Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, September 18, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 19

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

Twyla Roscovich

J. Rice

Bruce Hill

J. Rice

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Election Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Community markets in Esquimalt-Metchosin area

M. Dean

Richmond Hospital and Richmond Hospital Foundation

T. Wat

Facilities for families in downtown Vancouver

S. Chandra Herbert

Clarke McGuire

J. Yap

Pedram Amani

B. Ma

North Shore Disability Resource Centre and fundraising

event

J. Thornthwaite

Oral Questions

State-of-emergency status for wildfires

R. Coleman

Hon. M. Farnworth

Freedom-of-information requests for wildfire loss cases

C. Oakes

Hon. M. Farnworth

Government response to businesses impacted by wildfires

D. Barnett

Hon. M. Farnworth

Allan Schoenborn and high-risk designation

P. Milobar

Hon. D. Eby

Greyhound bus service

S. Bond

Hon. C. Trevena

Tabling Documents

B.C. Judicial Compensation Commission, report, 2016

B.C. Judges Compensation Commission, report, 2013

Points of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

J. Rustad

D. Barnett

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 1 — Changes to question period and daily House

business

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

T. Stone

Hon. S. Simpson

S. Cadieux

Hon. S. Robinson

A. Olsen

Hon. J. Darcy

M. Hunt

Hon. G. Chow

J. Tegart

Hon. K. Conroy

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2017

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: Today I was joined in my office by Braden Webb and his caregiver

Johnny Vantol, both visiting from Delta — actually, the constituency of the

member for Delta South. Now, the interesting part of Braden’s visit was that

he came into the office with some authority and advised all present that he

was there to see the Premier, that he had important issues to discuss. And

that was absolutely true. He had business to discuss. It wasn’t for himself.

It was mostly for his aunt in Kamloops, who was not getting access to

handyDART services.

Braden made the case that we need more handyDART services in British

Columbia. I took him at his word. I will bring forward more information and

work with the Minister of Finance to see what we can do to assist not only

Braden’s aunt in Kamloops but those right across British Columbia who need

access to handyDART services. I will also say, as a Vancouver Islander, that

Braden had some issues around B.C. Ferries as well.

Would the House please make both Braden and Johnny very, very

welcome.

D. Davies: It is my great pleasure that I introduce someone today who I served

with as a colleague on a city council for 12 years. I’d like this House to

make welcome one of the hardest-working mayors in Fort St. John, Her Worship

Mayor Lori Ackerman.

J. Sturdy: In the House today are two of my favourite constituents. One is known

as the Queen of Whistler, or so it seems to be a more common occurrence.

It’s the mayor of Whistler. Mayor Nancy Wilhelm-Morden and one of her

councillors, Jack Crompton, who is also the chair of the Squamish-Lillooet

regional district, are here to talk Sea to Sky regional transit. May the

House please make them welcome.

S. Furstenau: It’s my absolute pleasure to introduce my friend, colleague and mentor

Mark Neufeld, who is here with his students from Claremont School. He

teaches in the Institute for Global Solutions. He is the teacher I wanted to

grow up and be. I’m absolutely delighted he’s here in the House with us

today with his students. Please make them feel welcome.

Tributes

TWYLA ROSCOVICH

J. Rice: B.C. has lost two wild-salmon warriors this week. Twyla Roscovich,

an environmental advocate and filmmaker, was a tireless advocate for

protecting our coast and for protecting B.C.’s wild salmon. She was an

incredible empath and loved by so many up and down the coast, and she

was loved across this province.

I went to Northwest Community College with Twyla over a decade

ago, and I remember her to be compassionate, passionate yet a respectful

debater. She leaves behind a four-year-old daughter. A GoFundMe page has

been set up for her future, if anyone cares to contribute to

that.

BRUCE HILL

J. Rice: We lost Bruce Hill this morning, another tireless advocate and a

giant of a man who spent his entire life standing up for people and

places. He’s known for his work in the north, whether that’s protecting

the Sacred Headwaters of the Stikine, the Nass and the Skeena rivers or

protecting the coast from oil tankers. He was a giant of a man. He had a

giant of a personality. He was so hard on me, but he believed in me, and

I owe a lot for my place in this House to Bruce Hill. I’m sad to know

that we’ve lost him this morning.

[1:40 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

E. Foster: I have four guests in the House today, friends of mine from the

Shuswap area, actually, who are here visiting the precinct for the first

time — which really surprises me, because they’re very politically active

people. Would the House please make welcome Cindy Derkaz; her husband, Don

Derby; and their friends Lois and David Higgins. Welcome to the

House.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Election Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill intituled the Election Amendment Act, 2017,

be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I am pleased to introduce Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act,

2017. This bill honours our government’s commitment to get the big money

out of politics. The bill makes significant changes to the Election

Act’s rules respecting political contributions, election expenses, loans

and debts, fundraising functions and the regulation of third-party

advertisers.

The bill proposes to ban union and corporate political

contributions, as well as political contributions from outside of B.C.

It proposes an annual limit of $1,200 on contributions from eligible

individuals to any one political party and its candidates. The bill also

places strict restrictions and public reporting requirements on

fundraising functions held at private residences.

The bill has retroactive effect, restricting the future use of

contributions received before the bill comes into force. Any donations

not received in accordance with the new rules would not be permitted to

be used for future election expenses under the bill’s

provisions.

Although this bill introduces the second-lowest individual

donation limit in Canada, the bill does not provide a permanent, public

per-vote funding mechanism like in Ontario or Quebec. Instead, political

parties that received at least 10 percent of the vote in the most recent

general election will be provided with an allowance that declines each

year and ends in 2022. This allowance is temporary and is intended to be

used by parties to transition away from corporate and union

donations.

The bill also proposes to lower the previously allowable election

spending limits for political parties and candidates by 25 percent. In

addition, third-party sponsors of direct election advertising will be

subject to the same donation limits as political parties and candidates.

They will also be subject to additional disclosure and accountability

requirements.

Finally, the bill establishes new monetary penalties for

contravening election financing and election advertising

rules.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 3, Election Amendment Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

COMMUNITY MARKETS

IN ESQUIMALT-METCHOSIN

AREA

M. Dean: Through the summer, I could have been at a local community market

nearly every day of the week. It is a festive and vibrant season across

my constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin.

On Sundays at the Metchosin Farmers Market, there’s a fresh array

of locally grown vegetables, breads, jams, salsa, baked goods and herbs.

I love to buy fresh tomatoes for a Sunday evening salad, and I sit on

the green, listening to the variety of music each week.

[1:45 p.m.]

On Wednesdays, it’s the Q market in Colwood, which offers a

wonderful, bright and inspiring range of crafts and goods. Here I

recognize the art of local jewelry designers, local brewing companies

and other home-based products and services. The market fills with

visitors and families who browse the stalls, dance to music and grab a

bite to eat.

On Thursdays, my regular haunt is the Esquimalt Farmers Market,

which serves as a community gathering point. It builds relationships,

encourages healthy local living, environmental and economic

sustainability. Not only is it full of great-quality, cutting-edge

artisan and locally produced goods and crafts; it also has a park for

dogs and a wonderful playground for kids of all ages. A different band

plays each week. Families bring blankets, and they make a whole evening

out the entertainment and the atmosphere and food.

Finally, on Saturdays, I visit Goldstream Market to stock up on

baked goods and peruse other crafts from our creative community. I

appreciate the opportunity to visit with our local vendors, learn about

their productive process and do my part to support our local economy. It

feels good to buy from those who grow B.C. so that my family can eat

B.C.

RICHMOND HOSPITAL AND

RICHMOND HOSPITAL

FOUNDATION

T. Wat: We all work hard to maintain our good health in the hopes of

living a long life and staying out of hospital, if we can. But when we

do find ourselves in the midst of medical challenges, it is reassuring

to know our local hospitals and health care providers are there to

assess those problems and treat them effectively.

Our Richmond Hospital has done that for more than 30 years. Since

1966, Richmond Hospital has delivered high-quality health care to

residents of Richmond and Delta and is often relied upon to treat

travellers who fall ill at Vancouver International Airport and the

Tsawwassen ferry terminal. But right now, the hospital faces challenges

of its own.

With Richmond’s population growing rapidly, especially our seniors

population, there are more and more people seeking care, and our aging

facilities and equipment need to be upgraded. That’s where Richmond

Community Cares Month comes in. This initiative by the hard-working

Richmond Hospital Foundation reaches out to our diverse community to

raise funds throughout the month of September.

The focus of this year’s fundraising is to help advance plans for

a new acute care tower at the hospital. It’s a top priority for our

community, and I hope it will be for this government as well. My sincere

thanks go out to the foundation and their staff and volunteers who are

working tirelessly to support our community’s growing health care

needs.

FACILITIES FOR FAMILIES

IN DOWNTOWN

VANCOUVER

S. Chandra Herbert: They’re coming. They’re on their way. They’re coming. It’s getting

busier every day.

No, the planners would say. Families don’t want to live downtown.

They want to live in the burbs, where they can have a backyard. Well,

you know what? The people were right; the planners were wrong. There are

more and more kids moving downtown with their families all the time. In

fact, there are so many that our schools, our child care facilities and

our public places are full to bursting.

Why do they live downtown? You’ve got the beaches. You’ve got the

ocean, Stanley Park, the Y, Coal Harbour, West End community centres,

Gordon House, Joe Fortes library. The list goes on and on. But we need

to act, because the schools are too crowded.

I know we will get action. How do I know? Because our community

has seen these challenges before. We needed play space. What did we do?

We united. Under playground chair Danny Laufer, we just recently opened

a brand-new playground at Lord Roberts Annex. With the support of the

Golden family, who put resources behind it, we finally got that

playground built, and this last week, I got to see it open for the first

time. You can see what communities working together can

achieve.

What’s next? How do we deal with this crowded classroom situation

in downtown Vancouver that’s been left for too long? We build new

schools. Coal Harbour elementary school must be built. The great thing

about that school is that on top of it, we’ll get new child care, which

is also needed. We’ll also get more affordable housing on top, which is

also desperately needed.

[1:50 p.m.]

For years, we were told no. For years, we are going to continue to

act. This year I’m hoping we’ll finally get action, because our

community deserves it. Our community needs it. When kids need something,

they’re the ones we should listen to most of all. As a new dad, I’ve

learned that very well.

I thank the community who have worked so hard to build the new

playground and everybody who worked so hard to get the Coal Harbour

elementary school built.

CLARKE MCGUIRE

J. Yap: It’s an honour to rise in the House today to talk about my

constituent Clarke McGuire.

Clarke is a well-known figure in Richmond. Although retired now,

sort of, he was an advanced life support paramedic in our province and

in Richmond for 40 years. He is also the first recipient of a new

national award, a Paramedic Association of Canada’s Paramedicine Across

Canada Expo, or PACE, award. His former colleagues Gene Benoit and Ron

Van Houghton were instrumental in submitting Clarke’s name for this

award. Mr. Benoit describes Clarke as follows: “He embodies everything

that this inaugural PACE award of excellence for leadership and

community building is all about.”

Clarke would drop by my constituency office every now and again to

update me on his latest endeavours. One that was very near and dear to

him was leading Team B.C. at an annual paramedic competition in Europe.

The Rallye Rejvis International Medical Rescue Competition is an

international professional exercise and competition for emergency

medical service crews, founded in 1997. Under Clarke’s leadership, Team

B.C. not only won top honours but showcased B.C. paramedics to the

world.

But there’s also another side to Clarke. He has provided valued

input for changes to the building codes to improve lives for patients.

Something that seems so simple today — insisting building elevators be

installed that fit not only the paramedics but also the stretchers as

well — were a result of Clarke’s input.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating Clarke McGuire on his

recent award and for all he has done for his profession and for our

province.

PEDRAM AMANI

B. Ma: Salaam , Mr. Speaker.

The Iranian-Canadian community on the North Shore has shared so

much with all of us here in Canada, not least of all their professional

expertise and academic achievements. A brilliant example of this is

18-year-old Pedram Amani, a recent immigrant from Iran. Pedram was

studying at Tehran’s Atomic Energy High School before he and his family

moved here to British Columbia in October of 2015. Pedram joined the IB

program at West Vancouver Secondary School.

Less than seven months after joining us here in Canada, Pedram was

participating in the Canadian Association of Physicists High School

Prize Exam, a nationally conducted contest with approximately 2,000

participants. Pedram did very well for British Columbia, coming in

fourth overall in the country in 2016 and third overall in the country

in 2017, the best performer in B.C. in this contest.

As a result of this performance on this test, he was invited to

join the Canadian Physics Olympiad National Program camp, where he

earned the opportunity to compete in the 48th International Physics

Olympiad as a member of Team Canada. This annual global physics

competition for secondary school students was held in Indonesia earlier

this year, and Pedram came home with a bronze medal for

Canada.

Young Mr. Amani has lived in Canada for less than two years and

has already represented Canada so well. Today Pedram is a new student at

my own alma mater, the University of British Columbia, where he is

studying applied sciences and hopes to enter the field of engineering

physics.

I want to thank Pedram Amani and so many other immigrants like him

who have chosen to share their talents with Canada and contribute to the

beautiful mosaic that this country can be. I wish him all the best in

his future endeavours. Merci .

NORTH SHORE DISABILITY RESOURCE

CENTRE AND FUNDRAISING

EVENT

J. Thornthwaite: I rise today to recognize a North Shore association that has

supported and empowered people with disabilities for over four

decades.

[1:55 p.m.]

Established in 1976 by a group of parents, professionals and

advocates, the North Shore Disability Resource Centre, located in the

centre of my riding, has been working to ensure that people with

disabilities are provided with the opportunity to live comfortably in

their communities and actively participate as contributing members of

our society. They are the only agency on the North Shore that provides

assistance to people of all ages with any sort of disability and to

their families and caregivers.

Today the association directly serves over 450 individuals,

through a wide range of residential and community-based programs and

services for people with physical, neurological, psychological,

intellectual and sensory disabilities.

This coming weekend the North Shore Disability Resource Centre

Foundation will be hosting their annual comedy benefit event, taking

place at North Vancouver’s Centennial Theatre on Saturday, September 23.

This year’s event will feature comedy and music from iconic Canadian

performers Colin Mochrie and Deb McGrath. Proceeds from the event will

go to help the centre administer a wide range of important services,

from supporting seniors with disabilities find housing to creating

individually tailored plans to assist children with disabilities as they

transition from youth to adult support services.

I want to thank the North Shore Disability Resource Centre for

their commitment to those in our community with disabilities. I

encourage everyone who’s in this area to buy tickets to this fantastic

event. If you’re unable to attend the event, I encourage everyone to

give to this extraordinary foundation, at their website, at

http://www.nsdrc.org/nsdrc-foundation/.

Oral Questions

STATE-OF-EMERGENCY STATUS

FOR

WILDFIRES

R. Coleman: On Friday, the government ended the state of emergency in British

Columbia, which limits the province’s ability to deploy resources.

According to their own news release, the government ended the state of

emergency despite the fact there are still 153 fires burning in B.C. and

11 evacuation orders in place affecting more than 3,000

people.

There are another 23 evacuation alerts in place, meaning more than

5,700 people have been told to leave at a moment’s notice. This, despite

the fact that the largest fire in B.C. history, the Plateau wildfire,

continues to burn at almost the size of Prince Edward Island. Clearly,

the fire season is still very much in full swing.

My question is to the Premier. Now that he’s cancelled the state

of emergency, how many out-of-province firefighters do you need to help

fight these fires and get them under control? And how many resources do

we no longer have access to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the Leader of the Opposition — I thank him for his

question — that the lifting of the provincewide state-of-emergency order

has no impact on our ability to access resources from wherever they are

within the country — coordinated through the centre in Winnipeg, which

we have an agreement with, and we work with other provinces. So on that

side of things, that does not impact our ability to access resources at

all.

In terms of the number of people who are currently under

evacuation order, right now it is 1,322 and just over 6,000 on

evacuation alert. That is down significantly from the peak, where more

than 45,000 people were under evacuation order, which was 10,000 more

than in the fires of 2003, and 65,000 people have been

affected.

The lifting of the order was based on information provided by the

people fighting the fires on the ground, the experts in the field — that

the conditions that are required in order to lift that state of

emergency were, by and large, in place. As a result, the emergency was

lifted. That does not change, for example, local states of emergency.

They continue to remain in effect.

R. Coleman: To the minister, with the removal of the state of emergency,

British Columbia no longer has the same access to international incident

teams and supports. This is not according to us but according to

emergency management B.C. This could not have come at a worse time,

given that 1,000 of our firefighters have gone back to school and

numerous firefighters are tied up at the Elephant Hill and the Plateau

fires alone.

The provincewide state of emergency is a unique situation, as the

minister knows. It allows the minister to deploy any fire equipment, any

personnel and any equipment other than fire equipment anywhere in the

province at a moment’s notice, under his control.

[2:00 p.m.]

When you give that up, you no longer have the ability to backfill

from fire department to fire department and move people here to there to

protect the communities and fight these fires. Basically, the gap that

we’re concerned about is where you are getting the additional people

that you have with those going back to work or back to school, wherever

they’re going to. Where are you getting the other 1,000 people you’ll

need to fight the fires that are still burning today?

Last week the minister was quoted as saying the situation is

volatile, and he’s right. Thousands of British Columbians are still

affected by these fires. So what’s the plan? How many firefighters from

B.C. do you have, and how many have to come from out of province? Now

that you’ve taken the state of emergency off provincewide and you’ve

lost the ability to move people, where are those personnel coming

from?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Leader of the Opposition is in fact wrong. The lifting of the

state of emergency…. It’s nice to hear some of the piping up from the

back bench back there, but you’re not experts on fighting fires. It’s

the people on the ground who are. It’s the people in our fire services

who are the experts. It’s emergency management B.C. who are

experts.

They’re the ones who have been monitoring the situation on the

ground. They’re the ones who examine each of the components required to

(1) put in a state of a provincial emergency but also (2) to lift that

state of emergency. And those experts are satisfied that the time is

now, that enough progress has been made in enough of the key areas that

we can lift that state of emergency.

As for the ability to access resources and where do they come

from, that’s very clear. Access to out-of-province or international

firefighting resources do not rely on a provincial declaration of

emergency. In fact, those continue to be coordinated through the

Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre, CIFFC, which is based in

Winnipeg. I can tell you that the discussions that have taken place

within emergency management B.C. and the Wildfire Service…. Those

resources are there and are still able to be accessed today.

We have been planning on this for quite some time, because of the

nature of this fire season, which has been unprecedented. Weeks and

weeks ago they recognized that lots of people are going back to school,

and plans were put in place to ensure that we have enough people coming

forward. Provinces like both Ontario and Quebec, which have had

significantly lower fire seasons than expected, have the resources

should we require them.

We’re able to get them. They’ll be coming through a coordinated

centre from Winnipeg. You don’t have to have the state of emergency in

place to access those resources.

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

supplemental.

R. Coleman: Thank you, Minister….

Mr. Speaker: Member, if you may, direct your question through the

Chair.

R. Coleman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the minister, I am very familiar with the provincewide state of

emergency. It’s only been done in British Columbia twice, and I did the

first one in 2003, during the 2003 fires. I know about the international

relationships and moving people around, but it doesn’t answer the

question.

The question is…. Now you’ve taken the provincewide state of

emergency off, you no longer have the ability to move fire people within

British Columbia quickly to go to a fire, because that’s what the

provincewide state of emergency allows you to do. It actually allows you

to move firefighters from one community to another. Back in 2003, you

saw fire trucks from Saanich in Oliver for fires because the state of

emergency allowed for the movement of those people.

The reality is this, though. Less firefighters means, inevitably,

we’re not going to be able to prioritize our firefighting system the way

we want to. Some may be fought, while others will be allowed to burn. At

a time when there is roughly a fire the size of P.E.I. being fought in

British Columbia, you know full well people cannot afford be pushed down

government’s priority lists. They need to know the protection is there

for them.

You’ve lost 1,000 people. Forget getting rid of the provincewide

state of emergency. You’ve lost 1,000 people, who have gone. Have those

1,000 people been brought into British Columbia — additional

firefighters in British Columbia who are identified to fight the 153

fires burning in British Columbia today?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is yes. Those resources are in place today. Those

resources were in place when this fire season started. Those resources

will continue to be in place until this fire season is over.

[2:05 p.m.]

The fact that we have lifted the provincewide state of emergency

does not impact our ability to access the resources that are needed. In

fact, as crews are rotated out, new crews have been rotated in, and in

many cases, they have come from Quebec and Ontario and other

provinces.

This is a fire season that right from the very beginning…. Right

from the moment when it became clear that it was unprecedented, the

planning work done by emergency management B.C. and the Wildfire Service

has been consistent and seamless through the transition of government,

ensuring that those resources are in place and will be in place and will

be in place till the end of this fire season.

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUESTS

FOR WILDFIRE LOSS

CASES

C. Oakes: Well, I would welcome the minister to come and talk to the

constituents who have lost properties. He was in our community, had the

opportunity to meet with constituents who’ve lost items and didn’t take

that opportunity.

Can you imagine anything as difficult as the uncertainty of being

evacuated? You’re told that steps will be taken to protect your

property, and we just heard from the minister that there are lots of

resources that are made available. Your livelihood, as you see the

flames tear along the horizon, knowing that they’re coming for

everything that you have ever built, that you have built with your own

two hands.

Imagine not knowing for days, sometimes weeks, whether your homes

and your structures are still standing, whether your horses and other

livestock survived. Then you find out that something went wrong, and in

order to find out what happened, the only response from the government

is to submit a freedom-of-information request.

Many of these people are wiped out. Their livelihoods are gone,

and they are hurting. Can the minister explain to my constituent, Dave

McNab, who has been told to enter the process that will take three to

four months just so he can get answers — answers that he requires to

rebuild?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question. As the member well knows, we

have had upwards of 4,000 — almost 5,000, at some points — men and women

fighting the fires on the ground in the most unprecedented fire season

we have seen in British Columbia’s history. Those men and women do an

amazing job, and it’s those experts on the front lines and in emergency

management B.C. and the Wildfire Service who determine when the state of

emergency is lifted.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall listen to the response.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

As well, the government put in place, for which the member was

well able to access, a call every single day, at 8:30, to raise issues

around individual constituents, which were looked into. That happened,

literally, since the very beginning of this government taking

over.

In terms of the meeting up in Quesnel, we met with both the mayor

and council and the chamber of commerce. If the member has a specific

case to raise, rather than just saying a general FOI, all she has to do

is, in fact, provide details, and we will get her an answer and an

answer immediately.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member asked a question around FOI. She hasn’t stated exactly

what the nature of that question is. She hasn’t stated whether it

relates to a specific loss or not.

Those programs are in place. The member is able to access those,

and we’re more than happy to sit down and provide her the answers and

that her constituents need.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North on a supplemental.

C. Oakes: The minister didn’t answer the question. The question was: why was

Mr. McNab told that he was required to go through freedom of information

to answer the question? Further, Minister, you received daily reports.

You know full well that I was on all of those calls.

[2:10 p.m.]

Well, Minister, here is the reality. David McNab has lost his

sawmill. He’s lost five properties. In fact, they have lost everything

that they require to live this winter on their property. When he was

asked about his property, he was told that he was required to go through

freedom of information for the documents, through the risk assessment

branch of B.C. Wildfire Service. He was then told that he would have to

pay $5,000 to get the documents detailing what actions had been taken to

protect his property.

Mr. McNab did do this. Further, the McNab family are under

incredible stress, as so many constituents are who’ve lost everything.

They don’t know what they will do this winter, and their stress is

compounded with the punitive nature of this. They have to pay a $5,000

fee to get access to information, information that is required for them

to rebuild their lives.

A yes or no question to the minister: will he ensure Mr. McNab and

others seeking information about the actions taken to protect their

properties during this wildfire season have access to the documents

without fees or lengthy wait times?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her supplemental question because had she

asked that the first time, I would have been able to give a more fulsome

answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said, had the member outlined what the nature of the issue

was, I would have been able to give her a more fulsome

answer.

I’ll say two things right now. One, we’re more than happy to sit

down with the member and discuss this particular case with her. Second,

we are dealing with a system which her government has had in place for

the last 16 years.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

BUSINESSES IMPACTED BY

WILDFIRES

D. Barnett: Spruce Hills guest ranch, Loon Bay Resort, Terra Nostra Guest

Ranch and Ponderosa Resort are just a few small businesses in my

constituency, many of which are seasonal tourism operators, who have

been hit hard by this wildfire season. Fire, smoke, road closures, Crown

land closures, evacuations, destroyed infrastructure and cancelled

bookings are a daily story. These businesses have had little, if any,

season yet are still faced with everyday bills, mortgages and looking

after their children and families. They’re wondering who will help them

to continue on.

Now the media is reporting the NDP government is saying that

property tax relief is not the best way to help wildfire-impacted

communities, leaving many local small businesses wondering where

government’s help is.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Enough with the kind

words, programs, consultation. Can she tell this House why she’s content

to let small businesses suffer after the worst summer of wildfires on

record?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the member that on this the action the government has

taken has been quite considerable, particularly recognizing some of the

key issues that the very businesses she has been talking about are

facing.

One, we announced an additional $200,000 through the Ministry of

Tourism. In terms of the small business program, we have put in place

the initial $1,500 to help small businesses, which was something that

was not in place when that party sat on this side of the House but was,

in fact, modelled on the program that took place in the Fort McMurray

fire.

We extended the credits for people who were evacuated, from $600

for the first two weeks to continue for every time that they were under

evacuation.

We are looking at all additional measures in terms of what else

support we can supply. The $100 million fund that was established and

that has since been matched, in part, by the federal government — much

of that money is now being looked at in terms of how we can allocate to

fill in those gaps that are not covered, for example, by

insurance.

[2:15 p.m.]

As the member well knows, the existing programs in place, which

for 16 years served her government so well, including back in 2003, do

not cover insurable situations. For example, many businesses are

expected to have their own fire insurance.

Having said that, we are looking at what other initiatives can be

undertaken. I know the member submitted to me a request that we waive

property taxes for 2018, amongst other things. We are looking at what

additional measures we can take, but we will also make sure that we do

the proper policy work to make sure that we’re not covering costs that

will be covered by the federal disaster assistance or that we cannot

cover because they are deemed to be insurable already.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin on a supplemental.

D. Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I guess they just don’t understand. When you have no

business, you can’t pay your bills. Local businesses are the backbone of

our rural economy, and you’ve left them out in the cold. These

businesses have not turned a nickel. How are they to pay their

employees, buy shoes for their children? In many cases, these tourism

operators will not be there next year without help.

The government is very good as saying that they care, that they

are concerned, but who are you listening to? My constituents are shocked

at the Minister of Finance’s statement that tax relief is not the best

way to help wildfire-impacted communities.

Again, will the government commit to providing financial relief to

these small businesses, which have been devastated by the wildfires of

2017, and quit blaming everybody else?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, we’re not interested in blaming anybody. We’re

interested in getting to the bottom and fixing the problem on the ground

in those areas. While that member and that member went into a fire

station one day, asked for a helicopter tour and diverted staff

resources away from fighting fires, we had thousands of men and women

fighting fires on the ground.

We have emergency management B.C. and a coordinated ministerial

process underway to deal with the issues on recovery.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order. We will listen to the response,

please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We have a recovery plan that’s underway. We have allocated more

than $600,000 to help tourism businesses in British Columbia. That’s not

blaming anybody; that’s taking action.

We are working with the federal government on additional measures

that can be put in place to help those on the ground who’ve lost

business. Guess what. That’s underway. We’ve said that we will look at

additional measures. All measures are on the table. It’s that member on

that side, those members over there, who don’t want to

listen.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin on a supplemental, if you

wish.

The member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

ALLAN SCHOENBORN

AND HIGH-RISK

DESIGNATION

P. Milobar: On Thursday, the B.C. prosecution service announced it would not

be pursuing an appeal of the judge’s decision to deny the high-risk

designation for Allan Schoenborn. Schoenborn, we all know, was convicted

of first-degree murder after he stabbed his ten-year-old daughter,

Kaitlynne, and smothered his sons Max, who was eight, and Cordon, who

was only five years old.

It was hoped that in pursuing the high-risk designation that not

only would Schoenborn have been limited to the number of hearings

allowed before the B.C. Review Board, to once every three years; he

would have also lost the right to go on leave in the community. It would

spare Darcie Clarke and her family the anguish of having to relive the

tragedy on an annual basis at each review board hearing.

[2:20 p.m.]

A simple question to the Attorney General: will he do the right

thing and continue fighting for this family’s right to justice and peace

and order an appeal of the court’s decision?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question — such a devastating case

involving the murder of young children. I think that all of us with kids

shudder when we hear these kinds of stories.

The application, as I understand it, was unsuccessful at trial.

The criminal justice branch prosecutors did the best they could to

advance the case that Mr. Schoenborn should be designated as a high-risk

offender under the new federal legislation. They were not successful at

trial, and there were findings at trial that were adverse to the

possibility of success on appeal.

They made a recommendation to me, in my role as Attorney General,

that an appeal would not be in the public interest. I accepted that

recommendation of the independent criminal justice service. But I would

like to say to the member and to all members of this House that Mr.

Schoenborn is in a secure facility. He will not be released. He will not

be in the public without the approval of the independent Mental Health

Review Board that reviews cases like this — certainly, we’re very glad

that they do — and I’m monitoring this case closely. Thank you for the

question.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a

supplemental.

P. Milobar: The Attorney General’s answer is somewhat disappointing, because

every so often a case does come along and the public demands that the

government do what is right and fight to the bitter end for them. Just

recently, in May, it was confirmed by a psychiatrist that Allan

Schoenborn continues to have serious anger problems. Even worse, he

continues to demonstrate violence and was confirmed by doctors and staff

during recent hearings to be dangerous and to be a continued threat to

others.

So it’s shameful that while the Attorney General is willing to

spend money for lawyers to intervene against Kinder Morgan and to cover

the legal bills of both the jobs-loss minister and the Premier, he

doesn’t have the same drive to stand up for justice and ensure the

high-risk designation is appealed. His failure to stand up for public

safety and appeal the court’s decision could have far-reaching

consequences to other cases across Canada.

Again to the Attorney General. You’ve shown us you’re willing to

spend on lawyers for your colleagues and that you’ll intervene on Kinder

Morgan. Why will you not intervene in this case and ensure that the case

goes to an appeal?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. This is obviously a very

emotional case for all of us. I think we want what is best. I don’t

think that anybody believes that Mr. Schoenborn should be anywhere in

the public, and that is the consensus view of the review board that

determines the hearings.

Similarly, I don’t think any of us are happy about the fact that

the surviving family members have to go through and endure these kinds

of hearings. This is an incredibly difficult situation.

With that said, it is important to recognize that we have an

independent criminal justice branch. The deputy minister now is the same

as the deputy minister when that government was in power. The

recommendation of these very experienced prosecutors, who have no

interest in having dangerous offenders on our streets, was very clear

that it was not in the public interest to pursue an appeal.

I think that one of the critical roles in this House is that we

recognize the federal rules within which we operate and also that when

the independent prosecution service that is in place to protect the

public interest and the public safety makes a recommendation, it’s

treated very seriously by the Attorney General. I certainly did treat it

thus, and I share the member’s concern. I thank him for the

question.

GREYHOUND BUS SERVICE

S. Bond: Last month Greyhound Canada made it known that they wanted to

discontinue bus service to communities in northern B.C. People in many

remote and rural communities rely on having regular scheduled, safe

travel, particularly during difficult winter months. In the past, when

the company had threatened to discontinue routes, the government was

actively engaged. My constituents, and presumably those of the

minister’s colleagues in Stikine and North Coast, have been raising this

issue for weeks. The minister said she would meet with

Greyhound.

To the minister, did she keep her commitment? Did she meet with

Greyhound, and just what has she done since learning about the potential

cancellation of services?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for her question. It’s deeply concerning to

everybody that Greyhound is wanting to pull out from the north, reduce

service throughout the province. It’s already pulled out from some

areas. That happened a few years ago when that member was in government.

Greyhound pulled out.

I have been active in trying to work with a number of areas to

ensure that we can come to some sort of solution. I have talked to

mayors around the north about this, and they’ve been very concerned and

were very pleased that I reached out to them. I am going to be sitting

down and meeting with them next week during the Union of British

Columbia Municipalities meeting.

I have met with Greyhound and discussed with Greyhound their plans

both for the north and for the rest of the province. I think that

Greyhound is very aware of my concern, of our government’s concern that

they should not be walking away from established routes that people rely

on. The people have no choice. They can’t just hop in a car and go into

the airport and get on WestJet or something. They need a bus service for

safe and reliable travel. I made that very clear, and I think that

everybody in this House is aware of the difficulty of the geography of

our province.

I am continuing to work on the issue and will be looking at lots

of different avenues. I would be happy to sit down with the member and

other members from that side of the House who represent these rural

communities, because we’ve got to find a way that we have safe

transportation for these areas. I mean, we can see what happened in

various areas when it’s pulled out. People need this. We’ve got to make

sure that happens.

I thank the member for her question. I’m very happy to work with

her and other members from the opposition who have these constituents in

rural areas and will continue to work on this issue.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the final report of the 2016 British

Columbia Judicial Compensation Commission. This commission is appointed

under the Judicial Compensation Act to make recommendations regarding the

salaries, allowances and benefits for provincial court judges and judicial

justices for the three fiscal years 2017-18 through 2019-20.

Pursuant to

section 6(3) of the Judicial Compensation Act, I also

advise the House that if the Legislative Assembly does not resolve to reject

any of the recommendations contained in the report within the time

established in the act, then the judges and judicial justices will receive

the salaries and benefits recommended by the commission.

The time established in the act for such a resolution is 16 sitting

days after the date the report is laid before the assembly — in other words,

16 sitting days after today. If any recommendations contained in the report

are rejected, then the assembly must set the remuneration, allowances or

benefits that are to be substituted for the commission’s

recommendations.

I am also tabling the final report of the 2013 British Columbia

Judge’s Compensation Commission. As some members may recall, the assembly

first addressed this report in March 2014 by unanimously endorsing the

response proposed by government. Following a judicial review of that

response, the assembly is obliged to reconsider the report and its

recommendations.

The Judicial Compensation Act is silent on the time limit for

completing a court-ordered reconsideration of a commission report, and the

court did not make any order respecting timing. However, it is my intention

that the reconsideration be brought forward in accordance with the timeline

set out in

section 6 of the act, as if the House were considering the report

for the first time.

Accordingly, the assembly may, within 16 sitting days after today,

resolve to reject one or more of the recommendations made in the report. If

the assembly does so, it must set the remuneration allowances or benefits

that are to be substituted for the commission’s recommendations. If the

assembly does not pass such a resolution within that time, then pursuant to

section 6 of the act, the provincial court judges will receive the salaries

and benefits recommended in the report.

Points of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

J. Rustad: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of privilege.

D. Barnett: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of personal

privilege.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 1 — CHANGES TO QUESTION PERIOD

AND DAILY HOUSE

BUSINESS

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call the motion on the order paper standing in my

name.

[Be it resolved that the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly

of British Columbia be amended as follows:

1. Standing Order 25 be deleted and the following

substituted:

The daily routine business of the House shall be as

follows:

Prayers (morning or afternoon sittings)

Introduction of Bills

Statements (Standing Order 25B) (afternoon sittings: Monday

and Wednesday; morning sittings: Tuesday and Thursday)

Oral question period (30 minutes, afternoon sittings: Monday

and Wednesday; 30 minutes, morning sittings: Tuesday and

Thursday)

Presenting Petitions

Reading and Receiving Petitions

Presenting Reports by Committees

Motions on Notice

Written Questions on Notice

Proposed Amendments on Notice

Orders of the Day.

The order of business for consideration of the House day by day,

after the above routine, shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as

follows:

MONDAY

10 a.m. to 12 noon

(Private Members’ Time)

Private Members’ Statements (10 a.m.)

Public Bills in the hands of Private

Members

Private Members’ Motions

Private Bills

Public Bills and Orders and Government Motions on

Notice

No division, on Orders of the Day, will be taken in the House or in

Committee of the Whole during Private Members’ Time, but where a

division is requested, it will be deferred until thirty minutes prior to

the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House on the Monday,

unless otherwise ordered.

MONDAY (AFTERNOON), TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY AND

THURSDAY

(Government Days)

Throne Speech Debate

Budget Debate including Committee of Supply

Public Bills and Orders and Government Motions on

Notice

Private Bills

Public Bills in the hands of Private

Members

Adjourned debate on other motions

2. Standing Order 47A be deleted and the following

substituted:

There shall be a 30 minute Oral Question Period at the opening of

each afternoon sitting on Monday and Wednesday and at the opening of

each morning sitting on Tuesday and Thursday, which shall be subject to

the following rules:

(

a) only questions that are urgent and important shall be

permitted;

(

b) questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and

stated without argument or opinion;

(

c) supplementary questions may be permitted at the

discretion of the Speaker. There shall be no supplementary question to a

question taken on notice;

(

d) debate shall not be permitted;

(

e) points of order arising during Oral Question Period may,

at the discretion of the Speaker, be deferred until Question Period has

been completed;

(

f) Oral Question Period shall not take place on the day of

the Speech from the Throne.]

[2:30 p.m.]

This is the issue around changing the standing orders under which

we operate, whereby for the last four years, we have had a sessional

order in place so that question periods on the second week start Monday

afternoon, Tuesday morning, Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning.

This will now make that change permanent.

I discussed the issue with my colleague across the way, the

official opposition House Leader, as well as the leader of the Green

Party, and we are all in agreement.

M. de Jong: I was tempted to refer to this as an egregious assault on the

rights of the opposition but was convinced by the advocacy of my friend

the Government House Leader. I think it’s probably time to make this a

permanent change. It seems to have served the interests of the House and

members and those who track the affairs of the House and what takes

place here. I think it’s appropriate to make the change to the standing

orders.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Members, would you please conduct your business outside the House. We

have other business to do here. Thank you so much.

T. Stone: It is a tremendous honour to rise today to speak to this budget

update. Before I get into the details of my comments on the budget, I would

like to first just acknowledge what a privilege it is to represent the

hard-working men and women of Kamloops–South Thompson. From Savona to Chase,

Cherry Creek to Pritchard, Westwold and Monte Lake to Adams Lake, Knutsford

to the south shore of Kamloops, it is truly an amazing corner of our

beautiful province. I want to thank the people of Kamloops–South Thompson

for placing their trust in me a second time. I look forward to working,

always passionately, on their behalf.

I want to acknowledge my staff in my legislative office here in

Victoria as well as my constituency staff back in Kamloops. I am very, very

well served in both places and really couldn’t do what I do without having

that tremendous support in place.

[2:35 p.m.]

Of course, I want to acknowledge and thank, as we always do, our

families for the tremendous support that they provide us. My wife,

Chantelle, and my daughters — Hannah, Sydney and Caitlin — are really the

inspiration for everything that I do and the reason that I am

here.

I want to start off just by acknowledging the worst wildfire season

that we have had, this season, here in British Columbia. I want to thank all

firefighters, first responders and the Canadian military personnel who have

been risking their lives to protect communities and to protect our lives.

They do their best to put these fires out and to ensure that there are

livelihoods for people to go back to when the fires are indeed

out.

We had over 45,000 evacuees at the outset of this year’s wildfire

season. It was my responsibility, as the minister responsible for emergency

management B.C., to declare the provincial state of emergency. That was no

small decision, not one taken lightly but one that truly reflected the

seriousness of this particular wildfire season.

In Kamloops, we had about 15,000 evacuees at the peak. We were not

directly affected in our community insofar as the fires themselves. But

along with Prince George, we were one of the largest reception centres for

evacuees, with 15,000 people at one point in the city of Kamloops. I want to

really thank everyone in Kamloops who stepped up to make life just a little

bit easier for the wildfire evacuees — the thousands of volunteers, all of

the restaurants and those in the hospitality industry, community

organizations and everyone that just stepped up to do whatever they could to

help evacuees.

We certainly witnessed a lot of examples of this compassion and the

reciprocal gratitude from those who were being served. The Kamloops ESS

centre, which moved between a few different locations in the city, was

always full, with group lodging of up to 500 people. It was incredible — the

organization, the logistics that were required, the hundreds upon hundreds

of volunteers that were required on a daily basis for months through this

wildfire season.

The Tk’emlúps Indian Band opened up their powwow grounds, and they

were full. They had RVs and people in tents. They were also providing not

just space on their grounds and the use of their facilities, but indeed,

they were providing evacuees with three hot meals day — no small feat for

them.

Of course, there were thousands of folks housed in the homes of

Kamloopsians. At one point, out of 20 homes on my street, there were 17

homes that were hosting evacuees. Those were the most heartwarming moments.

When you would walk down the sidewalk and introduce yourself to people,

you’d just get a sense of the seriousness of the issue but the sense of

gratitude that these folks had for the heart that they were being given by

the people of Kamloops.

The Kamloops Food Bank coordinated thousands of pounds of food that

flowed into our city from all over British Columbia and even across the

country. In particular, Albertans really stepped up. I really want to give a

shout-out to the folks in Fort McMurray. They donated more food than almost

any other city outside of British Columbia — just truckload upon truckload —

in a selfless gesture of paying it forward. They knew that we, as British

Columbians, had their backs when they went through their wildfire situation

recently. They certainly had our backs this time round.

The United Way Thompson Nicola Cariboo put together a campaign to

raise funds for important social needs like housing, food assistance, trauma

and mental health supports. Ranchers opened up their property to house and

feed and water other people’s livestock.

Speaking of the animals, again, at the ESS centres, there were…. This

was at the Sandman Centre in downtown Kamloops. At its peak, there were 300

dogs on any given day, 300 cats and, my favourite, 300 “other” — every

animal that you could possibly imagine, mixed in and amongst all of these

dogs and cats. Just the logistics of taking 300 dogs out to go to the

washroom in the morning required an enormous amount of volunteer capacity,

but Kamloopsians stepped up and were there.

[2:40 p.m.]

Perhaps one of the most heartwarming stories is this. It relates to

the animal shelter that was on site at the ESS centre. There is a homeless

gentleman who is known to most of us in Kamloops, who lives down in

Riverside Park. He’s been there for quite some time. Even he came out of the

shadows that he lives in and came up to this animal shelter and made it

clear that he wanted to help in whatever way the volunteers felt was

necessary. Just as he was there making this offer, there was a massive Great

Dane that was brought into the facility. This was a big boy, hundreds of

pounds, who was not very socially well adjusted to other animals. He was a

ranch dog from up in the Chilcotin and was really upset that he was watching

his owner walk off into the distance.

This Great Dane required three adults to hold it down. They didn’t

have a kennel big enough for it. They weren’t sure what they were going to

do. The veterinarians were considering maybe giving it some medication to

just kind of calm it down a little bit. But before anyone could intervene,

this homeless gentleman stepped forward and said: “Let me look after the

Great Dane.” For four nights in a row, that gentleman slept in a tent that

he brought up from the river. He set that tent up by the shelter, and he

slept with that Great Dane for four nights. He became best friends with this

dog, and the dog became best friends with him.

I think it really goes to show that every single one of us has a role

to play. Every single one of us can step up, no matter what you have, to

help your fellow human being. That is just one of many stories of what

transpired in Kamloops, as so many evacuees poured into our city and were

met with open arms, with big hearts, and made clear their gratitude for that

support.

Now, the fires will be put out, eventually. We do know that we’re

still in a very serious situation. We’re very, very thankful that there’s

been no loss of life. But we are very rapidly moving from a wildfire crisis

into an economic crisis.

The most common question that we get — those of us who represent

ridings up in the central Interior, whether it’s in the Chilcotin or the

Cariboo or Fraser-Nicola or the North Thompson…. People want to know where

their government is.

There’s been a huge loss of trees. Lots of fibre is gone. Hundreds of

structures are gone. Livestock is gone. Fencing and rangeland, gone. We know

that several mills may not reopen. This will throw hundreds — and hopefully

not, but potentially, thousands — of hard-working men and women out of their

jobs. Yet what have we heard from the Minister of Forests on this economic

crisis? What have we heard from the government on this economic crisis? What

have we heard from the Premier on this economic crisis? What has this

government done to address the concerns of the people of the central

Interior that they will be supported through the economic crisis which is

barrelling down on them? I would venture: nothing.

There appears to be no plan. There’s been no mention of economic

development for the central Interior. There’s been no detailed plan that has

been presented to the people of the central Interior as to what they can

expect from their government in support of their livelihoods and their

families coming out of the worst wildfires that we’ve ever had in this

province. That is wrong. It’s inexcusable, and it’s

unforgiveable.

We’ve canvassed in this chamber, as well, over the last week,

countless stories of small businesses who have stepped up to support

wildfire evacuees, who have provided food and lodging and other services, on

the basis that through the voucher program, they will be reimbursed in a

timely fashion. These are small businesses, many of them.

[2:45 p.m.]

I’ve talked about Harold’s Restaurant in Kamloops, which thankfully….

After some back and forth last week and some really hard work on the part of

folks in emergency management B.C., finally some of the $40,000 that

Harold’s has been owed for two months has been paid. Not all of it, but some

of it. This is a small business, and being owed $40,000 is a lot of

money.

We know of a long list of small businesses who are in the same boat,

and it’s just wrong. In fact, the response from the minister at one point

last week was to suggest that MLAs should raise the issue of non-payment

with government in order for small businesses to be paid. Really? These

small businesses, as I said last week, have stepped up to support evacuees.

It’s now time for the government to step up and support these small

businesses.

Now, with respect to the budget, I’m very disappointed with the

NDP-Green budget in a number of areas. I looked through this budget. I

looked through the lens of my three daughters. What will our province look

like in the years ahead? Will there be jobs for my daughters and for our

kids? Will B.C. be better off in the future as a result of the decisions

that are made today? My conclusion is that this budget really misses the

mark.

It squanders the strong economic position which the NDP government

inherited from our former government — the No. 1 economy in the country, the

strongest economy; the lowest unemployment rate; the best job-creation

record across Canada, almost 200,000 jobs created since the jobs plan was

introduced; the most competitive tax environment in Canada; on track to

paying off B.C.’s operating debt within a few years; a vibrant investment

climate where international companies from every corner of the world were

coming to British Columbia. They wanted to set up in British Columbia. They

wanted to invest here because of the promise that British Columbia provided

them as well. And the fact that we had a triple-A credit rating and paid

$199 million less in interest to support our debt in the province last year

over the year before because of that strong credit rating and paying down

our operating debt.

The budget does include some priorities which we included back in our

February budget. It’s important to acknowledge that. I do think it’s

interesting that the NDP, this government, is trying to…. They’ve

highlighted a whole bunch of things in their budget update, items that they

are trying to suggest to British Columbians really should underpin the

commitment that this government has to a number of areas, particularly on

the social side of the equation, when a lot of the increased spending in

targeted areas was already in the budget last February. It was in the budget

that we introduced.

We heard much about how health care funding is up almost half a

billion dollars. That was in the budget in February. Or education funding

being up $256 million — again, that was in the budget last February. Social

services funding is up $137 million. It was already in the budget. But that

said, with this budget, the NDP are leading British Columbians down a

reckless economic path.

Let’s start with the past six weeks of cancelled projects and chaotic

reviews, which has become a hallmark of this government.

The George Massey Tunnel replacement project was truly shovel-ready. I

was the minister who worked on this for the previous four and a half years.

Three rounds of public engagement. The release of 14,000 pages of

information. Hundreds of meetings with local governments, including Richmond

and Delta, Metro Vancouver. First Nation engagement as well. A project that

80,000 commuters every day were holding out as hope that relief was on its

way: the single largest congestion point in the province of British Columbia

would be addressed, a choke point for $25 billion worth of goods movement

every single year.

A project that included half a billion dollars of critical transit

improvements will now not happen. The government has said no. They have

killed this project, and they’ve killed the 9,000 jobs that would have come

with this project. That’s irresponsible.

[2:50 p.m.]

As we’ve pointed out in this House, this government has also not been

forthright. They haven’t been forthright not just with the commuters who

were relying on a fix; they haven’t been forthright with British Columbians.

We released a memo last week that indicated very clearly that their plan all

along, prior to even the election campaign, was to be bold. That was code

for “kill George Massey.” In fact, it wasn’t code. It was written right on

the memo. “We’re going to pay for all of these commitments by killing George

Massey.” How very disappointing.

LNG. Again, shortly after this government was elected, a final

investment decision did not happen with Pacific NorthWest LNG up in Prince

Rupert — a $36 billion investment that would have created thousands of jobs

and provided hope not just to the local governments and the communities up

there and local government tax revenue, but, indeed, it was life-changing

for First Nations communities in Prince Rupert and the area. This government

was, I dare say, almost giddy at the cancellation of this project. If anyone

thinks that this government’s approach to regulation and to taxes and to the

cost of doing business in this province had nothing to do with their

decision to cancel this LNG project, they’re kidding themselves.

Or how about Kinder Morgan, another project which the NDP have made

clear they’re going to utilize every tool that they possibly can muster to

kill — this pipeline twinning? It’s a $7.4 billion private sector

investment. It’s an investment that involves 42 project agreements with

First Nations totalling $300 million. Again, it’s a project that would

provide thousands of jobs — 15,000 during construction alone.

In my community, in Kamloops, people are looking forward to and

banking on 600 jobs related to this project. The economic spinoff will

include an $11 million increase to property taxes paid to local governments.

The city of Kamloops has signed a community benefit agreement for $700,000,

and our university, Thompson Rivers University, will receive $500,000. All

of that is at stake. All of that is in jeopardy because this government

wants to kill this project as well.

Then there’s Site C, which, very clearly, is part of the deal struck

between the NDP and the Greens to do everything in their power to delay and

probably try to kill this project as well. It’s a project that would provide

clean, reliable electricity in B.C. for 100 years, a project that would

provide a contribution to our provincial GDP of $3.2 billion, 10,000 jobs

during construction. There are 2,700 people already working up at this

project, about 81 percent of whom are from British Columbia.

There are 48 people, as of a couple of months ago…. The number may

have changed since then, but as of a couple of months ago, there were 48

individuals from Kamloops and area working at Site C — 48 people with

families in Kamloops. People like Bob, who’s a heavy equipment operator and

has three kids, or Carl, who’s an electrician and has two kids in Kamloops.

I know Bob and I know Carl because I fly with them many weeks. Back and

forth they go from Kamloops to Vancouver and then connect up to head up

north to work on the project. They’re wondering when they’re going to

receive their pink slips and what they’re going to tell their families, how

they’re going to support their kids.

Whether it’s George Massey, LNG, Site C or Kinder Morgan, these are

all projects, many of which involve private sector investment, that are

either dead or on life support because of the choices that this government

is making. And this is all just in the first six or seven weeks of the new

government.

We also know in this budget that there is a massive increase in new

spending — $3 billion in one year alone — but there’s no plan to generate

the revenues necessary to cover off this increase in spending other than to

blow through the surplus or to raise taxes. And of course, on the tax front,

we know that this budget includes $1 billion in new taxes. Corporate taxes

are going up. Income taxes for higher-income individuals are going up.

Carbon taxes are going up.

[2:55 p.m.]

Even worse, on the carbon tax side, this government has decided to end

the revenue neutrality aspect of the carbon tax, which means the tax is

going to continue to further burden British Columbians. The price at the

pumps will go up. The price to heat homes will go up. But there’s no longer

going to be a commitment from the government of British Columbia to ensure

that the people of this province benefit from an equal reduction in tax

burden, a tax reduction equal to any increase in the carbon tax, and that’s

just wrong.

Now, on the taxes on higher incomes. I want to just touch this one for

a moment because I do know that this has become a mantra for the government

to increase spending as dramatically as they are. Let’s just make the

wealthy pay more. Well, I’ll give you a couple of examples — and there are

many — that are pretty poignant, I think, for most communities in British

Columbia, but certainly in Kamloops.

We’re working really hard to attract more doctors, more specialists to

our community, many of whom come from out of province. Even if they’re

trained here, we’re all operating in a highly competitive environment to

have doctors practise in our communities. What we’ve done in one fell swoop

with this budget by increasing the taxes on the high-income earners is we’ve

said to these physicians: “Go someplace else. Don’t come to British

Columbia, because we’re going to take a little bit more out of your

pocket.”

Or how about the high-tech sector, where the average salary is much,

much higher than the average salary, generally, in the province? Many, many

folks in the tech sector — this is the sector I come from — are making well

in excess of $150,000. These are highly skilled jobs, but they’re also

highly mobile jobs. It’s very easy to pick up a tech company and move it

from Prince George to Washington state or to pick up a company in Salmon Arm

and move it to Ontario.

We have made ourselves less competitive by increasing these taxes,

made British Columbia a less attractive place to invest, a less attractive

place for people to move to and to work. That’s going to have ramifications

for communities all across the province.

They’re projecting a $200 million surplus for the forthcoming year.

That contrasts with a $2.7 billion surplus that this government inherited as

a result of our sound fiscal management.

What have they done? They’ve increased spending, which I’ve talked a

bit about, dramatically. They’ve also increased the taxpayer-supported debt

through the elimination of tolls on the Port Mann and the Golden Ears

bridges, despite warnings from many, including bond-rating agencies. These

bond-rating agencies have been very clear. This is going to result in a

higher cost to borrow in British Columbia, which is going to mean higher

interest payments, and that’s going to mean less money available for health

care and education.

In the context of bridges and all of the infrastructure that we need

to build in this province…. When you build a bridge, you have to pay for it

somehow. With no tolls, that means that the only other options are higher

taxes or reduced spending.

I would suggest that we know what the NDP’s answer on that point is.

They are choosing to increase taxes. So the fiscal room is largely gone,

which makes this budget even more worrying because it assumes that B.C.’s

economic performance and GDP growth will be repeated.

The budget relies on a substantial increase in forecasted GDP, from

2.1 percent growth to 2.9 percent growth, but that won’t happen. That just

won’t happen, because it doesn’t happen when you increase taxes. It doesn’t

happen when you dramatically increase spending with no clear plan for paying

it. That doesn’t happen when you say no to every major job-creating project

that crosses your desk. Of course, in addition, there are factors outside

the government’s control which will further compound their ability to meet

their fiscal objectives — factors like a rising currency, uncertain world

markets and rising interest rates.

This budget has no jobs plan. There’s no plan to sustain and grow the

economy. There’s no plan to attract investment and expand our footprint

around the world. In fact, the budget really only deals with one side of the

balance sheet — spending, spending and more spending. This budget is bad for

jobs, it’s bad for growth, and it’s bad for investor confidence.

[3:00 p.m.]

But what’s equally concerning is what’s not in the budget. It’s worth

highlighting, so British Columbians know that on the heels of an election

campaign where grand promises were made by the government on all kinds of

investments they were going to make…. They just have not transpired yet.

It’s important for British Columbians to know what that part of the story

looks like as well. Key NDP campaign promises with huge price tags are

nowhere to be found in the budget.

How about affordable housing, the creation of 11,400 units of housing?

In fact, all that’s in this budget is the 3,400 units that we had already

committed to in February. How about the $400 annual renters rebate? It’s not

there. The second half of MSP elimination? Not there. How about the ferry

rate freeze? Do you remember that commitment? Nowhere to be found in this

budget. Or the Hydro rate freeze. Also not there. The $15 minimum wage? Not

there. The elimination of interest payments on student loans. Not there. The

$1,000 completion grant for post-secondary education. I looked and looked

for this one, but I couldn’t find it. I don’t think it’s there. And $5

million to restore provincial parks and hire conservation officers. Not

there. How about $10 million in new arts and culture funding? Also not

there.

And what about $10-a-day daycare? No mention of it. No mention of it

whatsoever. On this one, perhaps that’s a good thing — recognizing just how

unaffordable their plan would be, recognizing just how their plan would not

target the supports where it’s needed the most and wouldn’t result in any

new spaces to boot. The NDP did include $20 million in funding that our

previous government had already announced for child care in

February.

Now, why all of the big ticket promises not in the budget? Perhaps

it’s because the NDP blew through all their fiscal room with the $3 billion

in additional spending in the budget. Perhaps it’s because the NDP is

concocting other plans to increase other taxes to pay for these promises.

Perhaps it’s because the junior partner in this government, the Greens,

haven’t signed off yet. I tend to think that it’s a little bit of all three

of those.

This government does obviously wield the full authority of the purse.

They were sworn in. Whether one wants to get into a debate on how legitimate

this government is or not, they certainly don’t have a popular mandate from

the people. The Premier and his government were not elected by British

Columbians, but they do wield the authority of government, and British

Columbians are rightfully and increasingly dismayed at this government’s

systematic dismantling of B.C.’s economic leadership and advantage. Defer,

delay, dither, review, review, review, taxes up, spending up — that’s the

story of this government. It’s the story of this budget.

The NDP can say all they want that help is on the way. Well, British

Columbians say no thanks. British Columbians have worked very hard in recent

years to generate significant budget surpluses and a strong, growing diverse

economy. British Columbians save their money. The NDP will spend it, all of

it and more.

Our economic momentum truly hangs in the balance. The choice is clear,

and it’s not a choice between backing business on the one hand and promoting

fairness on the other. There is nothing progressive about attacking business

and undermining our economy. There is nothing progressive about turning your

backs on multi-billion dollar investments and walking away from tens of

thousands of jobs. If the economy fails it’s not the richest who suffer,

it’s the poorest, and everyone loses.

In that spirit, and on behalf of my constituents of Kamloops–South

Thompson, I say with purpose and resolve that I cannot and will not support

a budget that fails not only the British Columbians of today but fails our

kids and our grandkids of tomorrow.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate in regard to

Budget Update 2017.

It’s always good to be back in this Legislature and good to be here on

the territories of the Lekwungen-speaking peoples, the Songhees and

Esquimalt First Nations.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’m very grateful to the people of Vancouver-Hastings, who have sent

me back here to represent them for the fourth time. I’m particularly

thankful for all of the work that is done by those in the constituency on my

behalf. I have a wonderful team in my office in Vancouver-Hastings with Anne

and Sherrill and Theresa, who all do excellent work for me and excellent

work in making sure that the needs and concerns of citizens and constituents

of Vancouver-Hastings are met and that their issues are addressed. They’ve

been doing it for a long time, and they do it extremely well.

I’m also very pleased and thankful for the people who helped to return

me here during the 2017 election. We all know that elections are exciting

times. They’re times that can be stressful, and they’re times when we bring

together people in our communities who support the values that we bring

forward to this place and who come together to help to get us

elected.

I had a wonderful team of people, and I just want to particularly

acknowledge Colette Barker, who stepped up and took charge of my campaign as

the manager and did a wonderful job making sure that I got the opportunity

to come back here and speak for the people of Vancouver-Hastings in this

Legislature again.

Since the election, of course, it was certainly a wild ride, as we

went through the processes of resolving how government would unfold and play

out here in British Columbia. Of course, I’m very, very excited with the

resolution that we reached in this province, a resolution that led to a new

government in British Columbia, a government that was committed to making

this province more affordable, a government that was committed to adding and

enhancing services and a government that was committed to a sustainable

economy with family-supporting jobs.

That’s the commitment that we have made, that’s the direction that we

have received from the Premier, and that’s the work that we are all doing

every day. I’m very excited to be able to participate and be part of that

through my role as the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction

— a ministry that we have revamped, and I’ll talk a little bit about that as

we move forward — and taking on new challenges into that

ministry.

At the outset, I really want to say a big thank-you to the people who

have stepped up to help me in this new job as minister, particularly to Val,

Brenda, Jayne, Casey and Leah, who work in my ministry office and work for

me as the minister; and, of course, to all of the people in the ministry —

the leadership of the ministry, the deputy, the ADMs, the directors and

everybody right down to all of the people on the front lines, who do a great

job and who are working very hard and who have been extremely supportive and

very excited about the changes in the ministry and about the opportunity to

do the work that they believe needs to be done.

It’s a good time around that. As we move forward with the initiatives

that are in front of us, we’re very much seeing a level of excitement and

commitment by people in the ministry every day who are looking at new and

innovative ways that we can make life more affordable, that we can reduce

inequality and can deal with the cornerstone issues that are in front of

us.

At the time when this government came into office, there were a number

of adjustments made around ministries. You’ll know, and people often talk to

me, about the change in the name of the ministry that I lead. The name

changed, and it became the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction. I’ve had people say to me: “So what does that mean, the Ministry

of Poverty Reduction?”

The Premier was very clear, in the conversations that I had with the

Premier, about what he wanted to achieve. He was very clear when he said

that this is not a rhetorical change in the name. Our commitment is to

reduce inequality. Our commitment is to reduce poverty. The mandate that I

was given, and it’s in my mandate letter, is to in fact effect those

changes, and we’re going to do that through a number of

initiatives.

The first three of those are on the table now, and that work is

proceeding. But the context of that work is: if we have poverty…. Why do we

need a poverty reduction plan for British Columbia? Well, British Columbia

is the only province in this country that doesn’t have a poverty reduction

strategy. It is the only province that has ignored that issue for over a

decade, and that has to change. The reason it has to change is because when

you look at British Columbia, we have 700,000 people who live in poverty,

based on the Stats Canada standards — 700,000 British Columbians. About 20

percent of those are kids living in poverty, and we know that poor kids mean

poor families.

[3:10 p.m.]

The other thing that we know is that this isn’t just about people on

persons-with-disabilities or people on social assistance. Over 40 percent of

the people living in poverty are the working poor. They have a full-time

paycheque coming into their household, and they can’t make ends meet. They

can’t afford even a modest standard of living for themselves and their

families.

I would like to think that everybody in this House would say that if

you get up every day and you go to work and you work hard, you should be

able to bring home a paycheque that at least affords you and your family a

modest standard of living. That’s not what’s happening today.

We need to attack that issue, and attack the issue is what we’re going

to do. We’re going to do that on a number of fronts. What you’ll see, moving

forward, is first of all, the initial steps that we’ve taken, a couple of

quick steps that we knew would at least ease some pressure. The first of

those was to add $100 to the cheque of everybody collecting social

assistance and persons-with-disabilities. It doesn’t solve the problem, but

we knew, and I knew, that putting a few more dollars in people’s pockets, a

few more dollars to spend in what is a very expensive place to live, would

at least ease a little bit of pressure.

The other thing that was announced in the budget and that you’ll see

as we announce more details is starting this October 1. We’ve increased the

earning exemptions for persons on social assistance and

persons-with-disabilities. What we have said is that we’ve increased them by

$200. That means for a person on social assistance, a $200-a-month exemption

has become $400. For a person with disabilities, the $9,600 annual exemption

becomes $12,000.

What that does is it allows people to at least work some and keep the

money. It encourages people to show some initiative, to take an opportunity

and to be rewarded for that when they do that and to know that it’s not

going to just get clawed back off their cheque. If they can make a few

hundred extra dollars and ease their pressure a little bit, that’s a good

thing. We all know that part of breaking the cycle of poverty is finding

ways to encourage and support people into work when that’s an appropriate

and available opportunity for them, with a little bit of help. Part of that

is letting them keep a few of those extra dollars as they move forward. I’m

very proud of that.

We’re going to announce very soon the details of the initiative around

transportation issues for persons with disabilities, the bus-pass issue that

was back and forth in this House for months and months and months. I look

forward to the solution that we’ve designed. We’ll be putting that in place,

and it will come into force on the first of January of 2018. More will come

on that in the coming days and weeks.

We’ve also seen, from other parts of government, initiatives that

support people who are vulnerable. We saw the removal of tuition fees around

adult basic education and language learning, ELL. We saw the free tuition

for foster kids, kids coming out of foster care. We’ve seen the initiatives

that were in the budget — and there’ll be more details to come — around

housing and homelessness and a homelessness strategy to put thousands of

units and available spaces in place for people who are homeless. There will

be more to come.

As the previous speaker talked about a list, well, I will assure the

folks who are watching and the members on the other side that the issues of

child care and the issues of the minimum wage and the issues of further

housing initiatives are all to come. You will see more on that in the

February budget, the first true budget of this government. You will see the

plan begin to unfold as to how we, in fact, get at some of those objectives

and those commitments. This is a government that put a series of promises in

front of people, and we have been checking them off one at a

time.

There’s much more work to do, but we will get that work done. I’m

confident about that. I’m confident that we’re going to be successful in

that. I look forward to the debates in this House, and I look forward to the

debates moving forward as we move on these issues.

[3:15 p.m.]

In my ministry, there really are a couple of key steps that I want to

talk about. I want to talk a little bit about poverty reduction. The fight

against poverty, the fight to reduce inequality, is around improving the

lives of people who are vulnerable. It is about looking at ways to break

that cycle of poverty. It is about ways to bring together the resources of

government to be able to effect some of the changes that break that cycle of

poverty or begin to erode that cycle of poverty.

It means the minister responsible for Housing; the Minister of Mental

Health and Addictions; the Minister of Health; the Minister of Education; of

Advanced Education, Skills and Training; the Minister of Finance; Public

Safety…. There has to be a concerted effort here. All of these ministries

are coming together. We are bringing them together.

We are focusing attention on how to attack this issue. That

consultation, the broad consultation in the community, has started. We are

putting together the pieces now around what that strategy looks like moving

forward. We are starting the conversation around how the legislation will

look, and there will be legislation next year to legislate a poverty

reduction strategy — a poverty reduction strategy with clear targets and

timelines, a poverty reduction strategy that will report to this Legislature

on an annual basis and that will seek advice on an ongoing basis, on an

ongoing process, from people in the community.

It’s not just the activists and the stakeholders. We’re reaching out

to people who are living the experience of being poor and talking directly

to people who are living the experience of poverty. We are going to engage

them directly in the process of helping us look through some of these issues

and looking for the practical and the pragmatic solutions as we move

forward.

One of the other things that we’re doing with this — and you’ll see

this as we move forward — is beginning to look at some of the long-term

potential solutions. Part of the agreement between ourselves and the Green

caucus is to look at a basic income pilot and to look at what that looks

like. We know Ontario is doing some of that work, and we’re going to do that

work here and look at it in a British Columbia context.

We don’t know what the result of that will be. We don’t know what the

evaluation of that will look like. But we will put in place, in the coming

months, a pilot that will allow us to evaluate whether that model makes

sense and, over the period of a couple of years, will be able to collect

enough data to be able to make decisions about whether we should, in fact,

be moving forward long term with that kind of initiative.

That work’s being done. Ontario is pursuing that work now. We’ve seen

it previously in Dauphin, Manitoba, where it was pursued. In Finland, it’s

been pursued. We’re collecting that information now. We’re collecting the

data. We’re talking to experts in the field and beginning to craft what that

pilot looks like, to allow us, in fact, to be able to measure whether that

initiative, that kind of model, makes sense in British Columbia.

One of the other issues we’re looking very closely at — my colleague

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, my colleague the Minister of

Mental Health and Addictions and myself have all been mandated by the

Premier to look at a provincewide homelessness strategy. We’ve been mandated

to look at a strategy that will affect, in a meaningful way, the

homelessness crisis that we’ve seen across this province. It’s a crisis that

is not limited to the big city of Vancouver but that we see in community

after community around the province.

Even in my early travels as a minister, when I’m talking to people in

those communities, I’m hearing about those issues. We’re seeing tent cities

pop up around the province. We’re seeing people who really are striving to

try to find solutions for themselves, because they’ve not been satisfied

with the solutions that government has put in front of them. There has to be

a better way to do this.

[3:20 p.m.]

I know my colleagues are committed to it, I’m committed to it, and the

Premier is committed to it. We will, over the coming months, flesh that out,

and it will become more apparent. We will be taking steps along the way to

ease those pressures, as we head down that path to a homelessness strategy

that effects real change in British Columbia.

The other issue that I want to talk about a little bit is around why I

believe there is the level of excitement about the new government. And I

hear that a lot. We hear that from people who are just excited about the

change. We hear that from people who are just excited about a government

that is talking to them. We hear that from local officials. I hear it from

people in the community. I hear it across sectors. I hear it from people who

are not historically or traditionally supporters of the NDP. I hear it from

people who say there comes a time when you need new energy. There comes a

time when you need a government that is prepared to reach out. There comes a

time when you need a government that is prepared to look to the future and

not just to how to hang on to power. And that’s what we have

here.

There’s a lot of excitement, I must say, about the agreement between

our party and the Green Party. I hear that in a lot of places. It’s an

excitement about a sincere effort to have meaningful collaboration on how to

move forward. It doesn’t say that we are going to agree on everything. It

doesn’t say that we will vote the same way on everything, necessarily. It

says that we have embraced a common set of values for the next 4½ years,

embraced a common set of broad objectives, and that we are going to work

together. We will have our differences, and we will have them respectfully.

We will argue and articulate our positions in a respectful way with each

other. We will sustain the government, but it doesn’t mean that we will

always agree. And you know what? That’s okay.

As we move forward — you will see this in the coming weeks — around

electoral reform and as we begin to lay out the first steps of a plan for a

vote to happen next year around proportional representation, I know that

it’s going to be critically important that we be able to demonstrate that we

can work together in the best interests of British Columbians and to make

the case for why a change in the electoral system is so important, why we

need a change in the electoral system, where this Legislature more clearly

reflects the intentions of British Columbians. It’s simply not acceptable

anymore to the people of British Columbia, I believe, that any political

party can get 43 percent of the votes and 100 percent of the power. It just

isn’t what people want, in the future, from their

representatives.

We see frustrations happening around the world, around political

systems and around what they see as the elites. I think we have a commitment

to try to change that. The legislation that was introduced today around

campaign finance is a step to take big money out of politics.

We know that people are very cynical. Whether the cynicism is around

the reality or the perception, it really doesn’t matter. People are cynical

that those who have wealth — those organizations, whether it be a

corporation or a union or, maybe even worse, people from offshore and other

places that don’t call British Columbia home — have the ability, through

money, to influence the outcome of elections. That’s going to end, and we

will move forward. We have seen the last general election where money will

be a major determining factor in the results of that election. That will be

good for all of us. That will restore a level of confidence.

[3:25 p.m.]

I believe an initiative around proportional representation — if the

people of British Columbia choose to support that next fall — will further

restore confidence. Our task here is to demonstrate…. I don’t believe this

is an obligation just on the NDP and the Greens. I believe it’s an

obligation on the official opposition, as well — for us to do our best to

demonstrate that we are here to work for everybody in British Columbia. We

are here to work together. If that vote, that referendum, is successful,

then the system will change. The dynamics and the makeup of this place will

be a very different composition on both sides, whatever that means — on the

three or four or five sides, however many sides there are. We’re going to

have to all learn to work together to make that successful.

I would urge us all to make the efforts to start to build that new

rapport, that new environment and that new climate for legislative action

today. We don’t have to wait. We can do that today. The time for elections

will come in due course. We will all run, and there will be parties that

will come together, whether it’s on the right or the left or the middle, to

form a government down the road. We have an opportunity today to try to work

to make that happen.

I think that’s what people want. That’s the excitement that I hear

from people about the agreement between our party — the government — and the

Green caucus. It’s an excitement about the possibilities. It’s an excitement

about the opportunity. It’s an excitement about politicians who are prepared

to make a commitment to try to do things differently and to try to do things

in a more collaborative way.

We will not always get it right. We will mess it up sometimes, and we

will not always agree, but the effort is sincere, certainly on the part of

both parties, I believe. It’s an effort that I feel very confident is going

to lead to many progressive and positive changes over the next four or 4½

years here in British Columbia. I look forward to that as we move

forward.

The previous speaker talked about an array of issues, and he talked

about the economy. Well, we know the economy is changing. We know the

resource industries need support. We know that probably the most compelling

issue in front of us from the resource sector is to find resolution on

softwood to put the forest industry back on its feet and begin to try to

restore some of those 30,000-or-so jobs that were lost in that industry over

the last decade and a half, to bring those jobs back. They’re good,

family-supporting jobs.

We also know that we need to move forward and be very thoughtful about

what the new economy looks like and about how we advance the new economy in

a way that doesn’t create winners and losers. That’s a big challenge with

the economy.

One of the things that we know, going back to the work that we’ll be

doing in my ministry around poverty reduction, is that a poverty reduction

strategy and a strategy to reduce inequality is not simply about putting a

few dollars in the pockets of people who are poor — that’s an important

thing to do — but it is an economic renewal strategy. It is a strategy that

is about revitalizing the economy. All of the evidence and all of the

research shows that those societies, those countries, those communities that

have succeeded in reducing poverty, reducing inequality, have some of the

most vibrant and dynamic economies in the world. The evidence shows, without

exception, that those are the economies that work best.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I do believe what we’ll see, moving forward, is that if we want to

seriously address many of the social issues that are in front of us, whether

they are issues of homelessness or issues around the opioid crisis or issues

around mental health and addictions — any of these issues — we will do

better when we strengthen everybody’s circumstances, when we improve the

circumstances for all. We’re committed to doing that.

[3:30 p.m.]

I believe that we can achieve that, and as we do, I think we then will

be in a better place in terms of the future of this province. We see poverty

reduction, these initiatives, as being economic initiatives for economic

renewal, moving forward. I’m very excited about this time.

I must say that when I was first elected in 2005, probably the most

exciting day of my life at that time — certainly my work life — was the

opportunity to come into this place for the first time to swear in as a

member of the Legislature and to begin this adventure. That was an

incredible day. I know that every member here has found that that’s a day

none of us will ever forget — the day that we were sworn in. You begin to

realize the incredible responsibility that you’ve taken on to represent the

people of your community.

But I must say, the day that I got sworn in as a minister and took on

a totally different responsibility — one that I didn’t entirely understand….

I know I can look at friends across the way, who have certainly had that

responsibility. I’m sure they would agree that the job of MLA is the first

and the most important job. That’s what you’re here for, is to be the

MLA.

But the job of minister is a whole other experience, the good and the

bad. So far, good. I know there’ll probably be a little bad to come down the

road sometime. I’ll get there in due course, but I’m not in a rush. That day

certainly borders on being the best day in my political life. We have a lot

of work to do, though.We are committed, on this side, to doing that work. We

are committed to doing it in a way that supports all British Columbians in

all the communities around this province.

We understand that poverty is not limited to the Downtown Eastside and

not limited to Vancouver — that it exists in every province, every part of

this province, every community in this province, whether it be Quesnel or

Prince George or Cranbrook. We need to work in those communities. I’m

looking forward to building a consensus in those communities about how we

move forward on poverty reduction. I’m looking forward to bringing together

the resources, business, labour, local governments to begin to address those

issues in those communities.

I look forward to the opportunity, hopefully, to come back in about a

year and report out the first year of a poverty reduction strategy, the

efforts we’ve made and the progress we’ve made on the path to reducing

poverty in this province. I think it’s there. I think we can achieve it. It

excites me. I know it excites a lot of people in British

Columbia.

We’re going to get this done, and we’re going to get it done over the

next year. I look forward to the support of all members of this House to

make that successful moving forward.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Surrey South. [Applause.]

S. Cadieux: Thank you for that round of applause. I’m pleased to take my place to

respond to this government’s first budget update. It’s an honour to serve my

constituents of Surrey South both here and at home.

I’d like to start by welcoming all of the new MLAs. It’s been an

unusual start to their tenure, and I’m certain that all of them, on both

sides of the House, are pleased to be settling into the routine and their

new respective roles.

Congratulations also to the Finance Minister for her first budget

because, regardless of my feelings about the content of the budget, it’s a

huge responsibility and an honour for her, I’m sure, and deserving of

recognition. I’d also like to thank the Finance Ministry staff that support

the minister in the preparation of the budget, because I expect many long

days and hours were required.

Now, before and during the recent election campaign, outlined in the

throne speech on Friday and today captured in the budget, the minister laid

out her aggressive spending plan. The list of planned expenditures is long

and, undoubtedly, will continue to grow. While this budget update contains

an ambitious spending plan, what concerns me most is what’s not reflected in

either the throne speech or the budget update — a plan to sustain and grow

the economy and create the jobs that British Columbians will

need.

The budget, as I said, does outline an ambitious spending plan, but

what is missing is that other half of the balance sheet — a plan to generate

the revenue, to attract the investment, to expand and increase our export

markets to Asia and beyond. In fact, it’s a budget that’s relying on tax

increases amounting to almost $1 billion over three years.

[3:35 p.m.]

In June, the former Finance Minister and member for Abbotsford West

proactively released the updated budget status that showed strong economic

job growth that would result in a $2.7 billion budget surplus. The then

opposition, now government, mocked it. They said they didn’t believe it. But

the public accounts released in August by the Finance Minister — the now

Finance Minister — did indeed confirm it.

What the NDP government inherited is the best-performing economy in

the country: five consecutive balanced budgets, a $2.7 billion budget

surplus, a triple-A credit rating and a proven plan to keep taxes low,

attract investment and grow the economy to create jobs. Upon release of the

audited public accounts, reported on August 22, the Finance Minister was

quoted as saying: “The public accounts for 2016-17 show that the B.C.

economy is strong. We’re growing faster than was forecast, and we certainly

have revenues that were higher than projected.” The result is a surplus of

$2.7 billion.

Indeed, that is good news. Good news, as well, that the surplus was

used to pay down provincial debt, as required by law. But past performance

is no indicator of future success. Just ask a Toronto Maple Leafs’ fan. I

jest. It’s not funny. It’s vitally important to the fiscal well-being of the

province, and we have to respect that fact. Our past success is no guarantee

of our future performance.

There is no guarantee that there will be a large surplus next year,

particularly in the face of economic uncertainty. Revenues from corporate

tax sources depend on a provincial economy performing in a healthy and

supportive investment environment. Add to that the things you can’t predict,

the issues that emerge or the deliberate policy decisions that will have

significant fiscal implications that may be unknown today.

Dominion Bond Rating Services knows this. A quote from them: “At this

time, British Columbia continues to have one of the strongest credit

profiles of Canadian provinces and is not at immediate risk of a negative

rating action. However, this fiscal policy direction reduces flexibility

within the credit profile and suggests that social and programmatic

considerations are likely to trump deficit reduction if the province’s

fiscal plan is challenged by an economic correction.” That’s from Dominion

Bond Rating Services’ 2017 Budget Update .

There are a few things we do know for certain. By cancelling major

investments in our province, the government is jeopardizing thousands of

jobs. British Columbia has been devastated by the worst forest fire season

on record. The central bank has raised the interest rates and put the

country on notice that further rate hikes are likely. There are ever-present

risks of government litigation costs and unfortunate things we probably

haven’t anticipated — the ever-present risks.

When the Finance Minister tabled her budget, British Columbians

expected that this government — this new government, a coalition government

— was going to bring in a significant number of new expensive programs,

programs that during the past years and the most recent election campaign we

on this side often referenced the cost of. Not because we don’t care about

those kinds of programs, not because we’re heartless, not because they don’t

matter to us, but because it’s just simple math. When you want three apples,

but you only have two, you come up short, and it’s no different in this

circumstance.

Social programs matter — health care, education, child care. They

matter to British Columbians. They matter to each one of us British

Columbians here in this House. But governing is about making decisions and

tough choices. It’s about figuring out how you can maintain the No. 1

economy in the country and care for British Columbians at the same

time.

The Minister of Finance has made it clear that she wants to make life

more affordable for British Columbians, and I want that too. But none of

what happens in government happens in a vacuum, no matter what it might look

like sometimes. How much does a 0.025 percent increase in interest rates

cost the provincial treasury? None of us probably knows that answer, but the

money required to pay the increased interest costs is a direct and obvious

cost that affects the budget. It’s money that has to come from

somewhere.

At the same time, as government needs to find more money, so do

consumers and businesses on their mortgage payments, their lines of credit

and their credit cards. With that, the capacity of those businesses and

individuals to absorb the government’s proposed tax hikes, amounting to

nearly $1 billion over the next three years, is also diminished.

Now, I’ve been proud to be a part of a government that has created one

of the most competitive tax and business jurisdictions in Canada. In the

words of my colleague: “Silver isn’t gold. It’s the first loser.” It’s going

to be true for British Columbians. You have to strive to be the best to

attract capital that’s mobile.

[3:40 p.m.]

Capital investors can choose to invest wherever they want. We want

them to choose British Columbia. We don’t want them to choose Manitoba,

Alberta or Saskatchewan. This week, in the very short tenure of the

government, the business world has been sent a message that it’s about to

get significantly more expensive to do business in British Columbia because

we’re striving for second place. In the words of the Premier: “The lowest

tax jurisdiction in North America is not something we should strive for. Why

wouldn’t we strive to be the middle tax jurisdiction in North America?” With

all due respect to the Office of the Premier, that’s embarrassing. Because

we want to be sending a message that is about: this is the place to invest.

This is the place to grow your business, to live, to work and to

play.

I believe many voters — and many voters in my riding — put their faith

in the government when they said they’d deliver a $10-a-day daycare program.

But where is it? It’s not reflected in the budget update. It’s not reflected

in the three-year fiscal plan. But it is still being touted that it’s

coming. So what is it? Is there going to be a $10-a-day program in British

Columbia or not? Who’s going to pay for it?

I’m not asking about the merits of the program. I want to see improved

benefits for B.C. families. But I want to be able to explain to my

constituents when government will live up to their promise and how they

intend to get the $1.5 billion or more, in addition to all the other

spending promises that they’re making, to deliver that promise in British

Columbia. I want to know that, because it will affect the wallets and bank

accounts of British Columbians, and they deserve to know how.

We will also want to talk about the other missing pieces. There’s a

list of promises. The $400 rent subsidy, support to students in

post-secondary education, capital investments in post-secondary expansions —

and the list goes on. Again, I’m not suggesting that the government should

go and do those things. I’m not suggesting they should spend more money. I’m

just concerned that they’ve promised these things to British Columbia, and

they continue to speak about the fact that these things are coming, but

they’re not reflected in the budget or the three-year fiscal plan — not even

notionally. How will the government do these things? How will they pay for

them? That’s what I’m asking.

There are other things that seem to have been completely forgotten, of

course. After five years of railing about the underfunding of the Ministry

of Children and Families, which I certainly know all too well, and the need

to hire more people, the wait-lists for early childhood interventions, the

need for more autism supports, the inadequate child and mental health

wait-lists, the foster care supports and the foster care rates — need I go

on? — there is nothing. Crickets. Nothing but a reannouncement of the B.C.

Liberal budget and plan for MCFD.

So what do we take away from that? Either they don’t really care as

much as they profess, or the state of the ministry is better than they chose

to tell the public, or, heaven forbid, they think the plans, initiatives and

budget that I put in place as minister were, in fact, on track. I suppose

time will tell.

The issue is this: it doesn’t appear in the budget update at a time

when the economy of British Columbia is in the best state it will probably

ever be in. The most expensive promises made by the NDP government are

missing from their financial equation. That is an issue for concern. It’s a

legitimate issue of concern and a question for British Columbians who heard

the budget update.

Again, please do not take any of my comments as a plea for the

expenditure of more money. It’s just intended to remind the government that,

in fact, governing is hard. I simply wish to illustrate that choices, even

very good choices, have consequences. Priorities conflict. Money is easy to

spend and hard to make. I believe the choices being made are going to make

making money in British Columbia even harder. Tax increases will no doubt

hamper investment, and that will affect the strength and growth of our

economy — growth that this government is currently counting on.

I’m certainly not here to criticize all of the decisions of the

government. I actually support a number of initiatives that the government

has in place. I support the expansion of the tuition waivers for kids from

care. I support the general idea of a poverty reduction effort, but I

continue to be concerned about how effective it will be, because member

after member has stood up and repeated a statement that B.C. is the only

province without a legislated poverty plan.

[3:45 p.m.]

It’s factually incorrect. In fact, Nova Scotia has abandoned, or at

least paused, their plan. Most provinces and territories have initiatives

for reducing poverty, but most do not have legislated targets or timelines.

And there’s a reason for that. It’s very difficult, complicated

work.

I think it’s important to remember that when you examine child poverty

rates in this province and take a look historically, the child poverty rate

went up 38 percent in the 1980s under the Social Credit government. It went

up 43 percent in the ’90s under an NDP government. And under a B.C. Liberal

government, it dropped by more than 40 percent to levels not seen since

those early ’80s. The levels are absolutely still too high. More can and

should be done. But the folks across the aisle have continued to ignore the

fact that B.C. already has the most comprehensive system of supports in

place and has been the most successful in reducing poverty in our

country.

Given that we all, I believe, want to see poverty rates continue to

decline — the faster the better — one would expect that at least the

government would want to start by acknowledging the current realities,

informing themselves of what other jurisdictions have done and build from

there. Now, I’d be happy to share with them the volumes of information that

I have collected over my tenure as minister responsible and, also, from the

national poverty summit from last year, if it would be helpful.

I also support the proposal for a basic income pilot. It will be

interesting to see how that unfolds, although I expect this area may be

slow-walked by the government. Beyond saying that I support the idea, I’ll

say…. I’ll explain that a little bit. I support it because the move to a new

economy, a new technology-based economy, is happening. We’re aware. We all

agree. And it’s a good thing. But as we do that, fewer and fewer jobs are

available for folks with low education levels, unskilled workers. Those

workers are left, really, in a service-type job or environment, and those,

traditionally, pay low wages. That’s concerning.

It used to be that in our resource sector at least, one with limited

skills and limited education could earn a family-supporting wage. But with

technology and advancement and change in our world, that is changing. It’s

changing very rapidly. And I don’t believe that there’s a government out

there today who has yet tackled this issue effectively. So I think

conversations around basic income are necessary.

I think that people like Sen. Hugh Segal, who I spoke with a few

months ago about this, and Mark Zuckerberg, who has been an outspoken

advocate for looking at a basic income, are all in agreement that something

is going to have to change. How is the question. I’ll leave further comments

about that to a future date, but I do support the government moving forward

with that effort.

I support the expansion of the earnings exemptions for people on

income and disability assistance, something I successfully reintroduced as

Minister of Social Development a number of years ago. And of course, I

support the reduction in MSP and the first-responders credit, both of which

were just reannouncements of B.C. Liberal policy from last

February.

But here’s where things get tougher again. We left the best financial

position a government could hope for anywhere. We have an economy that’s the

envy of North America, and it appears that the government thinks it’s all by

chance and that it will continue into the future despite their tax-and-spend

decisions and despite their deliberate industry- and job-killing

campaigns.

It’s as if the cabinet today sits around the table and says: “What big

project can we axe today? We don’t want big projects in British Columbia.”

What they should be asking is: “What can we do to bring the next big project

to British Columbia? What can we do that will create an environment for

business to thrive, to innovate and to grow?” When other jurisdictions are

saying, “Let’s create tax-free zones to attract new investment and new

industry,” this government is saying: “What roadblocks can we put

up?”

This budget assumes that the economic performance of this province

over the last year, which resulted in a $2.7 billion surplus, will be

repeated. There are no guarantees, and the risks are substantial. It relies

on a substantial increase in the forecasted GDP growth, but GDP growth will

undoubtedly be negatively affected by the cancellation of projects and the

delay or cancellation of investments by the private sector.

[3:50 p.m.]

The cancellation of the George Massey Tunnel replacement project —

9,000 jobs, all of which contribute to GDP. Site C, the Trans Mountain

pipeline — all indications from this government are that those are

next.

So where is the plan for job creation — for job retention, at least?

My goodness, I sure hope they don’t think government can hire all the people

that are out of work.

There was a statement in the throne speech that suggested concern over

the fact that there was a rise in part-time, low-paying jobs. This is

concerning, not because there is an increase in jobs or that there is an

increase in part-time jobs. It’s concerning because in the throne speech,

the government’s vision for the province — our State of the Union of sorts —

the impression was left that more part-time jobs were being created than

full-time jobs. That would be really concerning if it was true. Yet on page

72 of the government’s own budget document, it says that most of the 88,500

year-to-date jobs gained had been in full-time employment — about 85 percent

of those, or 74,500, in comparison with only 15 percent, or 14,000 of those

jobs, being part-time.

As a matter of fact, when you think about it, when you think about

those jobs and job creation…. I also found it interesting that in the very

first month of the NDP government, we lost 28,000 full-time jobs. And when

you look at the projects that this government, in its first few months

alone, has already moved against or outright cancelled — the 9,000 jobs on

the Massey project, the thousands more with Site C and Kinder Morgan — and

then add the devastating impact that the forest fires have had on the

economies of the north…. Good, full-time, family-supporting jobs,

gone.

If I was a member on that side of the House, I’d be concerned about

keeping every job — every part-time, full-time, private sector, public

infrastructure, resource sector, small-town, downtown, high-tech, low-tech….

I’d be telling people how I planned to keep them working, but what’s

glaringly missing from both the throne speech and the budget is just

that.

It’s great that the NDP government has decided to move forward with a

tax decrease for small business that was also in the February