Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 88

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

North Shore athletes at B.C. Winter Games

B. Ma

Introductions by Members

By-Election Results

MLA for Kelowna West

A. Wilkinson

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

B.C. colleges

S. Gibson

Heart health for women

R. Leonard

Grieg Seafood and donation of salmon to food

bank

L. Larson

Internet services in coastal communities

J. Rice

LNG development in northwest B.C.

E. Ross

B.C. colleges

R. Kahlon

Oral Questions

Referral of spill response regulations to

court

A. Wilkinson

Hon. G. Heyman

Hon. D. Eby

Environment Minister communications with

environmental groups

M. Lee

Hon. G. Heyman

Fish farm tenures and wild salmon

protection

A. Weaver

Hon. D. Donaldson

Impact of employer health tax on school

districts

D. Davies

Hon. R. Fleming

J. Yap

Impact of employer health tax on

businesses

R. Coleman

Hon. C. James

Petitions

L. Throness

Tabling Documents

Public Service Benefit Plan Act, annual report for year ending March 31,

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

Hon. S. Simpson

D. Barnett

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure today to acknowledge a distinguished former leader of

the federal New Democratic Party, a former cabinet minister in the Quebec

Legislature and former Member of Parliament for the riding of Outremont in

Montreal. He’s out here visiting the west coast. He has contributed greatly

to the political conversation and political events in this country’s history

during his career in politics.

I’d like the House to give a very warm welcome to Thomas Mulcair.

[Applause.]

T. Shypitka: It’s my honour and privilege to introduce four great friends of mine

that are in the gallery here today. I’ve had the pleasure of working with

all of them. Mr. David Kim is the CAO of the city of Cranbrook. Wayne Price

is our beloved fire chief and the director of fire and emergency services.

Wesly Graham is a councillor of the city of Cranbrook and also a director of

the regional district. Last, but certainly not least, is a mentor of mine

and the mayor of one of the most beautiful cities in the world, Mr. Lee

Pratt. I’d like to give them a big, warm welcome.

Hon. A. Dix: Today members on all sides of the House met with B.C. representatives

and B.C. and Yukon representatives of the Heart and Stroke Foundation. I

know that the members of the Green caucus, the official opposition and the

government were there, and there will be meetings throughout the

day.

I want to introduce Adrienne Bakker, the CEO of Heart and Stroke B.C.

and Yukon; Mark Collison; Mary Stambulic; Brian Curin; Michael Korenberg,

who’s also the new chair of the board of governors of the University of

British Columbia; Dr. Karin Humphries, who gave an excellent presentation

this morning called Ms. Understood , which dealt with issues of

women’s health care, especially women’s heart health; and Dr. Jim

Christenson. I’d like the House to wish them all welcome.

S. Gibson: I rise today to welcome to the House important leaders of British

Columbia colleges. We’re fortunate to have with us today President David

Walls of the College of the Rockies, President Ken Burt of Northwest

Community College, President Bryn Kulmatycki of Northern Lights College,

President Henry Reiser of the College of New Caledonia, President Jim

Hamilton of Okanagan College, President Peter Nunoda of Vancouver Community

College and President Lane Trotter of Langara College. They’ll be meeting

with MLAs later today to talk about the issues that face them. Let’s all

give them a warm-hearted legislative welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: I’m delighted to introduce our House guests for B.C. Colleges Day,

which we’ll be celebrating all day throughout this province and later on

this afternoon in the Hall of Honour.

[10:10 a.m.]

I’d like to welcome John Bowman, the chair of B.C. Colleges and the

president of North Island College; Sherri Bell, the vice-chair of B.C.

Colleges and president of Camosun College; Lane Trotter, past chair of B.C.

Colleges and president of Langara College; and Colin Ewart, who is the

president of B.C. Colleges.

I’d like to also welcome all the students, presidents and staff who

are here to celebrate B.C. Colleges Day. B.C. has 11 colleges in its

post-secondary system. I’d like to acknowledge Camosun College, College of

New Caledonia, College of the Rockies, Douglas College, Langara College,

North Island College, Northern Lights College, Northwest Community College,

Okanagan College, Selkirk College and, last but not least, Vancouver

Community College, which is in my riding of Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant.

Will the House please join me in welcoming these leaders who support

our ecosystem and public post-secondary education.

Hon. C. James: I have the pleasure to introduce a group who is visiting from the best

high school in Victoria–Beacon Hill. It is the only high school in

Victoria–Beacon Hill, but it’s still the best high school in Victoria–Beacon

Hill. Both of my children graduated from Victoria High School. We have a

school group with 38 grade 10 students and two adults and their teacher, Ms.

Jean Campbell. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s my honour to introduce two people who are integral to managing

traffic and running the operations in my minister’s office. Joining us today

in the gallery is my administrative coordinator, Kirsten Neilson, and on her

very first day on the job, new administrative assistant Ashley Drew. Will

the House please join me in making them very welcome.

Tributes

NORTH SHORE ATHLETES

AT B.C. WINTER

GAMES

B. Ma: The North Shore did very well this year in B.C.’s Winter Games up

in Kamloops in bringing home 21 medals, 11 of which were gold. I would

like the opportunity to congratulate them by name very

quickly.

We have Yvonne Orr, Brianna Bisaillon, Anastasia Kimovska, Talia

Harasym, Pyper White, Stephan Schoeller, Pierce Burns, Daniel Gawenda,

Stephanie Lum, Helena Andres, Zakk Harman, Veronica Fong. Some of these

are multiple-medal winners, so that’s why I’m skipping ahead here.

Victor Cai, Oliver Kraatz, DJ Gilbert, Sangeon Yoo, Nick Kellof, Emily

Millard, Markus Cordy-Simpson, Dylan Stevens, Eric Bullington, Julian

Hassan, Brooke Armstrong, Henry Brewster. I really hope I didn’t miss

anyone. Would the House please join me in congratulating all of these

wonderful North Shore athletes.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Sims: It would be remiss of me if I didn’t rise in the House today to

acknowledge a very special guest, a man I had the privilege to work with in

Ottawa. I would say, without any doubt, one of the best parliamentarians. He

language.

Overall, I would say that it was an absolute honour and privilege to

work with him while he was Leader of the Official Opposition and to have the

critic roles that I did have. I knew that when he was the leader, he had

your back in every which way.

I can still remember the filibuster we did in Parliament. Tom was just

relentless in his support, very solid. The kind of support he gave to a new

parliamentarian and the role model he turned out to be when it came to

social justice, when it came to doing the work that was necessary to build a

more inclusive Canada, was exemplary.

I want the House to join me in welcoming Thomas Mulcair to this

chamber.

[10:15 a.m.]

S. Furstenau: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Laura Colpitts, a dear friend

and an extraordinary photographer who captured in her pictures the story of

the Shawnigan community coming together and standing up for our water and

our future. I’m absolutely delighted she’s here. Would the House please make

her feel very welcome.

J. Routledge: It gives me great pleasure to introduce someone in the gallery who is

my most enthusiastic supporter and my most trusted strategist. I can truly

say we’re in this together. I wouldn’t be here if he wasn’t there. Please

join me in welcoming my husband, Bill Brassington.

By-Election Results

MLA FOR KELOWNA WEST

Clerk of the House:

February 26, 2018

Hon. Darryl Plecas, MLA

Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

Room 207, Parliament Buildings

Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X4

Dear Mr. Speaker:

On August 4, 2017, this office received your warrant advising of the

vacancy in the Legislative Assembly resulting from the resignation of

Christy Clark, the member for the electoral district of Kelowna

West.

On direction from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I issued a

writ of election for the electoral district of Kelowna West on January

17, 2018, ordering a by-election to be held to fill the vacancy. The

writ specified general voting day to be February 14, 2018.

The by-election was held in accordance with the provisions of the

Election Act, and the completed writ of election has been returned to

me.

In accordance with

section 147(2) of the Election Act, I hereby

certify the following individual to be elected to serve as a member of

the Legislative Assembly: Ben Stewart of the B.C. Liberal Party for the

electoral district of Kelowna West.

Sincerely,

Keith Archer, PhD

Chief Electoral Officer

British Columbia.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the certificate of the Chief Electoral Officer of the

results of the election of the member be entered upon the

Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

A. Wilkinson: It’s a great pleasure to rise in this House and welcome back the

re-elected member for Kelowna West. He’s a person who brings great

experience to this House, having served multiple times before as an MLA.

He has been through a number of elections in Kelowna West, each time

with decisive victories, and of course, he has served as a cabinet

minister in this facility and for this government before.

It’s a great asset to bring back to this House the newly elected

member, whose name I want to blurt out but will get in trouble for.

Since he hasn’t yet taken his seat, perhaps I can mention his

name.

Mr. Stewart has served the province of British Columbia in a

number of roles, not only in the community, in his involvement with the

wine industry, but also serving as a representative of this province in

Beijing, expanding British Columbia’s trade opportunities. He has shown

a certain propensity to come back to this chamber, though. Like a

boomerang or some kind of off-cycle Pacific salmon, he shows up every

four or five years, gets re-elected and comes in here.

It’s a great pleasure to see him back here. It’s perhaps a

coincidence that the wine dispute that emerged in the last few weeks was

resolved just before he appeared. I suppose that means the opposition is

so intimidated by his arrival that they caved in.

In any case, his task will be as an elected representative for his

riding to represent the fine community of West Kelowna and the parts of

the city of Kelowna that lie within his riding. His job will be to join

us in the opposition and make all of the members of government

accountable for their actions — whether they’re good, bad or

ugly.

We will welcome him into this House as a member who has a lot of

experience with the traditions of this place, knows how the rules work.

Of course, we each can turn to Mr. Stewart in these moments before he

becomes a member for Kelowna West and say: “Estimates, take your

pick.”

Thank you to Mr. Stewart for taking on this task again, for

becoming a member of this House once again.

I would ask the members of the Legislature to give him a warm

welcome after his decisive win in the Kelowna West

by-election.

[10:20 a.m.]

I have the honour to present you with Mr. Ben Stewart, the member

for the electoral district of Kelowna West, who has taken the oath,

signed the parliamentary roll and now claims his right to take his seat.

[Applause.]

The hon. member for Kelowna West took his seat.

Mr. Speaker: I welcome the member for Kelowna West to this assembly.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

B.C. COLLEGES

S. Gibson: It’s great to honour our colleges in the House today with B.C.

Colleges Day. B.C. colleges are — and I choose this word carefully —

lovable. They provide accessible education to 125,000 students annually.

They’re welcoming, especially to adult learners.

They’re relevant and student-centred. They offer flexible

admission, sometimes even rolling admission; smaller class sizes for

students to help them understand their curriculum more easily; great

advice from counsellors; and an amazing number of programs — 250, from

adult education to career, technical trades and university transfer in

60 communities, in the far north right to the border.

It’s great to report that 90 percent of B.C. college students

graduate and transition to the workforce in just six months. There’s a

network of colleges, providing all kinds of programs, close-to-home

education, and sensitive to the ever-changing labour market. Some B.C.

colleges even offer applied undergraduate degree programs, ideal for

making those employment moves even at a later stage of life.

It was my privilege to teach at the University of the Fraser

Valley, when it was previously a university college, and also summer

school at Douglas College. So I know the importance and I’m convinced of

the value of B.C. colleges.

Congratulations to B.C. colleges. Thousands of career-minded

British Columbians appreciate the great educational experience you are

providing.

HEART HEALTH FOR WOMEN

R. Leonard: As many of us know, February is officially Heart Month. It is the

time for all of us to not only remember but to emphasize the importance

of a healthy heart. It’s time, and it’s especially important for

women.

According to a recently released report by Heart and Stroke, there

are startling facts about women and heart disease. Notably, despite

medical advancements, women are more likely to die from a cardiac event

than men. Another startling fact is that women are more likely to have a

second heart attack within the first six months of the first.

Unfortunately, today in Canada, heart disease claims a woman’s

life every 20 minutes. Why is that? The answer is complex. However,

research shows that women’s hearts differ from men’s in ways that are

just beginning to be understood.

For example, heart disease is more likely to occur in the smaller

blood vessels of a woman’s heart, while for men, it is more likely to

happen in their major coronary arteries. Pregnancy, menopause and

hormonal changes also affect women’s hearts, and newly uncovered types

of heart disease that primarily affect women are only beginning to be

studied.

Fortunately, there are studies underway that will help to close

the gaps and improve outcomes. In the meantime, there are ways women can

reduce their risk of heart disease.

[10:25 a.m.]

It starts with talking to their doctor about risk factors, staying

smoke-free, maintaining a healthy body weight, being physically active,

eating nutritiously, drinking in moderation, if at all, and minimizing

stress. This is good advice for everyone, I’d say.

GRIEG SEAFOOD AND

DONATION OF SALMON TO FOOD

BANK

L. Larson: A recent request to the B.C. fish farmers from the Grand Forks

food bank was responded to by Grieg Seafood.

Established in 2001, Grieg Seafood has farming operations on the

east and west sides of Vancouver Island. They hold 21 marine farm

licences and have a land-based hatchery in Gold River. Their production

capacity is 20,000 metric tonnes. They are most famous for Skuna Bay

salmon, which is served in quality restaurants around North America.

B.C.-farmed and -processed salmon contributes $1.5 billion to the B.C.

economy.

The Grand Forks food bank serves 150 families and wanted to serve

their clients something different and highly nutritious — farmed salmon.

Marilyn Hutchinson from Grieg Seafood responded to the Grand Forks

request and arranged for servings of salmon for all the clients of the

food bank. It was a bit of a logistical challenge, but Marilyn and her

team made sure that the fresh salmon was delivered to the food bank in a

timely manner. Over 300 servings were distributed before Christmas

through the volunteers of the Grand Forks food bank, and additional

servings were enjoyed by all the seniors with a special dinner at the

seniors centre.

Thank you to all the volunteers around B.C. who work at their

local food banks, helping those who need a helping hand, and to all of

the companies, corporations and individual donors who support those food

banks. A special thank-you to Marilyn and Grieg Seafood for stepping up

and helping the food bank in Grand Forks.

INTERNET SERVICES IN

COASTAL

COMMUNITIES

J. Rice: We’ve all had that experience of pounding out a

Shakespearean-quality speech or email, to have the spinning globe of

death appear on our computer screens. Timed-out crashing or no Internet

is a fact of life in rural and remote B.C. For too long, people living

along B.C.’s coast and Haida Gwaii have been forced to live in

technological isolation. This has affected our ability to communicate

and do business in a digital world.

The government of B.C., in partnership with Canada, is helping to

close the connectivity gap in the province through a combined investment

of over $45 million. This venture will enable the installation of a new

subsea fibre optic line from Prince Rupert to Haida Gwaii, down the

entire B.C. coast and around northern Vancouver Island.

This will bring new or improved high-speed Internet to 154 rural

and remote communities, including 56 First Nations communities. Coastal

communities will have better access to key services like health care and

education; bring new economic opportunities, tourism and other

industries; and improve our ability to respond to emergencies throughout

the region.

One of the key partners of this extraordinary project is City

West, a profitable company owned by the city of Prince Rupert. City West

employs 85 people, who live and work in the north, and is an example of

an employer who provides opportunity for an advanced–skill set in

northern B.C.

Part of the reason City West wants to undertake this project is to

provide redundancy. Why is redundancy important? Well, on February 3, a

single tree fell on a hydro line, which cut through the only fibre line

that provides Internet services to thousands of customers across the

north. With redundancy, their experience will not be

interrupted.

To paraphrase the Minister of Citizens’ Services: in the past, it

was railroads that brought new services and economic opportunities to

our communities to help them grow. Today it is Internet connectivity

that’s changing the way we live and do business.

A. Wilkinson: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Wilkinson: We’re joined today by another federal Member of Parliament, the member

for Central Okanagan–Similkameen–Nicola, which will probably be renamed as

B.C. wine country. That’s Mr. Dan Albas.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

LNG DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHWEST B.C.

E. Ross: From small rural communities to First Nations, people are starting

to ramp up their efforts to ensure that LNG is part of B.C.’s

future.

[10:30 a.m.]

At the Prince George B.C. Natural Resources Forum in January,

Mayors Lori Ackerman, Dale Bumstead and Phil Germuth and Haisla

Hereditary Chief and elected leader Kevin Stewart all rallied for LNG

development. They did it because regular people want a good job and to

provide a good life for their families.

There’s good reason to be optimistic. Shell is predicting in its

2018 outlook that demand is growing faster than expected. We might even

be looking at a supply shortage in 2020. All of this bodes well for the

two LNG projects in Kitimat.

Support for LNG on the ground is everywhere, and more and more

people are starting to find the courage to bravely speak up in favour of

the LNG industry.

In Kitimat, a group of volunteers collected signatures for a

letter-writing campaign to encourage the federal government to strike

down a federal tariff that threatens the progress of LNG in B.C.

Volunteers like Barb Campbell, Gina Versteege, Linda Campbell, Gareen

Ball, Chief Councillor Crystal Smith of the Haisla Nation and Sarina St.

Germaine show their commitment to the region by organizing and then

sacrificing their time to collect over 1,700 signatures.

When asked why he was doing this, volunteer Dave Johnson said

this: “I’m tired of seeing friends move and businesses shut down. I want

to stay in Kitimat, which I love, but can’t without opportunities for

making money. It’s a sad state of affairs here right now with special

interest groups and foreign governments influencing the economy. It’s

really sad to see people so fooled by all the opinion-based information.

I just want to stop the misinformation out there and wake people

up.”

Thank you to Dave Johnson and to all of the volunteers of Kitimat

for their love for Kitimat and the region.

B.C. COLLEGES

R. Kahlon: I’m proud to speak to the House today about B.C. Colleges Day.

B.C. is home to 11 public colleges serving 125,000 students each year.

With more than 60 campuses in every corner of our beautiful province,

students have access to more than 250 program choices in their local

region.

Colleges add a great diversity to our post-secondary system,

providing a wide range of academic, vocational, trades and

apprenticeship, technical training as well as adult basic education.

Every year B.C. colleges educate thousands of students in business

management, engineering, applied sciences and health care, especially as

the market demand increases. In the next decade, 42 percent of the job

openings will require a college or trade certification, and 36 percent

will require university credentials.

Through university transfer programs, B.C. colleges enable

students to achieve the first two years of a university degree while

studying in their local region or to earn an applied degree without

having to leave home at all.

B.C. colleges and their graduates contribute an impressive $7.8

billion of income to the provincial economy annually, and 93 percent of

the B.C. college graduates stay to work and pay taxes in this province.

B.C. colleges produce a well-educated, highly skilled workforce that, in

turn, gives back to strong, sustainable communities in rural and urban

centres throughout B.C.

Today we recognize the incredible, positive impact that B.C.

colleges have made on our province over 50 years.

D. Ashton: I, too, seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Ashton: I, too, would like to introduce another respected parliamentarian that

is in the House today.

I had the incredible privilege of working with Dan Albas at the city

of Penticton and at the regional district. I need to say to every member in

this House that this gentleman is a gentleman that represents every member

of his riding, whether you voted for him or not. We could all learn from the

personal communication skills that he has brought to not only myself and to

members of our council but also specifically to members of the parliament,

where he serves the people that he represents.

Mr. Speaker and everybody, thank you for the opportunity.

Oral Questions

REFERRAL OF SPILL RESPONSE

REGULATIONS TO

COURT

A. Wilkinson: Over the past month, we’ve seen that the Premier triggered a

completely unnecessary trade war, with repercussions across Canada. The

Premier has wisely relented and realized the mistake that he made and is

now salvaging this messy situation by correctly making a reference to

the B.C. Court of Appeal.

[10:35 a.m.]

To avoid further embarrassment, will the Attorney General

guarantee to this House that the reference question will be brought to

this House for debate before it goes to the court?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question,

although his premise is certainly flawed.

This government is standing up for British Columbians in a number

of ways. This government is asserting our jurisdiction and right to

regulate environmental impacts in order to protect our economy, protect

our coastline, protect jobs and protect the interests of British

Columbians.

When the members opposite were in government, they saw lots of

flaws in the NEB process, lots of problems and threats to B.C. Yet when

the chips were down, they simply turned their backs on British Columbian

interests and ceded all regulatory authority to the federal

government.

That was wrong. British Columbians believe it is wrong. We are

proceeding later this week to introduce a discussion paper, an

intentions paper on regulations to protect B.C.’s coasts, our economy

and our interests. We’re referring the fifth point to the courts to

assert and defend our jurisdiction. We are confident — confident — that

the courts will stand on the side of British Columbians and our

government’s right to regulate in their interests.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: I have attempted to raise a legitimate question to be addressed by

this House. Instead, I received empty rhetoric from the Environment

Minister which is designed to trivialize this procedural point in the

House and to presuppose the result of a decision by the B.C. Court of

Appeal. My suggestion is the Minister of Environment should be ashamed

of himself.

The federal government has refused to participate in the reference

to the B.C. Court of Appeal. The Alberta government says it stands in

wait to see if British Columbia is going to take any more rash steps

before they decide what to do next. Further serious consequences for our

economy are at stake.

I’ll repeat the question for the Attorney General — a purely legal

question, a procedural question for this House that needs to be answered

in a responsible fashion. Will the Attorney General bring the reference

question to the B.C. Court of Appeal to this House for

debate?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. I mean, there are mistakes in

the member’s question. He assumes, necessarily, that we would refer to

the Court of Appeal. We could also refer to the B.C. Supreme

Court.

There are a number of variables that need to be determined in a

reference: what the specific question is, whether it will be draft

regulations or whether it would be some type of a question. We’ve seen

the polygamy reference in the past. We saw the previous government refer

electoral regulations to the Court of Appeal. There are a number of

variables, and that’s why we’re going to expert counsel.

I’ve been very clear. We’ll retain expert counsel. I know that

everybody is now a constitutional expert. I heard Christy Clark is now a

constitutional expert. But we will actually retain constitutional

experts to advise us on this question, and we will take their advice to

defend B.C.’s interests, defend B.C.’s economy and defend B.C.’s

coast.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, it’s becoming apparent that this government has no intention

of getting a decision on this point, because taking a referral to the

B.C. Supreme Court first would add another two years to the process,

thereby dragging things out when British Columbians are looking forward

to an answer.

[10:40 a.m.]

The appropriate vehicle is to go to the B.C. Court of Appeal. The

Attorney General should know this. It’s been done many times in the past

by the British Columbia government, but he has now decided to reinvent

the procedural rule book to benefit the delay that his government seeks

to inject into this.

The question is…. The Premier made an impulsive decision. He had

to backtrack. He had to admit that he’d made a mistake. Now we have an

Attorney General who is refusing to bring a fairly fundamental question

before this House. Will the Attorney General accept that it’s

appropriate to bring the question to this House for debate, rather than

act in a unilateral way and wander into another mistake, to the

embarrassment of British Columbians?

Hon. D. Eby: If there is a delay in court, it’s probably due to the opposition

underfunding our court system. I note, on that point, that my colleague

the Finance Minister has put forward a budget with $5 million for new

clerks and new sheriffs for our courts, to eliminate delays.

Interjections.

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

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows full well that this is not a reinvention of any

rules. This is the Constitutional Question Act. It allows us to refer

matters to the B.C. Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal. We will take

the best advice possible.

When that member was on this side, he didn’t show up in the

Federal Court of Appeal to defend B.C.’s interests. We had to scramble

to get there after we were elected. We got there. We defended B.C.’s

interests in the Court of Appeal. We’ll do it again.

ENVIRONMENT MINISTER COMMUNICATIONS

WITH ENVIRONMENTAL

GROUPS

M. Lee: The Environment Minister’s actions have had very little to do with

the best interests of British Columbians. It is all about keeping

activists on side.

The goal of the Bowen Island group is to support mass resistance.

I’ll say that again, and I’m reading from their own document: “This

group is coming together to support mass popular resistance.” There is

even an example in the document of a situation where, if a small group —

described as part of “the swarm” — is arrested, they will be given

assistance from “the hive.”

Does the Minister of Environment seriously have no concerns with

whom he is colluding to stop the Trans Mountain project?

Hon. G. Heyman: As Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, I

regularly meet with stakeholders from across British Columbia. That’s an

important thing to note, and it’s a practice that all members of our

government engage in. We engage in it because people in British Columbia

— whether they’re in business, whether they are community groups,

whether they are municipal governments, whether they are citizens

concerned about their jobs or their environmental future — have had

enough.

Enough of 16 years when they couldn’t get in the door — 16 years

of a government that was so arrogant they didn’t think they needed to

consult with anyone but their friends, the richest 2 percent at the top;

16 years where they didn’t give anyone a heads-up about their best ideas

for policy or legislation. They didn’t consult with them about what

should go into it.

That’s not the practice of this government. We are proud of

consulting with British Columbians in every walk of life.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.

M. Lee: Well, with respect, we’re not talking about concern for the

environment. We are all concerned about the environment. We’re talking

about the nature of the groups that the Minister of Environment is

meeting with.

Let me say this.

Interjections.

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

you.

[10:45 a.m.]

M. Lee: This is a group that does not wish to face public scrutiny. I’m

reading again from the Bowen Island document.

Interjections.

M. Lee: This is what we see in this House, right? This is what we see

about this group.

The quote is: “We will not have a brand or a presence in public.

Use Signal, with disappearing messages.” What kind of group is this?

Former Premier Glen Clark once referred to these types of groups that

are organizing against B.C. workers as “enemies of B.C.”

The question has to be asked again. Will the minister stop

colluding with these radical activists?

Hon. G. Heyman: As I’ve said, this government respects British Columbians from all

walks of life. We don’t engage in name-calling. It’s interesting to

watch members opposite — the member for Vancouver-Langara, the member

for Kamloops–North Thompson — channelling former Prime Minister Stephen

Harper and Joe Oliver, two people that the people of British Columbia

clearly are happy to have seen the last of.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, proceed.

Hon. G. Heyman: Last week I met with members and representatives of the Canadian

Energy Pipeline Association. I met with representatives of northern

chambers of commerce. We had a frank discussion over a number of issues,

including the facts that we disagreed in our approach to this particular

project and that they disagreed with many of the opponents. But they

never descended to referring to British Columbians, holding honest

opinions about what’s in the best interests of their future, by

name-calling.

I encourage members opposite to take a step back and take a page

out of the book of those public representatives.

FISH FARM TENURES AND

WILD SALMON

PROTECTION

A. Weaver: I am so sorely tempted to ask about that dinner on Bowen Island,

but I’ll digress. I’d rather ask this.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: No, I wasn’t there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we could get to the question.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Under previous governments, open-net fish farms were approved

within First Nation territories without adequate consultation or

consent, yet our present government claims it’s committed to

reconciliation. In Alert Bay, the ’Namgis Nation have lost their once

prolific salmon runs. They desperately want fish farms removed from

their waters. They’ve been occupying Marine Harvest fish farms since

August.

The Swanson fish farm is currently empty, and its tenure is up for

review this spring. Yesterday we received notice from the ’Namgis Nation

that they believe that Marine Harvest has made final preparations to

restock the Swanson farm. The fish food has been delivered, they say,

and the bird nets are now in place. They believe that the restock could

happen as early as today.

My question to the Minister of Agriculture is this. If Marine

Harvest is pumping new smolts into those pens, how will that impact the

government’s assessment of their tenure status come June?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Wild salmon are a fundamental part of who we are in B.C. —

socially, economically, environmentally, First Nations and non–First

Nations alike. The member knows that the old government oversaw

declining salmon stocks along our coast. Instead of responding to

concerns about fish farms, they pushed the issue aside.

Our government is committed to protecting wild salmon and the

nearly 10,000 great jobs that depend on those stocks. We’re working with

First Nations, building a new relationship based on partnership and

respect, and we’ve started a path forward with First Nations.

[10:50 a.m.]

The Leader of the Third Party mentions the ’Namgis First Nation.

On January 30, four cabinet ministers had an extensive meeting with the

five First Nations who have the most interest in the fish farms in the

Broughton Archipelago. It was a good meeting, with good dialogue. It was

based on the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples

principles. We’re planning a follow-up meeting based on a mutually

agreed-upon process in a government-to-government manner.

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

A. Weaver: Now, I recognize that this is not answer period, but that was so

far from the question I’d actually posed. I would have thought we’d get

some semblance of a response to a very important issue.

When we reviewed correspondence between DFO and the B.C.

government with respect to the steelhead issue, which my colleague

raised yesterday and the day before, it was clear that nobody knows

who’s on first base with respect to dealing with salmon in British

Columbia. And that answer…. We deserve much better in this

House.

Alert Bay isn’t the only community where people are worried about

open-net fish farms. It’s widely recognized as being a key issue within

the web of threats facing our wild salmon populations. We’re beginning

to see other jurisdictions, like Washington, take steps. Legislation,

unfortunately, didn’t pass but was tabled to actually ban new salmon

farms and issuing of new licences in Washington state.

The B.C. NDP have explicitly said that keeping farm sites out of

important salmon migration routes is critical. In fact, the member for

North Island made a promise to the ’Namgis Nation where she reiterated,

in the nation’s big house, that the main reason they should vote B.C.

NDP in the last election was to ensure that the fish farms got out of

the wild migratory routes of sockeye salmon.

My question to the Minister of Agriculture, who actually grants

the tenures, not the Minister of FLNRO….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Is it FLNRO? Okay. We’ll do FLNRO. I thank the former minister.

Maybe my question should be to the former Minister of

Agriculture.

The minister has the Advisory Council on Finfish Aquaculture

report. When will the government remove farm sites from the wild

migration routes of salmon, which they promised they would do and told

British Columbians that they needed to elect them to ensure this would

happen?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you, I suppose, for that lengthy question. I’ll address the

overall issue.

The overall issue is that we’re proceeding with a shared

decision-making process with the five First Nations, not just one First

Nation, who are concerned about fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago.

That shared decision-making process incorporates the principle of

consent and a government-to-government approach.

That’s the way that we’ll be proceeding. To unilaterally make a

declaration in this chamber around the concerns of one First Nation is

not the way this government proceeds. We proceed in partnership with

First Nations, involving discussions from the start. That’s the way

we’ll get to reconciliation in this province.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON SCHOOL

DISTRICTS

D. Davies: The school boards across this province, which are already strapped

for cash and being extremely creative making things work, are now

discovering they’re going to be hard hit with the new NDP double-dipping

employer tax grab. In fact, the Vancouver school board is now facing a

$7.2 million shortfall with this government tax grab.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Is there money in

this budget to cover the shortfall?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you so much to the member for the question.

Budget 2018 was the most significant investment that has been made

in public education in generations in British Columbia, and we are proud

of that.

[10:55 a.m.]

The last budget that government tabled, which cut tens of millions

of dollars compared to our budget that we tabled last week…. It’s a $500

million difference. That’s a half-a-billion-dollar investment in

students that our government has made in this budget. That’s a

significant decision.

That government used to claw back all kinds of money out of school

districts — low-hanging fruit, all that kind of stuff. We’ve returned

savings in the tens of millions of dollars to schools to put into

classrooms for learning resources for our kids.

This province has never had a lower teacher-to-student ratio in

history. That’s a feature of this budget that we’re proud of.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. R. Fleming: And 3,700 new teachers are on the job in schools right around

British Columbia, 600 new education assistants helping students with

learning disabilities. That’s in a budget that invests in families. It

gets better, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, please take your seat.

The member for Peace River North on a supplemental.

D. Davies: I have a soapbox over here in the corner, Mr. Speaker. But

anyways, my apologies.

The minister is going to need to come up with a better response.

In fact, a response would have been nice to my question.

School boards are looking at their budgets, and it’s very clear

that they are worse off under this new tax grab from this government.

That’s not just me saying that. In fact, that’s Patti Bacchus who has

been stating that. So again….

Interjections.

D. Davies: I know. It’s part of the fan club.

Can the minister tell us, again, where the money is going to come

from to support school districts that are hurting?

Hon. R. Fleming: I’m just delighted to hear that the members across the aisle are

now quoting education advocates who fought against their government for

16 years because they went to court against kids.

Let’s start with the facts. The member is actually wrong, entirely

wrong. This school year Vancouver is actually achieving a $1.5 million

savings, and our government has said: “Keep it. Put it into the

classrooms so you can help kids.” That’s the reality. The Vancouver

school board’s budget has never been higher — tens of millions of

dollars of new investment. Just since Labour Day, we’ve invested $300

million to fix the seismic backlog of projects that that government

never approved. Many of them are in Vancouver.

I’d really like to understand the position of the Liberal Party on

getting rid of the MSP. It’s delivering savings to school districts now

that they can keep. Most importantly, for the 500,000 parents of kids in

our school system, money in their pockets — 1,800 bucks a year for

regular working families who take their kids to school. That’s

progress.

J. Yap: The Richmond school board has discovered that the new employer tax

will cost Richmond schools $2.2 million.

To the Minister of Education: is there an additional $2.2 million

in the budget for the Richmond school board to pay the new NDP employer

tax, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Education, and short answers are good.

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I’ll try my best, Mr. Speaker. But with so much good news in the

education sector and early childhood education…. It’s hard to be so

concise when we’re investing more money in kids and families than any

government has done before, but I’ll try.

The member from Richmond is wrong. There will be savings to

Richmond school district by cutting the MSP by 50 percent this year.

That investment will be made in classrooms. That’s where we expect it to

be. In addition, in this budget, we’re returning $10 million of money to

school districts, including Richmond, for the next-generation high-speed

broadband Internet service. We’re returning tens of millions of dollars

in pension overcontributions.

We’re not taking it back, like the old government used to do.

We’re telling school districts like Richmond to invest it in kids,

invest it in classrooms, invest it in special education programs, and

that’s what Richmond is doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston on a supplemental.

J. Yap: The new employer tax that the government is downloading on school

boards was not anticipated. Richmond school board is facing $2.2 million

in cuts to the classroom.

Again to the minister: is there money in the budget for school

boards to pay the new employer tax, or will Richmond need to cut $2.2

million from classrooms, yes or no?

Hon. R. Fleming: The member is just completely wrong in what he is asking here

today. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars of savings by cutting

MSP in the Richmond school district budget this year and next

year.

What I would like to point out to the member — he was at an

announcement in his constituency recently — is another thing that I’m

very proud of in terms of our government. We’ve done something that that

government refused to do over 16 years. We have invested in making

schools safe, seismically, in Richmond. They never did it. Our

government is investing $1.8 billion in school capital, the largest

school capital budget in B.C. history. Richmond is going to be a part of

it, and I hope the member will come to more announcements in the near

future.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

BUSINESSES

R. Coleman: The Jansen family have been working the land in Langley for over

40 years. They’re one of the greatest contributors of people, an example

of family in my community. They have been doing it that long. Profit

margins in farming are tight. They’re always tight. But the Jansen

family have found a way to maintain the homestead and employ 250 people.

Now they’ve been blindsided by the new tax from this government, a tax

which imposes a $100,000 additional cost on the Jansen family with their

employees.

To the Minister of Agriculture: do you think this family should

lay off people; should they reduce production, make it a smaller farm,

sell the farm or increase prices? Which is it, Minister?

Hon. C. James: Once again, I’ll run through the employer health tax. I think it’s

important to note that in the first year, because of the reduction of

the medical services premiums by 50 percent, implemented January 1,

there is a $1.3 billion savings for businesses and individuals in this

province.

We have ensured, when we bring in the employer health tax, that we

are protecting small business. Anyone with a payroll of under $500,000

will not pay anything on the employer health tax. Businesses between

$500,000 and $1.5 million will pay a portion of the tax. So it is

progressive. Those 5 percent of businesses that have a payroll of more

than $1.5 million will pay the health tax.

We are ensuring that we are getting rid of a regressive tax. We

are protecting health care, which we all care about in this province,

supporting small businesses and supporting citizens in British

Columbia.

[11:05 a.m.]

[End of question period.]

L. Throness: I seek leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

Petitions

L. Throness: On Saturday, I attended a meeting of constituents concerned about the

imposition of assisted suicide on palliative care. In the region of the

Fraser Health Authority, 98 people signed a petition citing four reasons why

it should not be done, including that the practice is contrary to World

Health Organization guidelines for palliative care. The petitioners request

that this honourable House publicly debate the practice of medical

assistance in dying in palliative care in B.C.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. James: I rise to table a report, the 41st annual report pursuant to the

Public Service Benefit Plan Act. This report provides the cost for employees

participating in the public service benefits plan for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 2017, and is tabled in accordance with the Public Service Benefit

Plan Act,

part 1,

section 8.

Orders of the Day

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

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to join the debate on Budget 2018.

When I was thinking about the comments I would make and what I would have to

say about the budget, I was reflecting back on something that, as electeds,

we’ve all heard at different times from people in the public who are

skeptical about politics and all of that, the people who say: “The

politicians are all the same, and the parties are all the same.” You hear

that. What I would say is that this budget clearly demonstrates that we’re

not all the same.

This budget is a great example of a government that has identified and

taken a path that is so clearly and distinctly different than what went on

for the previous 16 years of the B.C. Liberal government. It was a period of

time, a period of 16 years, when the government, I believe, had a very

narrow focus on how it paid attention and who it paid attention to. It was a

period of time where we saw the previous government neglect, ignore — choose

your word of choice — those people who needed help around affordability and

who were looking for services to be restored, enhanced and reinvigorated,

who were looking for opportunities for themselves and their

families.

This budget, Budget 2018, I believe, has taken us a long way down the

road to begin to accomplish that. Clearly, nothing changes overnight, and 16

years don’t change in eight months, but we have seen significant progress.

We saw it in the budget update that occurred last fall, and we’ve seen it in

an even more substantive and significant and broader way in Budget 2018,

which was introduced into this House last week. We have a budget that is

balanced. Its projections are of a $219 million surplus in ’18-19, $281

million in ’19-20 and $284 million in ’20-21.

[11:10 a.m.]

I would note that with those surpluses, you also have a forecast

allowance which, again, provides room. It’s part of the contingencies of

budget that are included in budgets: a contingency allowance of $350 million

in 2018-19, $500 million in 2019-20 and $600 million in 2020-21. It also

includes contingencies of $550 million in 2018-19, $750 million in 2019-20

and $750 million in ’20-21. So there is room there as well.

The budget, as I said, is balanced. The budget continues to project

economic growth, nation-leading levels of economic growth. It delivers on

social services in a way that we have not seen in a couple of decades,

including putting in front of British Columbians the first new significant

social program, child care, that we have seen in this province — and,

largely, across the country — in a very long time. It addresses

affordability issues for British Columbians, making people’s lives more

affordable — something that we have heard consistently, something that we

campaigned on and something that we know is critical for hard-working

families in British Columbia who are working to make ends meet.

Post-budget, we’ve all heard comments. We all hear comments. I have

been very pleased with the comments that I’ve heard from people in my

constituency of Vancouver-Hastings and people I’ve had the opportunity to

talk to in other communities — comments about the changes that were made;

about the initiatives related to housing; about the initiatives related to

child care; about the initiatives related to deductibility on PharmaCare;

excitement for those people who have been paying medical services premiums

at a personal level, who are excited that they’re now going to be able to

use that money to, in fact, invest in other essentials that their families

need.

In all these cases, we’ve heard from people who are anxious about new

initiatives that they want to see move forward in British Columbia. Also

people who are confident in the efforts that have been made by the Finance

Minister, the Premier and this government in advancing this particular

budget and people who are confident that they’re beginning to see the path

forward to the kind of British Columbia that they’re looking for in the

future — a British Columbia that does put affordability first, that does put

everyday families first, that does address the challenges of some of our

most vulnerable citizens, that does look at how we build a network, a

framework in this province that is supportive of people moving

forward.

Hon. Speaker, it’s been quite a ride for the last number of months as

government. You’ll know that we started last fall. At that time, I was

pleased that in October, we were able to give a $100 increase to temporary

assistance and disability benefits, to increase the earning exemptions at

that time, in October, for people who were receiving income assistance and

disability benefits, and then in January to put a transportation supplement

in place that supports 100,000 people who are living on persons with

disabilities.

Those investments are about $250 million or $260 million of annual

investment in order to be able to achieve those particular improvements.

They are improvements that have been needed. They are improvements,

particularly around the increase in rates, that we have not seen in this

province for well over a decade. Rates had been frozen by the previous

government, and this is a step forward.

I would acknowledge it is simply a step and that there’s much more

work to be done. I look forward, moving forward over this year, to be

putting in place a poverty reduction strategy that will lay out the path

forward over the coming years for us to be able to, hopefully, significantly

reduce poverty in British Columbia.

The other pieces of this budget, as we move to this year, include

continued and ongoing support for those initiatives that were first

introduced and put in place in October.

[11:15 a.m.]

We’ve had the opportunity to add some FTEs, some staff in my ministry,

which will help improve service quality — 30 new FTEs to advance and improve

service quality.

We are able, through the negotiation with the federal government

around the labour market development agreement, to get additional resources

into British Columbia for employment programs and to expand and broaden

those programs in terms of who will be eligible to participate in those

programs; and for service providers who deliver those initiatives through

Work B.C. on our behalf to be more innovative and be more flexible in how

they deliver those programs; and to be a very important and complementary

tool to the poverty reduction initiative, moving forward, as we look to

create greater employment opportunities for people who either are

underemployed today and looking to improve their employment situation, or

who are struggling to find employment.

I think particularly of persons with disabilities who I know, from my

conversations day in and day out — meeting with persons with disabilities —

who almost without exception say to me: “I want a job. I want an opportunity

to work. I want to improve my life, and I want the opportunity to do that

with employment. I’ve got something to contribute, I’ve got value, and I

want to put that forward.” We’re going to support and assist those efforts

to improve those opportunities.

The other piece that we’ll be talking more about in the next couple of

months is the basic income initiative. That will look very clearly at

modelling a basic income and what that looks like in British Columbia.

People will know that this is a model going back to the ’70s in Dauphin,

Manitoba, with Mincome, when this was first explored in this country in any

meaningful and substantive way.

We’ve now looked across the globe at examples of basic income

initiatives. Members of this House may know that Ontario is right now in the

first year of a three-year initiative on basic income that will be a pilot

engaging a number of people in Ontario and looking at the basic income

model.

We’re looking forward to being able to get information from their work

and to doing something that is a different initiative here. But it’s an

initiative that really will allow us to look very closely through the basic

income lens and how that might reflect and affect income support programs

and how we move forward and what income security looks like.

I would note that we’re hearing from people who both want to talk

about basic income as a vehicle around poverty reduction and also talk about

it as a vehicle for a changing economy around automation, around robotics

and around what that means.

I think that we went through an industrial revolution, and we’ve

talked about that. We know there’s great change happening now. It will be a

challenge for us in British Columbia and for governments across the globe to

determine how they deal with the future of automation, of robotics, and what

that does to employment. New jobs will be created. Old jobs will be lost.

But there is a transition there that’s going to prove difficult, I believe,

for a significant number of people, and we need to determine how we address

that.

I read a report out of the United States where they anticipate, in the

next decade or so — maybe a little bit more than that — that 40 percent of

the jobs that exist in the United States today won’t exist. They will have

been replaced by automation, by robotics in some fashion. They do say there

will be other opportunities, but they will be different. I still think we’re

uncertain. The basic income will provide us with some information and some

insights on how we may need to move forward and look at those issues as we

do.

I talked a little bit about some of the things that we’ve done as

first steps relating to poverty reduction. I’ll talk about how this budget

has afforded us support there, too. We’ll know that we have put in place a

forum that’s providing me with advice. We are a little more than two-thirds

of the way through 28 consultations around the province, being facilitated

on our behalf by the Social Planning and Research Council, and we’re well

into the work on what the plan looks like and what legislation looks like

moving forward here.

[11:20 a.m.]

As we look at what’s happened in this year, and we look at what’s

happened moving forward, there have been some critical and important steps

around the work that my ministry is doing. We know that a poverty reduction

strategy is not the purview of this ministry alone. This ministry is

providing some leadership on the file, but it is a cross-government

initiative, and we have seen some steps there.

We know that homelessness is a critical issue. We’re very excited

about the opportunity to put in the 2,000 modular units and, very

importantly, the operating dollars that go with those units to allow us to

optimize the effectiveness of those units. We’ve seen now, across the

province, those units being scooped up by local governments which are

looking for that support to assist them in dealing with the homelessness

issues.

As I said, the operating dollars are really the critical component to

the success, I believe, of the modular housing strategy. They’re dollars

that allow us to provide wraparound services for people who have complex

issues. They’re dollars that allow us to support people who have mental

health and addiction challenges. They’re dollars that we can certainly use,

which local governments and others can use, to provide great supports for

that. So I’m very excited about that opportunity, as we see governments

across the province picking those units up, finding sites and moving forward

with the modular unit initiatives.

The other piece that’s a very important piece is the minimum wage

increase. We have about 680,000 people living in poverty in British Columbia

today. Over 40 percent of those people have a paycheque or a couple of

paycheques coming into the house. They’re struggling. They’re struggling to

make ends meet while they go to work every day. Part of that is directly

linked to minimum wage. So the efforts to increase the minimum wage to $15

an hour, in fact, will be a significant step in helping to deal with the

struggles of the working poor. That’s an important piece for us to pay

attention to.

When it comes to this budget directly, we have made some remarkable

steps. There are the two cornerstones of this budget that I want to talk a

little bit about. From travelling the province, talking to people about

poverty reduction, the number one issue that comes up in those meetings is

housing. It’s affordable housing. It’s a place to live and having a safe,

secure place to live.

The other issues that come up are mental health and addictions — this

government invested $322 million in mental health and addiction supports

last fall — and child care. Young families are looking for child care

support as they are staggered by the cost of child care today — either the

cost that they struggle to pay or the availability of that child care,

moving forward.

I want to talk about the importance of those two issues. In housing,

we will invest, through this initiative, over $7 billion over the next ten

years — building almost 34,000 units of housing across the province,

including mixed-income social housing, student housing and housing for the

homeless, among others.

We will increase the benefits in the rental assistance program, adding

up to $800 a year of additional support for people who need some help to pay

the rent. We will see seniors who are under the SAFER program have their

supports increased by an average of about $930 a year, supporting some

35,000 households to be more affordable.

And $141 million is earmarked to build 1,500 units for women and

children who are fleeing abusive relationships. This is a critical piece for

families which are trying to escape those situations — to have safe, secure

housing and, then, for us to be able to work with and support them as they

get back on their feet and build lives, moving forward.

[11:25 a.m.]

An innovative approach that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Housing has moved forward, a new housing hub office for B.C. Housing, will

be a tool we will use as a vehicle, through B.C. Housing, an organization

that has a depth and wealth of expertise and experience in housing

development in this province, which is exceptional. We will now be asking

them to use that innovation in an even broader and more substantive way — to

work with the private sector and others to begin to find the innovative ways

to build the housing partnership that we need moving forward.

All of these are steps in the fulfilment of the ten-year commitment

that we’ve made to provide 114,000 units of housing in this province, moving

forward.

The other component of this that is critical — it is really the first

new social program we have seen in this province in a very, very long time —

is child care. We initiated, in this budget, the start of the first

universal child care plan that, certainly, this province has ever

seen.

Key investments have been made, including, starting in September, up

to $1,250 a month per child of a benefit to child care, which will provide

supports for 86,000 families by the year 2021; a fee reduction program for

up to $350 a month that will go directly to licensed care providers for

child care spaces — this is estimated to support, again, 50,000 families;

and the creation of more than 22,000 new licensed child care spaces

throughout the province, including support to help facilitate unlicensed

family care providers to become licensed, moving forward.

We know, too, that if we’re going to have success in child care and

move that forward, we need to make sure we have the early childhood

educators in place to be able to do that work. We’re working with our

partners to develop a workforce development strategy that includes

innovative approaches to how we train those ECE staff and how to grow the

programs in our colleges and universities to move that forward.

These are just first steps. I would encourage people who are paying

attention to these issues to really get into the information to read more

clearly what exactly is being proposed here and see how it might affect you

or your family.

Those are the cornerstone pieces, but there is more to this budget

than that. I just want to talk through a little bit of what that looks

like.

The elimination of MSP premiums by January 1 of 2020. This means that

a family that is paying their MSP will save upwards of $1,800 a year. A

single person, $900 a year. These are tangible affordability initiatives

that put real dollars in the pockets of people who are challenged to make

ends meet.

PharmaCare. So $105 million to expand fair PharmaCare programs and

expand coverage for 240,000 families. This is for families that have incomes

under $45,000 a year. They will be the major beneficiaries. Deductions will

entirely eliminate these costs for our most-modest-income families in the

$15,000 to $30,000 range. They won’t pay anymore. That’s a huge

issue.

When you talk about affordability, there are things that we choose to

buy that are discretionary, but health care is not discretionary. For those

families and those people who are struggling…. You don’t have any choice.

When you need those medications, you need to pay. We’re saying: “For those

people who are most challenged to pay, we’re going to help you. We’re either

going to reduce those costs for you or, in many cases, we are going to

eliminate those costs entirely.” That’s about getting at critical goods and

services.

Legal aid. So $26 million over three years to expand legal aid,

including Indigenous and family law services.

Increased financial support for former youth in care.

[11:30 a.m.]

A piece that’s very important is around our Indigenous people, as we

talk about UNDRIP and reconciliation. We’ve invested over $200 million in

this plan to support reconciliation and Indigenous people, including funding

to expand culturally based child care; $158 million to partner on Indigenous

housing, including building up to 1,750 new units of supportive housing; $16

million for the First Nations Health Authority to support mental health and

wellness in Indigenous communities — a critical investment; $6 million over

three years for friendship centres — 25 friendship centres around this

province that provide essential services in communities like Prince George,

where the friendship centre is the most significant social service

organization and agency in that city.

In 25 communities, they provide services. They provide services to the

80 percent of Indigenous people who live off reserve in our urban centres,

and in most cases, those centres don’t close their doors to non-Indigenous

people in those communities. They welcome them in, and they provide services

there as well. We’re going to support those friendship centres in the work

that they do.

This is maybe the most critical investment of all around UNDRIP and

around reconciliation — $50 million for languages. I was sad to hear a

member on the other side be dismissive of that in his comments the other

day. I think that’s unfortunate. If we believe in reconciliation; if we

believe that we need to build a new relationship with First Nations; if we

believe that we need to provide, through partnership, support for our

Indigenous people to be able to meet their full potential and embrace their

culture, language is such a critical piece of that.

Culture fails and culture disappears without language. That’s my

belief. We need to provide those supports. This becomes a critical piece.

It’s one of the pieces of the budget. There are a lot of exciting things in

this budget, but this is one of the pieces that is most exciting to me. It’s

this $50 million for languages that will enhance, I guess, at least 30 key

language groups in this province today.

These are just some of the aspects of the budget. I think what we hear

and what I’ve heard from people is an excitement that all of these

initiatives are there as we move forward, and on how the government has

responded to what people are saying.

I heard the new Leader of the Official Opposition, through one of

those debates that went on during the leadership debate, talking about how

out of touch his party was with British Columbians — how out of touch. It’s

probably, maybe, the most thoughtful thing I’ve ever heard out of the Leader

of the Official Opposition. What we have is a situation where it is time to

be in touch with the people of British Columbia. That was our commitment —

around affordability, around the services and around an economy that’s built

on family-supporting jobs.

That work is moving forward. We’re seeing these investments. We’re

also seeing, as we move forward, significant investments in capital

initiatives. We’re going to see investments that will create upwards of

50,000 direct and indirect jobs during construction. Those are important

jobs. We all know that governments have to work to build this province,

replacing the Pattullo Bridge, replacing Handsworth Secondary School in

North Vancouver, partnering with our post-secondary institutions to deliver

5,000 units of student housing.

All of these are first steps. I know that there’ll be more to come,

and you’ll be hearing more in the coming months around infrastructure

projects and infrastructure initiatives that move forward, as we spend the

dollars to build British Columbia moving forward.

[11:35 a.m.]

We know as we do that, we have an opportunity here to create real

opportunities for young people who are looking at careers and at futures.

It’s great that we’ve got an investment in skills training to help support

that. It’s an investment, again, with our First Nations partners in creating

opportunities for young people in their villages to learn trades, to get to

work and to find opportunities to build their futures and build their

careers.

There’s a lot in this budget. As I said at the beginning, some people

often would say: “Political parties are all the same. You all act the same.”

Well, you can look at this budget, and you can look at the investments and

the priorities of this government. You can look back at any of the last

number of budgets of the previous government. What you will see very clearly

is that there are real differences in political parties: a political party

that spent 16 years narrowly looking after a small group of people in

British Columbia and a political party that in its first eight months has

delivered on promises around affordability, services and building a new

economy.

I’m very proud of this budget, I’m proud of the work this government’s

done, and I’m proud of the years and years of building that is still to come

with this government in place.

D. Barnett: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the 2018 provincial

budget. As we all know, the provincial budget is an important statement

about what a government stands for and what kind of future British

Columbians should expect. This is the first provincial budget the NDP has

delivered since 2001, so expectations were very high.

The public had every reason to expect a great deal from this budget.

When the government changed hands this summer, they inherited the

best-performing provincial economy in the country. Public finances were in

top shape. We had an AAA credit rating and five balanced budgets in a row.

The NDP also inherited a $2.7 billion budget surplus. No incoming government

in our history had a better starting point. The new government also followed

through on some key tax cuts that were announced in the 2017 budget by the

B.C. Liberals. These included cutting MSP premiums by 50 percent, reducing

the small business tax rate from 2.5 percent to just 2 percent and

eliminating the PST that industry pays for electricity.

All of these are tremendous tax cuts. We in the opposition supported

these budget measures, and not just because they were announced by the

previous Liberal government. Rather, cutting MSP premiums and reducing the

small business tax were already announced in the 2017 budget. British

Columbians were already counting on government to make these tax cuts

happen. All of these measures were announced in the September update budget.

This brings us back to the NDP’s first full budget released last

week.

There is one thing that really stands out in this budget. This budget

does not speak to rural and northern residents. There is no mention of the

forest industry, mining industry or agriculture industry.

In the Minister of FLNRO’s speech to the budget, he said there is $75

million in the budget for rural development under a new rural development

bottom-up strategy. I asked: “What does he mean?” We have had a bottom-up

strategy. It took over a year to put this strategy together from people

across the province of British Columbia taking time and listening. This

rural strategy includes all ministries. This is a bottom-up strategy, the

one that we put together, not a 28-day on-line consultation process. There

is no mention of a solid recovery plan from last summer’s

wildfires.

I have asked everywhere: “Where is the recovery plan?” I can find

none. I have constituents on a daily basis coming to my office and begging

for help. It is getting worse, not better. There is no hope, and there is no

plan. “Where is it?” I ask.

[11:40 a.m.]

I would like to see it on paper, as would my constituents, who are

hurting badly. We talk about economic recovery. We talk about poverty.

Without help, there will be more poverty in the areas that were hit by the

wildfire, and it will be massive.

People in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin will continue to ask what is

in this budget. I can honestly say I am very pleased with the Minister of

Health’s announcement that he is carrying forward with an announcement we

made earlier for the business plan for a new hospital in Williams Lake,

which is much needed. I thank the minister for his commitment. But more than

that is needed in my riding, and more than that is needed in rural British

Columbia.

I’ve gone through the budget very carefully. I am so concerned and so

worried. I see nothing in the Transportation Ministry to carry on with the

Cariboo connecter. I see no capital for rural road projects, which we had in

our strategy. I see so many missing components in this budget, and I will be

spending a lot of time in estimates, hopefully getting answers I need for my

constituents.

This budget contains a lot of spending and a lot of tax increases.

I’ll address those in a minute.

What this budget lacks is any consideration for the growing divide

between urban and rural British Columbia. Just look at the results of the

last election. There were very few NDP members elected in rural and northern

British Columbia. This budget reflects the dominance of the Lower Mainland,

where all the NDP seats are located — and on the Island.

The budget contains some punishing taxes on foreign buyers speculating

on real estate in Metro Vancouver. The NDP has now expanded coverage of

these real estate rules to the Interior and parts of the Island. But this

budget had very little to say about northern and rural British Columbia, as

if we really don’t matter.

The only thing people in the Cariboo have to worry about is getting

hit over the head with this new payroll tax on small business, and they are

concerned. This came as a huge surprise to the private sector. There was no

warning given to the business community. There was no public consultation.

For a government that has launched umpteen dozen public reviews and

consultations, this new employers health care tax came as a big surprise —

schools, universities, daycares, societies, local governments. Consultation?

Where?

How are all these organizations going to pick up the costs? More

taxes, download — a nasty surprise. Also, according to Jock Finlayson of the

B.C. Business Council…. The business community has every right to be

furious, as do others I previously mentioned.

It’s true that last fall the NDP followed through on the tax cuts

announced in the September budget update: a 50 percent cut to MSP and the

reduction of the small business tax. But now it appears the government wants

all the money back. That’s what the 2018 NDP budget does. It’s a giant list

of tax increases, $8 billion worth of tax increases in just seven months of

being in government. That is quite an achievement.

We’re talking about a government that was handed a $2.7 billion

surplus just seven months ago. Now the NDP wants more. Let’s take a moment

and list them all off so that people can get an idea of just how much this

government plans to tax and spend. It all began last fall. The cost of doing

business in B.C. started with the September budget update.

One of the first things the NDP did was to raise the corporate income

tax rate from 11 percent to 12 percent. The Finance Minister said that this

was a good thing because it put British Columbia in the same league with

other western provinces. In other words, B.C. would lose its competitive

edge.

[11:45 a.m.]

I’m not sure why the Finance Minister thought this was a good thing.

If you are a company looking to locate your headquarters in western Canada,

B.C. is no longer a better place to do business. You might as well locate in

Alberta or Saskatchewan.

The increase in the corporate tax rate was just the beginning. The

September budget update also contained another nasty surprise. The NDP

announced it was going to increase the carbon tax and abandon the principle

of revenue neutrality. British Columbians will get hit with this tax

increase on April 1. It’s going to feel like some kind of cruel joke, but

it’s not. This is real. This is going to hurt every taxpayer in this

province.

Let’s start with the fact that the carbon tax will no longer be

revenue-neutral. The reason why the carbon tax was so well received by the

general public was because any increase in the carbon tax would be met with

a corresponding decrease in income taxes or some other form of tax. We even,

when we were government, received world recognition from the United Nations

for delivering one of the world’s first and most successful carbon taxes in

the world. That’s until the NDP got a hold of it last fall.

Remember, this was a party that campaigned on Axe the Tax, but now the

NDP has turned the carbon tax into a giant government cash cow. The new

government is going to increase the carbon tax by $5 a tonne each year for

the next four consecutive years.

That may not sound like much, but consider what it is going to cost

you every time you fill up your gas tank. Prices at the pumps will go up to

about 8.5 cents per litre of gasoline and approximately more than ten cents

for diesel. That means consumers will pay more than $5 extra in carbon tax

every time they fill up and nearly $10 if you drive an SUV.

This is what the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has to say:

“If you have two vehicles in your family, this means the carbon tax will

now cost you about $360 per year just to drive your children to school and

get yourself to work and the grocery store. With more than 5.7 billion

litres of gasoline sold in B.C. last year, it means the provincial

government will make an average of $490 million in gasoline carbon tax, and

when the diesel carbon tax is included, that jumps to more than $600 million

in tax revenue taken from motorists in one year.”

Now we are talking about just the price of gasoline. What is really

going to hit the provincial economy is the rising cost of diesel. Just about

every vehicle that is heavy transportation runs on diesel. When food gets

delivered to your grocery store, it gets delivered by trucks that run on

diesel fuel. When the bus comes to pick up your children for school, it’s

diesel. When you take out the garbage to the curb, it gets picked up by a

diesel truck. If you take a ferry in British Columbia, it currently runs on

diesel. I think you are beginning to see my point.

Whenever the cost of overhead increases in the private sector, those

increases are ultimately borne by the consumer. It’s not enough that the NDP

is going to stick it to people filling up at the gas pump. In the end, we

are going to be paying more and more for basic necessities. That’s just

plain wrong.

The Finance Minister is smiling for a reason. The NDP isn’t required

to tell British Columbians how much money it is raising from the carbon tax

cash grab. It just disappears into general revenue. The government doesn’t

have to earmark any of this money to help fight climate change. They’re just

going to use it to spend on all sorts of weird and wonderful campaign

promises.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

That’s just two major tax increases so far, the increase in corporate

taxes and the giant cash grab through the carbon tax, and we still haven’t

finished with the September budget update. There was an increase in income

tax too. The personal income tax rate for individuals earning over $150,000

gross — from 14.7 to 16.8 percent.

[11:50 a.m.]

Now, that might sound reasonable — to make people who earn more pay

more. But it also signals that the NDP has already exhausted the low-hanging

fruit by whacking all the high-income earners.

Remember that company that was thinking of locating its headquarters

in British Columbia? It may no longer be an option because the corporate tax

rate has been increased. Any employees earning salaries on the high end

might not want to pay the highest personal income taxes in the country. This

is especially true in the tech industry. That leaves the NDP in a bit of a

dilemma. Now that they have maxed out income taxes on the high-income

earners, their next target is the private sector.

Noting the hour, I hold my place to continue speaking and move

adjournment of the debate.

D. Barnett moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada