pie, they gave it a

C-minus.

There is scant mention of small business, innovation, manufacturing or

businesses in general within the budget document. They mention in Bill 10

how we can tax them more, but there are no substantive measures to reduce

costs or generally improve business conditions.

Now, when I was mayor of Abbotsford, it became very aware to me…. I

read a report that basically said the equivalent: that a dollar of profit

raised in a small business has six times the economic impact in your local

community and economy than some of the larger corporate chains. Now, I’m not

against corporate chains. That’s not the point. The point is that small

businesses account for the most amount of hires. They account for the

largest….

Yes, Mr. Speaker?

Deputy Speaker: I see another member standing, so if you wouldn’t mind, I will

recognize him, and then I’ll come right back to you.

Thank you, Member.

F. Donnelly: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[2:45 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

F. Donnelly: In the gallery today, we have another group of grades 6 to 8 students

from Scott Creek Middle in Coquitlam. They are joined by their teachers Mr.

Best and Mr. Perko and parent volunteers Ms. Turpin, Ms. Variz and Mr.

Rajbahak. I also want to give a special shout-out to my friend Benjamin

Judd.

Will the House please make these guests welcome.

Debate Continued

B. Banman: I, too, would like to welcome the students here. This is democracy

in action.

What we’re now talking about is the implementation of Bill 10,

which talks about a budget — a rather large budget. The largest one in

the history of this province.

I don’t mean to scare them up there, but I don’t know whether they

were here when I mentioned that their share of the deficit is now

approximately $20,000 each. There is no free ride, and they may be the

ones that have to pick up the tab because we have trouble implementing

budget measures and keeping things in check. I have grandchildren

myself, and I got into politics, actually, to make life better for

them.

My parents often used to say, when we would go out camping or

outdoors, and we would see a mess that someone left behind, that our job

was to leave the campsite better for those coming behind us. I can

remember as a young boy: “Well, how come I got to clean up somebody

else’s garbage? I don’t want to.” I was taught that if we don’t, then,

sooner or later, that beauty that we all enjoy in British Columbia will

be nothing but a big trash heap.

So partly why I got into this was to try and make life better for

students like those that are watching right now. It’s important, and

it’s important that they understand.

As a matter of fact, when I was the mayor, one of the things I

used to ask them, if you pardon me, if you’ll indulge me for a minute….

I used to say, “Hey, who wants the city to buy everybody free ice

cream?” and they’d all put up their hands. Then they’d go: “Okay, that’s

a great idea.”

I said: “Oh, but I forgot to tell you that there’s only so much

money in the city budget. So if I give everybody free ice cream, I’m

going to have to lay off all of the firefighters and policemen.” I said:

“So when you phone 911, there won’t be anybody there. But I guess you

could try and throw ice cream on your fire. Maybe they’d be able to….

You’d have lots of that.”

Then I would ask, “Who still thinks free ice cream for everybody

is a good idea?” and generally students get it. There’s always one. You

know, then one would say: “Well, yeah. I can’t say. Ice cream is pretty

tasty. Who doesn’t like ice cream?”

The point is that we can’t just spend money that we don’t have. I

think sometimes that message gets lost. That we’re not just spending our

own money. We’re spending money that people work hard for. They go to

work every single day. They work hard, and part of that government

takes….

What happens in Bill 10 is we are asking for more and more and

more and more — the largest historic budget we’ve seen, and the largest

deficit. As you heard from the previous speaker, these are record levels

of new taxes. That’s what’s projected, but that wasn’t good enough. We

couldn’t just keep to the record levels of new taxes. We had to do that

and then continue to go into debt. I’d love to say we got an awful lot

for it, but in six years, we have not seen any huge measurable gains. In

fact, everything’s going the wrong way.

So where we’re spending the money clearly isn’t in the right

areas, in many cases. Some of it is, and this side of the House will

agree on that. But much of it, if you’re talking about…. You know, let’s

have something we can do a victory lap on. There’s not a lot.

[2:50 p.m.]

Gas prices, as we heard, are the highest in all of North America.

Yet there are those on the other side of the House that say that has

nothing to do with the gas taxes that are at the pump. That defies

logic. We have the highest taxes, and we have the highest gas prices. We

look at other provinces and other parts of North America where the taxes

are lower, and gee, the prices are lower at the pump. There’s a direct

correlation.

We take a look at housing costs. As we heard from the previous

speaker, rents have gone up. It would be nice if this bill…. Hopefully,

they’ll get to implementing that $400 that was promised to renters. It

seemed like a great idea, during the middle of a campaign, to get people

to vote, but it has been six years. Not only has inflation gobbled up

that $400, but they’re out $2,400 if you apply $400 over six

years.

In addition to that, if you take a look at some of the things that

are now going to come, there are now going to be rules to qualify for

it. Very, very few will actually get the full $400. It’s almost as if

it’s a bit of a…. It just doesn’t seem fair.

I was talking, before the introduction, about the Greater

Vancouver Board of Trade. They gave the budget a C-minus, and they said:

“There is scant mention of small business, innovation, manufacturing or

business issues in general within the budget document. There are no

substantive measures to reduce costs or generally improve business

conditions.”

Yet as we’ve learned, when it comes to the film industry…. I come

from Abbotsford. We’re pretty happy with the film industry because one

of those…. You know what? If you watch Hallmark movies…. I don’t know if

you do, Mr. Speaker. For those who do watch Hallmark movies, we have a

war going on with Maple Ridge as to whose downtown streets are in the

most Hallmark movies, right?

It is an economic generator into Abbotsford, into the Fraser

Valley, into British Columbia, and we give them, as we’ve heard, $1

billion in credits, approximately. Yet when it comes to other

businesses, the ones that are already here….

You know what? One of the things…. When I was in the restaurant

business and when I was a chiropractor and many of the other things….

You’re only as good, if you’re in the restaurant business, as your last

meal. As a chiropractor, I was only as good as my last adjustment. If I

didn’t fix it, well, then they were going to go on to somebody

else.

The point I’m making is that you want to work to keep what you

have. You want to savour that, because it is very, very difficult to

generate new business. It’s difficult to encourage people to come here

when, sadly, they’re watching people leave.

I was talking about that, about being a world economy. The world

economy means that, whether we like it or not, we have to compete with

other areas around us. I know that in Abbotsford, it’s particularly…. I

remember there was a roofing industry that moved in just across the

border. They did it because it was more cost-effective. That taxation

base left the city; those jobs left the city.

What these businesses are saying, and what I was saying about

small business having a six-times-greater impact on your local economy,

is that you want to protect those. You want to create an

atmosphere.

Sadly, Bill 10 talks about taking more money out of their pocket,

not stimulating what they do. Bill 10 does little to make that pie

bigger, to encourage businesses to stay, to encourage businesses to come

and actually set up — as, in a chiropractic term, open up, to hang out

their shingle.

[2:55 p.m.]

For financial prudence, the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade says,

rightfully so, that “the vast majority of this debt is taxpayer

supported. Budget ’23 does not reverse the decision to phase out the PST

rebate on machinery and equipment.”

Now, that would’ve been a great way to stimulate businesses to buy

new equipment. It’s been done in the past. It’s no surprise why it

doesn’t work. How many times have we seen a “pay no PST” sale at either

a furniture store or a hardware store, wherever it may be, where they

have a “PST is on us”? They use that to stimulate customers to come in.

The province could consider the same. Businesses would take those

savings to reinvest in their own businesses. That’s not in Bill

At the end of the day…. I could go on to a bunch more trades, but

let me go to a couple of advocacy groups with the time I have left. This

is Canadian Taxpayers Federation. “The government is mismanaging

provincial finances with big deficits and no plan to balance the

budget.”

The Alliance of B.C. Students — nothing. Actually, we talk all the

time about “it’s the future.” Those students will be our doctors. Those

students will be our nurses. They’ll be our highest-skilled technicians.

They’ll be those that go into the trades. Here’s what the Alliance of B

C Students said: the B.C. budget “misses the mark on supporting

students.”

It’s interesting. We talk about rent controls. Yet when it comes

to universities, they don’t have to abide by the same rules. They can

charge whatever they want. It doesn’t seem fair, because it’s not fair.

That’s not mentioned.

Bill 23 doesn’t address the root causes of the affordability of

post-secondary education or living costs in British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: We are on Bill 10.

B. Banman: Yes, I know we are on Bill 10. This goes directly to that because

this has to deal with our students. Part of Bill 10 would be in dealing

with the students.

Deputy Speaker: Not quite. It is….

B. Banman: I can go on. I may be stretching it a little thin, but it is part

of the budget.

They’re saying: “Hey, where is it for us?” It’s not there. They

said: “We cannot invite more students to live on campus without first

making sure that there are well-funded supports in place to prevent and

respond to the sexualized and gender-based violence.”

Deputy Speaker: I would say that I think we are going a little too far off track

here, Member. We are on the Budget Measures Implementation Act, which is

around the taxation portion of the budget.

B. Banman: Fair enough. I thank you for your guidance, Mr.

Speaker.

Basically, in a nutshell, what this large, huge, thick document

does is that it gives government the tools to reach deeper and deeper

into our pockets. It is the largest amount…. It gives the government the

ability, through regulation, to design their way to get more and more

taxes from those that support government. And what I hear people saying

is that they don’t feel like they’re getting much in return. They don’t

feel as if they’re actually better off by paying more taxes after we

implement Bill 10 than they were yesterday.

This side of the House would love to have supported some of these

things. But you can’t just back up a truck, dump a bunch of money out of

it with absolutely no measurables and expect to have a good outcome.

It’s the equivalent of basically writing a blank cheque, as we’ve heard

before.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Welcome to the Chair, Madam Speaker.

I could go on further and further.

Interjections.

B. Banman: Yeah? You want me to go on more? I’ve got a whole two minutes and

53 seconds left, I see, according to the clock, and you want me to use

them all.

All right. Let’s hear what a union had to say, then. CUPE said

that amid all the new investments in critical services, they were

surprised that the budget was relatively silent on continued expansion

of child care services.

We now know that child care services are actually an economic

generator. This side of the House believes that we need to expand child

care services. The other side of the House says that we don’t, but it’s

actually not true.

[3:00 p.m.]

Interjection.

B. Banman: No, it’s not true. It’s not true at all. But this would be one of

those things where they’ll twist it and say we’re somehow against cancer

research as well because we voted against the budget. That’s just

tomfoolery.

It’s actually, I believe, one of the reasons that actually annoys

the public, because that’s not it. We’re against the budget. We’re

against the budget and the massive amount of debt and the massive amount

of new taxes that are now going to be put in. It’s totally

different.

With the few moments I have left, I would say…. Here are the

unions that have problems with this particular budget: the B.C. Nurses

Union, the health employees union, the B.C. Teachers Federation.There

are quite a few others. They all have pointed out shortcomings with the

budget, and, thereby connecting it to Bill 10, the implementation of

those taxes as well.

I do appreciate the time to be able to talk about this budget.

It’s one of the great things about democracy. We may not always agree

with what one another says. But somehow, if we search for that common

ground, I believe that the public and the taxpayer will be better off.

There are good ideas that come from both sides of the House.

Unfortunately this budget and Bill 10 I just cannot support.

M. Bernier: I was delaying my rise to speak because I thought for sure that

some of the members of the NDP would want to stand up and defend all the

tax increases that they’re going to be voting in favour of. But it seems

like none of them were willing to take their place to rise at this time.

There’s still ample time, so we’ll see if they choose to do

so.

It is a pleasure to stand up and speak to Bill 10, the Budget

Measures Implementation Act. As we’ve been hearing…. We’ve heard from a

few members, including the minister, as well, when they talk about Bill

10, the implementation of the budget and how they’re basically tied

together. You can’t implement a budget unless you have a budget. You

can’t have the budget unless it’s implemented. You can’t have Bill 10

unless you have the budget. They go together.

I’ve noticed and appreciated the flexibility the House has shown

as we talk about some of the challenges, especially when we’re talking

about Bill 10. I also appreciate the fact that we have the ability to

debate this right now. As we’ve seen under this government, usually they

ram bills through at the end of a session and then force closure and

don’t allow the opposition time to speak on them. It is good to know

that I will have at least 30 minutes on this bill to be able to speak to

it.

Bill 10, as was mentioned…. I think holding up a bill as not

necessarily a prop, but I have it in my hand. It’s 185 sections. It’s

all about the budget. It’s all about the implementation of the taxation

and how the government plans on achieving the revenues and achieving

their goals as a government.

What I find interesting, though, through this process — not only

through the budget but in Bill 10, implementing that budget — is that

hardly anybody in British Columbia is supporting this. It’s been an

utter failure. You’ve heard from my colleague even before me. I won’t

bother reading into the record a whole bunch of the negative comments

and responses that we’ve heard from stakeholder groups from every corner

of this province who were disappointed in this budget.

They were disappointed in the approach that this government has

had, mostly because it’s the seventh budget, which means it will be the

seventh Budget Implementation Act. This means it’s the seventh time this

government has had a chance to get it right, and they have

failed.

In fact, one of the biggest issues when we’re looking at not only

the Budget Implementation Act, but the budget surrounding that, and the

taxation, is how we’re going into three more consecutive deficit budgets

under this government. The big question that this government fails to

answer is: who’s going to pay for this in the long run?

They’re acting as if there’s a money press down in the basement

here in Victoria. Let’s just keep cranking that money press, and don’t

worry about it. Well, unfortunately, as a father of five, as a

grandfather of four…. Hopefully, someday I live long enough to be a

great-grandfather.

[3:05 p.m.]

Interjection.

M. Bernier: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast thinks I’m already old

enough to be a great-grandfather. Not quite.

An Hon. Member: You’re just a great grandfather.

M. Bernier: I’m just a great grandfather. Exactly. I appreciate that

support.

At some point, they’re going to have to pay for this. We need to

be thinking about that when we’re talking about the increases in taxes,

the increases in debt. The government has no problem bringing forward

Bill 10 as if it’s nothing. “Just put it here. We don’t even have to

have speakers. Let’s just support it.” But forget the overarching theme

of the lack of discipline within this government when it comes to

financial scrutiny, financial discipline on how they manage the

budget.

Again, it goes back to the lack of understanding, I believe, of

who’s going to pay for this, which is why so many stakeholder groups, as

I mentioned at the onset, are struggling with this budget.

Taxpayer-supported debt, which is going to be supported through this

budget when they pass it and pass Bill 10, is going to be $100 billion.

Think about that: $100 billion. Under the NDP’s time, this time, in

government, it’s doubled.

That is, again, something we need to be very cognizant of. The

government’s going to try…. “Oh, well, we’re doing all this spending.”

But there have been no results. They’re going to say, “We’re doing all

this spending,” but you don’t see anything for it. We’ve highlighted

that in some of the original estimates we’ve done around the

supplementals. We talked about that a little earlier today. What’s scary

about this, when we talk about deficits and when we talk about debt, is

that at some point, it has to be paid for, as I said.

Now when you look at the budget, and then you look at Bill 10, and

we talk about all the taxes that keep going up…. This government’s idea

of generating revenue is not growing the economy. It’s not about

stimulating growth in the business sector. It’s just about throwing a

few more line items in the budget of finding a way to tax people. That’s

not sustainable.

In fact, the last time we saw large operating budget deficits that

a government was forced to figure out a plan to pay back was after the

last time the NDP was in government. Go figure. We saw, I believe, if I

remember, in 2001, almost $10 billion of operating debt, because at the

same time, under the NDP government in the ’90s, they had no problem

cranking the money press down in the basement with no understanding of

how they were ever going to pay it back. Somebody has to.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: That accountability, as my colleague from Peace River North says,

needs to be considered through all of this.

When we look at all the increased taxes…. We know that we’ve seen

over the NDP’s, I’ll say, long almost seven years, just increase after

increase in taxes — over 20 new taxes that they’ve brought in. They’re

highlighted, a lot of them here, in Bill 10. If we really wanted to

see….

It’s interesting, because they’ll say: “Oh, you’re voting against

this.” Well darn right we’re voting against a lot of this, because there

is no plan here to help the people of British Columbia other than

saying: “Don’t worry. We’re going to reach into your pocket further, as

an NDP government, to take any little last pennies that you might have

rattling around in there for our own increases here.”

We’re at record levels of new taxes coming in. In a lot of ways,

that’s no surprise. This NDP has a track record and a history of never

finding a tax that they don’t want to try to implement or never seeing a

dollar rolling around that they don’t think is theirs that they want to

take away from somebody. But that hurts our economy, and it hurts the

families in the province of British Columbia.

[3:10 p.m.]

We saw the Minister of Finance, in the introductions to the

budget, which is part of the implementation here, in Bill 10…. We saw it

in the throne speech. This NDP government has no problem, interestingly,

in all of those documents, highlighting the immense struggles that the

people of British Columbia are going through right now, whether it’s in

affordability for housing, the price of gas going up, the shortage of

doctors and nurses. You name it. All the struggles. We are the highest

cost jurisdiction for housing, for rents.

All of this stuff has taken place under the present NDP

government. They had no problem, in their documents, highlighting that,

which I found very interesting. Most people, you would think, would

highlight a struggle and come through with: “Here’s the solution to fix

it.”

We never saw that here. We saw this government acknowledging, as

they rightfully should, the struggles and the pain that families and

businesses are going through in British Columbia. You would think that

the budget would have reflected those struggles with programs, with

savings that would have assisted.

When you look at Bill 10…. You look at the huge list of taxes. In

section 11…. It’s not only the huge list of present taxes. Bill 10,

under the implementation act, is talking about all the tax increases

that they plan on implementing over the next three years.

Madam Speaker, I’ll just bring to your attention…. I’m going to

sit down for a moment. I believe another member just wants to do an

introduction.

F. Donnelly: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

F. Donnelly: In the gallery today, we have another group of grade 6 to grade 8

students from Scott Creek Middle School. They’re from Coquitlam. They’re

joined by teachers Ms. Dunn and Ms. Kamali, and they have five parent

volunteers in their group. This is Scott Creek’s first overnight trip since

COVID.

Would the House please make these students and their accompanying

guests feel welcome.

Debate Continued

M. Bernier: I will welcome, as well, our colleague’s friends, the youth that

he has introduced here today. Welcome to the Legislature.

We’re talking about everybody’s future, including the children

that are in here today. So it’s interesting that they can be part of

this, especially witnessing the democratic process that we go through

here in the Legislature, where we sometimes agree to disagree to make

the decisions to move British Columbia forward.

I will probably say, for the youth that are here today and the

adults that are with them…. Sometimes we disagree on how we want to get

to the good solutions. We always agree that we want to make life better

for people in British Columbia. I will acknowledge that.

It doesn’t matter who gets elected. I’ve never ever met somebody

who has put their name on the ballot and become an MLA here in this

Legislature that says: “I hope I win so I can make things worse for the

people of British Columbia.” That doesn’t happen. We just sometimes have

a difference of opinion on how we want to make life better and how we

will achieve that. That’s part of the discussion that we’re having here

today, which takes me back to where I was.

Some of the struggles that families are faced with right now in

the province of British Columbia, whether it’s…. I will talk about

housing, maybe, for a moment.

In the budget implementation act…. One of the things that is

talked about here in Bill 10, as well, is how…. There are 21, if I

remember, new and added taxes that directly and indirectly go to the

increased costs for building a home, whether it’s a fixed structure or a

rental unit.

[3:15 p.m.]

The government had no problem acknowledging — again, rightfully so

— the cost pressures people are facing when it comes to high housing

costs and high rents but then, in their own documents, increase taxes

and put further pressure on the costs to try to help young families or

people starting out that want to get into the housing market and, I

would argue, even into the rental. Some people choose maybe just to rent

their whole lives, which is their choice and something that works for

their life, but they are seeing the increased pressures as

well.

So wouldn’t you be surprised — in fact, I wasn’t — that this

government, after seven budgets, failed to deliver on their repeatedly

promised $400 renters rebate? Election after election, this government

said: “Don’t worry. We’re going to be basically cutting you a cheque for

$400 to put in your pocket to help offset the increase in

rent.”

A bit of a slap in the face for those people who are struggling

right now with the highest rent costs in North America when, in this

budget, instead of that $400 renters rebate, this government announces….

Finally, after seven years, they think they’re doing something, but it’s

a refundable $400 tax credit.

Now, for those that understand how tax credits work, you don’t get

the money up front. So this means you’re waiting until sometime next

year, a year from now, 13, 14 months, maybe, from now, until you’re

doing your next taxes in 2024. Meanwhile, your rent has gone up possibly

hundreds of dollars again this year, and you’ll be, maybe, eligible for

a $400 tax credit, which could work out to $30 a month. The reason why I

say “maybe” eligible is that the only ones that are going to be able to

obtain the full $400 tax credit…. It’s if you make $60,000 a year or

less.

But the recent reports have come out and said that just to afford

to rent a place in the Lower Mainland, you need to be making over

$100,000 a year to afford a one-bedroom place to rent. So people who are

making under $60,000 will get this full $400 credit. If you’re making

$100,000 and are fortunate enough to make that, and you’re trying and

struggling to pay for rent in Vancouver, you’re out of luck. Even though

this government promised it to you many, many times, you are out of

luck.

You’re also out of luck in this budget when you look at trying to

find anywhere where this government plans on achieving their goals on

building the affordable housing that they promised.

As I mentioned, in Bill 10, they have no problem talking about all

the budget increases, tax increases that are going to take place in many

of the different sections. But you’ll notice, anybody paying attention

to this, that this government conveniently doesn’t talk about anymore

and have walked back their promise of 114,000 affordable housing units

in ten years.

We’re now going into budget 7, and what we find in the budget,

when you look deep down into it, are documents that say they may or may

not achieve 3,000 units this year, completely walked back. Well, I

shouldn’t say walked back. They haven’t even given an explanation.

They’ve just pretended they didn’t promise 114,000 affordable housing

units in this province at the same time we’re talking about the

struggles that people are facing.

Now, one of the taxes that we talk about in Bill 10 is the carbon

tax. Carbon tax is going up yet again. Over the next seven years, the

annual carbon tax increases are going to increase the price of gas by

around 26 cents a litre. That’s on top of what has already happened

under this government in the last six years, which is around 50 cents a

litre.

[3:20 p.m.]

It continues. We continue to be the highest cost jurisdiction on

almost every level when it comes to what people have here in British

Columbia for what they’re trying to pay for.

I appreciate being heckled by some of the members about climate

change. They might want to remember that they voted against the carbon

tax. “Axe the tax,” they were saying. “We would never support a carbon

tax,” until they got into government and realized: “Holy cow. Instead of

making it revenue neutral, we’ve got billions of dollars that we can put

into general revenue — another tax grab.”

Instead of putting it back into the pockets of people of British

Columbia, rather than putting it into a tax shift to support families or

businesses, they said: “Let’s just take that money, the billions of

dollars, and let’s just put it into general revenue to spend it where we

want.”

It’s a little ironic when they say, “Oh, the carbon tax is all for

helping the environment,” but they have no problem taking that money

that they voted against to spend it on anything else but what might

actually be helping the environment. They say one thing and do another.

I’m hoping they continue to heckle me, because I’ve got way more answers

I can continue throwing back at them on these issues if they

want.

One of the things that is really interesting when we talk about

this carbon tax is the fact of how it hits people, individuals, families

that have no choice. When I look at Bill 10 and I look at how carbon tax

is going up under this government over the next few years, again, I look

at people in my region, who just went through another winter where we

had weeks and weeks of minus 40.

Any single one of them that would have looked at their gas bill

would have realized, and I can’t explain this very well to them either,

how the carbon tax that’s added to their natural gas bill is actually

more than the natural gas that the company is selling itself.

The problem with this is that they have no choice. They have no

choice. Somebody gets a $600 gas bill in my riding, and $300 of that is

carbon tax. They have no choice but pay that, because of what this

government is doing. Now, if they truly want to say that this is going

to help people, then maybe they should come up with tax credits to make

things more revenue neutral when it comes to the carbon tax. Maybe

they….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I’m wondering if the members are willing to stand up, then, when

they have their turn and explain to the people in my region that their

natural gas bills that they have no choice on are going to be going down

under this government. That will be interesting to hear.

The Finance Minister is not saying that. If the other members want

to stand up and say that, I’m sure we’d all love to hear it. I know the

people who live in my riding would love to hear that as well.

The government stands up and says: “We’re raising carbon tax to

incentivize people to stop using as many carbon-emitting products.” But

they’ll have no problem burying their heads in the sand and not

answering the phone calls and emails to give the explanation to people

in parts of British Columbia that have no choice but to do

that.

That is just wrong. That’s not fair. This government continues to

try to make announcements and promises here and the Lower Mainland and

forgetting that there’s actually a large, vast difference in the entire

province out there. We can’t regulate or legislate for one group down

here thinking that’s not going to negatively affect other

people.

Now, when we also look at Bill 10 and we’re talking about, in the

budget, the taxation increases, well, that’s the revenue coming in. I’m

looking forward to any of the members opposite standing up and

justifying, explaining why they have no problem budgeting for resource

revenue to go down.

This government has completely, basically, abandoned anything when

it comes to the growth of our resource sector. In fact, it’s the

opposite. They’re actually budgeting and planning for a decline,

managing for a loss of jobs, managing for a decline and huge negative

impacts to our communities. They have no problem doing that, it seems,

from here in Victoria.

[3:25 p.m.]

It’s 33 percent over the next couple of years that revenues are

dropping from natural resources, such as oil and gas, in my riding, and

such as forestry around the entire province.

I mean, when we look at…. Again, in Bill 10, when we talk about

all of the pressures that Bill 10 is putting on our resource sector, our

small businesses, our families, it’s no wonder we’re hearing on a daily,

weekly basis that companies are saying: “Enough is enough. We’re moving

our offices down to the United States” or “In the natural gas sector,

we’ve got billions of dollars, but we’re going to be investing them in

Alberta, because we know, because of the taxation rules that they have

there, that it’s more economical to invest in that region.”

Under Bill 10, maybe this is where the government would have had

an opportunity, when they’re talking about all these taxes and when they

said they identified all the pressures people are facing, to actually

put their money where their mouth is and actually show that when they

put this bill forward and say: “We’re actually going to acknowledge the

pressures, and we’re going to actually look at lowering the tax burden.

We’re going to actually have a plan for getting out of deficit budgets.

We’re going to have a plan to getting back to a revenue-neutral carbon

tax. We’re going to have a plan for supporting families who are

struggling with their gas and their groceries and their housing, their

rent.” Whatever it might be.

But no. We heard all of those pressures people are facing, but we

put Bill 10 on the floor that says: “Oh, and by the way” — add insult to

injury — “we’re increasing those pressures. We’re increasing those

taxes.” I hope they find the irony in that at a time when, as I just

mentioned, in the resource sector, we’ve got mills shutting down all

over the province.

I look up in my region of Chetwynd, a couple hundred jobs; Taylor,

a couple of hundred jobs; Houston; Merritt; Quesnel; here on the Island.

I mean, the list goes on. I was just touring a place over in Maple

Ridge, a shake and shingle facility. They’re worried because they can’t

get their permits anymore, worried for their hundreds of

jobs.

While we’re seeing the decline of resource revenues, while we’re

seeing families losing their jobs in resource communities and when we’re

seeing communities being faced with huge, devastating revenue impacts

because of that, this government says, “Don’t worry, we’re just going to

raise your taxes because we need more money,” not acknowledging the same

people that they’re trying to collect money from are the ones struggling

right now in British Columbia.

One of the things…. I’ll say this, hopefully, with all due

respect, and it doesn’t come across the wrong way. I was doing an

interview and talking about the 200 jobs being lost in Chetwynd with a

mill being shut and the impact that that has on a small community. One

of the people — I won’t mention what party they were from; I’ll just say

they weren’t from mine — put on Twitter: “It’s only 200 jobs.” Two

hundred jobs in Chetwynd is 10 to 15 percent of the population. Quick

math in my head — that would be like the Lower Mainland losing about

400,000 jobs in one day.

Can you imagine the outrage from this government, the panic from

this government and the work that they would try to do if 400,000 people

in the Lower Mainland lost their jobs because of the impact it would

have on the communities there?

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I agree. Devastating. It better never happen. But that impact is

exactly the same to a small community when only 200 people are getting

laid off, according to this government. That is huge.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Well, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who comes from a

region that actually is, was…. He appreciates how hard it is when people

lose their jobs.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I guess he must be speaking next to talk about it —

exactly.

[3:30 p.m.]

His government stood up numerous times and said: “Don’t worry. No

mill will ever be shut down on our watch. Nobody will lose a job under

the NDP.” Maybe he can stand up after me and explain why the NDP, on

that promise, like many others — how they failed to deliver. This is

real. These are real impacts. These are real pressures people are

facing, and those need to be dealt with. I encourage…. I implore members

in the NDP to stand up after me and justify that, to explain why they

think it’s okay to make promises and then not deliver on

them.

It’s amazing how quickly a half an hour goes by when there is so

much that you can talk about that is facing the people of British

Columbia right now.

The people in the province are hurting. They’re struggling. The

last thing they expect is for us to be passing a budget that really

doesn’t help them. By passing Bill 10, which agrees to tax them more,

and passing a budget that is going to put further pressures and impacts

on future generations…. It sometimes boggles my mind that people would

think that is reasonable and that is appropriate in a time when people

are struggling.

I didn’t even have time to get into all of the challenges that I’m

faced with in my region. I would have loved to see in here and in the

budget…. Rather than $3 billion going out in all of the different

supplemental estimates to areas where the government can’t explain, I

would have loved them to come forward with stuff that says: “This is

what we’re going to do to stop all of the diversions of the hospitals in

the Peace region.”

Guess what. Tumbler Ridge, again, this weekend…. I just found out

a half an hour ago that the hospital is being shut down again — the

closest hospital 130, 140 kilometres away — with a sign on the door that

says: “Sorry, you will have to drive yourself to the next nearest

hospital if you’re in a crisis or phone 911. We will do what we can for

you.”

As I say, time goes by too quickly. I would have loved a lot more

time to talk about the struggles of lives. I have a hard time with the

budget and the budget implementation of that because of all the

increased taxes, the lack of a plan and the lack of support for

families.

I appreciate the time I’ve had, and I appreciate the House

listening.

D. Davies: I thought for sure that after…. They were heckling my colleague

from Peace River South, calling him wrong, saying that he was saying the

wrong things.

This would have been a wonderful opportunity to stand up and

defend your budget, defend all the taxes.

It is quite sad, actually, that we’re here in this place having

these conversations, and it is only us talking about what they are very

proud of. One would think that they would want to stand up and do

this.

I digress. I am pleased to rise and give my remarks on Bill 10.

There we go. As my colleague just said…. Of course, Bill 10 is the bill

that triggers all of these taxes and costs that are going to be coming

forward and bringing their budget to life, I guess we might say, a

budget that has no light at the end of the tunnel. I think I’ve used

that exact phrase on at least a few of the last seven budgets that this

government has asked.

I had someone ask me, actually: “What do you mean by seven

budgets? They’ve only been in here….” Well, when they first became

government, it was kind of partially into…. They had to do their own

budget.

[3:35 p.m.]

That’s really for the people watching — okay, there’s nobody

watching — and the two people watching on Hansard right now. Actually,

there are probably lots of people watching on Hansard. There are lots of

people watching on Hansard.

No light at the end of the tunnel. We’re at a time when…. We

recently saw the throne speech. We recently saw the budget tabled. Each

of these have come out at a time when people are looking for hope.

People are looking for a light at the end of the tunnel.

It has been a hard few years. COVID is behind us now, but there

are still a lot of things left over that are challenges. People, I

think, were really looking forward to this government’s budget to

provide the relief, first of all, that they needed but, secondly, to

provide that hope. We did not see that in this budget. As I said, we

haven’t seen it, unfortunately, in the previous budgets.

Now, before I dive into all of my notes — I probably won’t get

through them all, but I might — I do want to thank my constituents for

allowing me to represent them here in this place.

My riding, as I’ve said here before, is quite unique. It’s a very

large riding, 170,000-plus square kilometres. It contains everything

that British Columbia needs as a resource. We have forestry. We have

lots of agriculture. I’ll talk about that in a bit. Oil and gas. Mining.

Tourism. I mean, we have everything. We’re really quite

lucky.

As I see this budget come out, it really wants me to even take my

job in a more responsible manner. Now I really need to be talking about

how there is nothing in it, really, for my constituents. I’m going to

highlight these points, which I think is my role to do here as the

representative — to take whatever action I can to make sure that they

have a stronger future. We have a brighter future. All British

Columbians have a brighter future.

Much of my motivation comes from my two children: my son, Noel,

and my daughter, Hana. I think many of us who have children can probably

say the same thing. That’s our guiding light, our motivation. This is

what really brings us to this place. I do this for them. I do this for

that generation, up and coming, and the generations that will follow so

that they will have a bright future. They will have hope.

What happened just one week ago, maybe a little more than a week

ago…. My daughter, Hana, is graduating this year. She’s in grade 12. She

graduates, my goodness, in a couple of months. She was going to move to

Vancouver. She had interests in getting into a whole bunch of different

stuff. The film industry was certainly one. She started looking around

and looking at options that would provide her the most opportunity and

that would provide her the most hope.

To my dismay…. I was expecting her…. She was coming to Vancouver.

She had even looked here in Victoria. Last week she came to me and said:

“Dad, I think I’m moving to Calgary.” I was a little taken aback. I want

to build a province where…. I want my kids to be here. I want my kids to

grow up in this province.

I was like: “Oh, why?” She did her own research. She looked at

housing. She looked at the cost of tuition. She looked at the cost of

groceries. It came back to affordability. She has decided that she

cannot afford to live in British Columbia, and she is now going to go to

Calgary to do her next journey of her life.

It is sad when young British Columbians are choosing to live in

other jurisdictions, other than their home, because it’s better. It

should never be better. British Columbia has so many opportunities that

are missed, so many opportunities that are being squashed by Bill 10,

that are being squashed by this budget, that are being squashed by this

government.

[3:40 p.m.]

My daughter was born and raised, as I was, in Fort St. John, and

we’re proud to call that home. I’m proud to be a British Columbian. I

know my daughter is proud to be a British Columbian, but when she weighs

all the odds, she has to do what’s right. She has to do what’s right for

her, and I hope that this province does change around and welcome her

back in the near future, so that she can come back and make a life here

in British Columbia.

Part of that comes from…. Bill 10 is implementing a number of

taxes and, of course, has identified…. One of the things that was

identified in the budget was the direct cull of revenues from the

resource sector, dropping upwards of 35 percent. Those industries are in

my riding. All of those industries are in my riding.

The natural gas sector. I mean, we are the NG of the LNG. All of

the natural gas that’s going to feed the LNG facilities is coming from

my region, my colleague from Peace River South. It’s coming from our

region, the mining opportunities and the mining that is happening in the

Peace country.

The forest sector — well, that’s another story. It’s taken a hard

hit like many other communities. I mean, I’ve just had my pulp mill in

Taylor, which is just south of Fort St. John, 15 kilometres, just

announced they’re shutting down. I know my colleague from Peace River

South has had mill closures in his riding recently — Chetwynd. Pick a

small forestry community in this province. They have all been seeing

forestry closures, mill closures. I do want to highlight, and it’s been

highlighted a few times, the Premier said in 2017: “There would be no

mill closures under my watch.” I’ve lost count of how many mill closures

there are.

But I go back to these industries and the uncertainty that is

being created in this province, the uncertainty by the taxes that are in

Bill 10 that are going to be coming down, and they are going to come

down like a ton of bricks, like the other previous budgets have been.

This is death by a thousand cuts through seven budgets on our resource

sector. We have seen our resource sector continually attacked by this

government — continually attacked, not supported.

We are now starting to see continuous deficit budgets. Because

remember, all of our resources are really what brings the revenue into

the province of British Columbia. The majority of the revenue that

governments have relied on over years and years to make sure that we

have the best education system in the world; great health care, which we

had at one time; good roads; good infrastructure; all of these things

that British Columbians want — the ability to look after our vulnerable

people.

That money cannot only come from the taxpayer’s pocket. I should

do this one because the front ones are empty. They’re now into the back

ones and the side ones. They continue to reach into the pockets of

British Columbians because that is the only place that this government

can reach now as we start to see our decline in our resource

sector.

These industries are all good-paying jobs across the province of

British Columbia, good-paying jobs that keep families in their

communities, keep their communities going, their communities thriving

and generate that much-needed revenue that the province of British

Columbia needs, not only by what the industry pays, but by the spending

of these families. This is why Bill 10, this is why this budget, is so

troubling to me.

British Columbia used to be an envy in Canada. It used to be an

envy to be here, to come here. Unfortunately, it isn’t that

anymore.

[3:45 p.m.]

I think it’s really important…. This is why I’ve taken a number of

minutes just talking about the resource sector and how it’s crumbled. In

fact, 11,700 jobs have been lost in the resource sector since this

government became government in 2017. That’s 11,700 good-paying jobs

that have been taken out of British Columbia.

I know we heard today…. Even during question period, we heard

today with the forest sector, “We are going to look after them. We’ll

retrain them into tech,” or retrain them into whatever or bridge them to

retirement. Well, as was mentioned earlier, many of these people are

living in a community…. What does tech look like in Mackenzie,

retraining into a tech job? What does retraining into a tech job look

like in Merritt or Fort Nelson or Dease Lake? What does that look like

as a tech sector job? It’s cold comfort for many of these people that

are losing their jobs across the province when the answer from

government is: “Don’t worry. We’ll retrain you.”

These are resource communities. British Columbia does resource

extraction very well. We’ve innovated. We are a leader in the world. We

need to continue to do that. But continually attacking all levels of the

resource sector is not sustainable. I think my colleague from Peace

River South said that. It’s not a sustainable way to continue

going.

Life has never been more unaffordable as it has been in these last

couple of years. Deficit spending seems to be becoming a normal thing

now. I get it. There are times…. We saw during COVID…. That was an

opportune time. We needed to deficit spend. We needed to generate the

extra supports out there for British Columbians. But now it seems like

this government’s loving having deficits, drunk on deficit budgets. For

the foreseeable future, that’s all we’re going to be seeing. So $11

billion of deficits over the next three years.

As has been said, I think maybe a couple of times…. I’m sure I’ve

heard it in here. British Columbia became a province in 1871, 150 years

ago. Up until about 2017, the provincial debt in this province, which

would have been 146 years ago…. We had a debt of $50 billion. From 2017

to now — what’s that, six years and a bit? — we’ve doubled that debt.

Not we. They’ve doubled that debt. Government has doubled the debt to

now be almost $100 billion. There’s no end in sight.

As I talk back to my children again, that worries me. That worries

me for not only my kids. I think the member for Abbotsford mentioned

that that’s 20-some-thousand dollars that every single British Columbian

owes. That’s just the provincial. It’s not sustainable. We will not be

supporting Bill 10. I can’t, with all conscience, support this bill,

just for my children’s sake.

[3:50 p.m.]

One of the things in here, of course, is…. Not one of the things.

There are many tax increases in Bill 10. In fact, that’s really what it

all is, just tax and grab, tax and grab, tax and grab,

continuously.

I just want to bring forward…. He’ll be happy I brought this

forward, one of my constituents. One of the pieces here, of course, is

the carbon tax increasing another $15. Now, of course, everyone

remembers that the previous government, the B.C. Liberal government,

brought in the carbon tax as a revenue-neutral tax, a tax that would go

back to supporting innovation, supporting people. Now it’s just a tax

grab — and a big one, a massive tax grab, at that.

This constituent, Arthur Hadland…. Some of you might even know

Arthur Hadland. You know, he’s been involved in politics for a number of

years. He was the regional district director in Fort St. John. He was

the chair, I think, of the regional district. He ran against me in one

of my elections a few years back.

He comes from a family of farmers. They farm a lot of land up in

the northeast. In fact, I think one of the breweries here in Victoria

uses his barley to make beer. That’s one of his things.

Anyway, Arthur came into my office. He is the nicest man, but he

came into my office, a week or so back, chewing nails and spitting rust,

as I think may be what the term is. In his hand, he had his natural gas

bill for his place. It was $1,136. I think it was for the months of

December and January, almost 1,200 bucks.

You know, when it’s minus 40 or minus 35, we don’t have the option

to heat our houses with any other source, other than using natural gas,

because it is the most efficient, and it does provide the most heat.

When we see this tax grab — that’s what it is now — you can understand

why people like Arthur Hadland and so many others, myself included,

usually have to sit down. That’s the one bill I have to actually sit

down for: when I open my natural gas bill.

When you see this continually going up and just becoming general

revenue, it…. I can’t use the word, but it really makes me upset, along

with thousands of others that live across the North and that heat their

homes with natural gas.

Even with the natural gas…. You know, 95 percent of all grain

comes from my region, the Peace region. Some 95 percent of all grain in

British Columbia comes from the Peace region. That grain needs to be

dried using natural gas heaters — again, another expense, and they’re

not exempt on that. So when we look at affordability and we wonder why

food prices are going up, the costs of things are going up, there’s one

example.

Again, my colleague from Abbotsford mentioned the gas tax. Well,

when British Columbia has the highest gas tax in the entire country,

which pretty closely equates to us having the highest gas prices in the

entire country — diesel prices — that directly translates onto the cost

of food, the cost of goods and services, because everything in this

province is trucked here. Everything that’s distributed throughout this

province is trucked here — or on a train, which also burns

diesel.

When we see Bill 10 and the budget, there’s no relief in there.

There’s no relief for British Columbians — the trucking industry,

British Columbians that rely on their vehicles, British Columbians that

rely on and have no choice but to heat their homes with natural gas.

Bill 10 does not provide that relief. Budget ’23 does not provide that

relief.

[3:55 p.m.]

Speaking of relief, as I mentioned, my daughter was looking at

different things in Vancouver, moving to Vancouver. She has decided now

to move to Alberta. You know, the $400 renters…. Well, it’s not a

rebate. When the rebate was first introduced, I think it was the 2017

budget — was it not? — the big promise…. This government has a ton of

promises over the past years that just keep getting regurgitated in

seven budgets, over and over again.

The renters rebate was one. “We’re going to give you four hundred

bucks cash.” Well, that four hundred bucks cash in 2017 is different in

2023, because the cost of rent has gone up 15, 20 percent. It’s not even

cash anymore in your pocket for British Columbians or, certainly, people

on the Lower Mainland that are renting. Now it’s a tax rebate with a

whole bunch of strings attached to it that is going to amount in very

few people actually receiving it, or some only receiving a small little

portion of this.

We wonder why people are, in record numbers this year, moving out

of British Columbia — in record numbers, moving out of British Columbia.

I wish I had…. I can’t remember who. One of the agencies did a study on

that. I can’t remember where it was, but record numbers of British

Columbians, in 2022, left the province. That’s a shame. There’s no

reason for that.

I talked about the declining resource revenues in the budget, zero

job creation incentives that are really being pushed out. There are

some, and I’m not saying it’s zero. There have been some; some in the

Lower Mainland. There are some options. But when we, again, look back at

rural B.C., in the North, there’s really nothing for us in this budget,

nothing for us other than these tax grabs that are in Bill

We’ve seen this over…. Again, this is just a snap, a little

glimpse in the current time. When we look over the last five years, 6½

years, I think we’re up to 29 new taxes or fees, 29 brand-new taxes that

have been created by government on British Columbians. That’s

astounding. At a time when we should be looking at how we provide relief

for British Columbians, this government has doubled down on taxation,

when British Columbians don’t have any more to give.

It’s like Prince John and the sheriff of Nottingham walking

through the streets of every community in British Columbia, knocking on

your door. “Here to collect taxes.” “I have none to give.” “Well, then

we will continue to take. We will get it out of you somehow.” That’s

what British Columbians are feeling right now. Every pocket is empty?

Well, they’ll find a way to get it. It’s really sad.

You’ve just got to go into any coffee shop. I know the members

opposite must go to coffee shops in their riding. They must, and they

must hear the conversations. I tell you…. I don’t know if I can do a

promotion here. I go to A&W in my community if I want to hear what’s

going on in the streets, because everybody goes to A&W. There are

about four shifts of people. They start at seven. There’s an eight, a

nine and a ten o’clock shift. When I’m in there, I’m hearing everything

that I’m saying right now, because that’s what people are talking

about.

Oh, they’re not talking about the good old days. Well, they’re

talking about the good old days, how they wish it was the good old days

again. But now they’re talking about: “My God, I don’t know what I’m

going to do.” That’s all ages, especially seniors. They’re really

feeling the punch.

I should talk off my notes. I’m just going ad lib here, so I don’t

even know where I got to. Anyways, that’s fine.

[4:00 p.m.]

Madam Speaker, rather than taking responsibility for their

actions, this government is quick to blame many things on the previous

government — when this side was. But they are the previous government

now — two terms, plenty of time to turn things around, plenty of time to

make things right. But they continue to not. They continue to find

reasons why they have to blame for this and blame for that. “We need to

increase this,” because of X, Y, or Z.

As I mentioned, those people that are sitting in A&W are fed

up with the excuses. They want relief. They want to know that they’ve

got good health care, but they’re not getting it. They want to know that

when their kids are off to school, they’re getting a good education.

They want to know that the roads are going to be looked after. They want

to know that if they have a loved one that’s suffering from mental

health or addictions, there’s going to be help for them.

But we’ve seen nothing, or very little, from this government to

give people confidence at a time when people are looking for hope, at a

time when British Columbians deserve more than they’re getting, because

they’re paying for it. They’re paying a lot of money for it. The money

is flying out of the back of the pickup, but there are no results

coming, which is really concerning for all of us.

People are worried about their health. They’re worried about their

economic well-being. They’re worried about their children. They’re

worried about their future. They’re worried about the future and where

the future of British Columbia is going.

With that, I’ll take my seat. Thank you very much, hon.

Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Recognizing the member for Columbia

River–Revel­stoke.

D. Clovechok: Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and it’s always a

pleasure to see you in the chair.

I am honoured today to stand here in this House, representing the

people of Columbia River–Revelstoke, and share some thoughts on Bill 10,

the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I do want to start out with the caveat that with this bill, it’s

about implementation of a budget. I need…. The thrust of my discussion

will be about some of what I think are the shortcomings that my riding

has told me about in the sense of: how can you implement if