Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, February 23, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 155

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. R. Fleming

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Pink Shirt Day and prevention of bullying

M. Elmore

Bullying awareness and prevention

R. Merrifield

Pink Thursday initiative for bullying and racism

awareness

R. Glumac

Fraser Valley flood relief group on social

media

B. Banman

Ay Lelum design house

D. Routley

B.C. athletes at 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter

Games

S. Cadieux

Oral Questions

Tax policies and affordability issues

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Affordability issues and salaries for Premier and

cabinet ministers

T. Stone

Hon. S. Robinson

Affordable housing and government revenues from

housing sector

S. Furstenau

Hon. S. Robinson

Action on climate change and revenues from natural gas

royalties

S. Furstenau

Hon. B. Ralston

Affordable housing and salaries for Premier and

cabinet ministers

M. Bernier

Hon. S. Robinson

Affordable rental housing and rebate for

renters

S. Bond

Hon. S. Robinson

Overdose deaths and funding for mental health and

addiction services

T. Halford

Hon. S. Robinson

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

P. Milobar

S. Furstenau

M. Dykeman

T. Halford

H. Yao

K. Kirkpatrick

K. Paddon

M. Bernier

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2022

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: G. Lore.

Introductions by Members

M. Dykeman: Today is a very special person’s birthday. He’s been a constant source of

support, so important in my children’s lives and, basically, full of advice and

there for me every step of the way. Today is my father’s birthday, and I was

wondering if the House could please join me in wishing him a very happy

birthday.

R. Merrifield: I just wanted to give a big congratulations to a constituent of mine, a

lifelong resident of Kelowna, British Columbia, Briana Hardwick.

[1:35 p.m.]

She graduated from law in 2004 but has recently been called to the bar —

sorry, not to the bar. As a new justice, a little different. It took her a long

time. No, no, no. An honours degree in political science at the University of

British Columbia, graduated with a bachelor of law in 2004 and has just now been

called as a justice for the B.C. Supreme Court.

Please join me in congratulating her.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’ve got a couple of introductions today.

First, I’d like to introduce two people in the gallery who are actually

here from Castlegar, which doesn’t happen very often. Here today is Duff

Sutherland. He’s a history instructor at Selkirk College. He’s also the chair of

the university arts and science as well as the president of my executive. So I’m

always very beholden to him. Someone referred to him as my boss this morning, and

I said: “You got that right.”

With Duff today is his daughter Claire Sutherland, who is actually

attending UBC. She’s on reading break right now. She’s in her final semester to

get her BA in history, and I think she’s following in her dad’s

footsteps.

Would everyone please make them very welcome.

D. Coulter: Today we have a special guest in the gallery. We have Spring Hawes, who is

legislation. I’m really happy to have her here.

Spring incurred a spinal cord injury 15 years ago and is a tetraplegic.

She’s also an entrepreneur and has served as a city councillor for the district of

Invermere. She’s on the boards for the Interior Health Authority and Accessible

Okanagan. She’s also a volunteer peer for Spinal Cord Injury B.C., and she has

served as president of Access, in the community of equality.

I cannot tell you how grateful I am to have someone so great to be

Hon. K. Conroy: I actually have two other announcements today.

One of them is a member in this House is celebrating a birthday. I think we

should all say happy birthday to the member from Chilliwack.

Congratulations.

And another birthday that’s a little more personal to me. You all know I

have — if you don’t, you’ll know now — nine grandkids. One of them has a birthday

in February. Today is Sarah’s birthday. She’s turning seven. Her mom told her she

would videotape this — or PVR it or whatever she said. You know where granny’s

coming from. I said I would give her a happy birthday.

Hope you have a great day, honey. I’ll see you on the weekend, where you’ll

get your birthday present and your special lunch. Love you.

Hon. K. Chen: I also want to join the minister to wish a happy birthday to my dear friend

and colleague the member from Chilliwack.

As many of you know, the member is funny, creative, often in his comments

in this Legislature. He’s super kind and generous and passionate to all people

around him — even though the opposition members may not feel the same about the

kindness part. He is an inspiration. I’ve learned from him. I’ve known him for

many years. I’ve learned so much from him.

The one thing that he said, which I really want to share today, that

inspires me so much is…. He once told me how every morning he wakes up, and he

feels so lucky and so honoured to be able to come to work in this beautiful

building to serve his community. I know the work here can be difficult many, many

days sometimes. But what he said has always inspired me during difficult times. I

hope we can all come to this beautiful place to work and feel grateful and

honoured about doing this work, like the member does every single day.

Happy birthday, brother.

G. Begg: The chamber staff in this House do a masterful job of keeping us in our

places and providing all our needs. It’s not fair to single one of them out, but

Saturday, this Saturday, will be an important day for Arnie Lavoie. I know that

the House will join me in helping him and his wife, Judith, celebrate their 50th

wedding anniversary.

S. Furstenau: I’m very pleased to introduce our interns, Rose Williams and Jerram Gawley.

Our caucus is always delighted to welcome our interns to our team.

[1:40 p.m.]

Having spent his first week with us in isolation, we are pleased to finally

welcome Jerram into our office. His diverse range of interests led him to study

neurobiology, human rights and sustainability. If you see this Renaissance man in

the hallway, he may be so kind as to share a cello lesson or a running tip, as he

works on training for an ultramarathon.

Rose comes to us from her traditional territory of Haida Gwaii. Her

academic achievements led her around the world, where she combined her lived

experiences with academic research in Vietnam, Thailand and Arizona. When she’s

not visiting her family in Ireland, she is berry-picking for jam.

We’re so happy and delighted to welcome these two to our small but mighty

team and are really looking forward to their year-end guitar concert.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I had a chance to do this yesterday, on budget day, but we’re going to do

it once more today. I’d like to welcome a former member of this House and a

sitting city councillor in my hometown of New Westminster, Mr. Chuck Puchmayr, who

is joining us for question period today.

Chuck is a really important part of the fabric of our community, whether

it’s in his role of president of the Lookout Society, which is a provider of

affordable and supportive housing to homeless people and low-income people;

whether it’s his work with A Beef with Hunger Society, where he and a group of

folks farm on Barnston Island to donate food to many different organizations in

New Westminster and surrounding areas; or whether it’s his work to support our

city of New Westminster in their relationship as a sister municipality to the

Tŝilhqot’in First Nation. Wherever there really is something that supports people

and builds community happening in our city, Chuck is there.

Would the House please join me in making him feel welcome today.

R. Singh: In the gallery today, we have four students from UBC’s Sauder School of

Business: Kashish Chopra, Akshita Aggarwal, Nikhil Sood and Chitrali Tewari. They

are all international students from India and are here for the first time,

visiting Victoria. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. J. Osborne: I think we all agree that the magic ingredient in any office is the

administrative staff.

I’m very pleased today to welcome Hannah Luscombe and Jane Constable from

the minister’s office in Municipal Affairs. Hannah has been with government for 13

months and Jane for four months. They keep us — and me, especially — efficient and

organized, and they always do so with a big smile on their faces. Lucky for us in

the minister’s office for Municipal Affairs, they have also picked up the great

tradition that Heidi Reid left with baking chocolate chip cookies. I’m ever

grateful for all their service.

Would the House welcome them to question period today.

A. Singh: Pets are an integral part of many of our families, as they are of my

family. I would be remiss not to wish my dog, Charlie, a happy birthday

today.

H. Sandhu: We all know that the work we do as an MLA is not possible without the

amazing support from individuals, whether it’s in the Legislature, in the chamber,

at our offices or in caucus. So today I’m honoured to introduce one of those

amazing individuals joining us in the chamber, Priyanka Krishna.

Priyanka has worked with business improvement in Surrey, downtown. Later

she worked as a CA for the Surrey-Guildford office and also the Surrey-Whalley

office. Recently Priyanka joined our NDP caucus as an outreach coordinator. She

has been an amazing support to all of us.

Would the House please join me to welcome Priyanka today in the

gallery.

[1:45 p.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — COASTAL FERRY

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. R. Fleming presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Coastal Ferry Amendment Act,

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 7, Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2022. The

Coastal Ferry Act outlines a governance framework for B.C.’s coastal ferry

service, and included in that framework was the creation of the B.C. Ferry

Authority as the shareholder for B.C. Ferries. The shareholder’s

responsibilities include overseeing the public interest in the delivery of

coastal ferry services.

As B.C. Ferries recovers from the pandemic, it is vital that people

living in B.C.’s coastal communities, and all British Columbians, continue to

be well served and well supported by the ferry service. The legislative

amendments introduced today will help provide the tools for the B.C. Ferry

Authority to best represent the public interest. I will provide more

information on these amendments at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next….

Mr. Speaker: Just a second, too early.

The motion is the first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Now, Minister.

Hon. R. Fleming: I now 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 7, Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2022, 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)

PINK SHIRT DAY AND

PREVENTION OF

BULLYING

M. Elmore: Today, on the 15th anniversary of Pink Shirt Day, we encourage everyone

to join together and celebrate diversity, belonging and empowerment.

For those who may not know how Pink Shirt Day started, here’s the

incredible story. On the first day of school in 2007, two Nova Scotia high

school students, David Shepherd and Travis Price, saw a ninth grade classmate

being bullied for wearing a pink shirt, and they were inspired to take a

stand.

These two courageous individuals bought 50 pink shirts for others to

wear. They spread the word, and the next day hundreds of students were

outfitted with the pink shirts. Soon after, hundreds of other students showed

up wearing their own pink clothes. Their actions inspired their school and

their community to stop bullying, and amazingly, the bullies were never heard

from again.

A special shoutout to all the students and staff in schools throughout

B.C. who are wearing pink today.

Thanks to our incredible education partners like Carol Todd. This year

will mark the tenth anniversary of the tragic death of her daughter Amanda, who

was bullied and committed suicide in 2012. Over the past ten years, Carol has

been a courageous, dedicated and selfless anti-bullying advocate driven to help

others who may have faced the same struggles that her daughter Amanda

faced.

This year’s Pink Shirt Day theme is “Belonging and empowerment,” a call

to action and an opportunity for us to support diversity and inclusion for all

British Columbians. We want to ensure that every child of all races, cultures,

religions, sexual orientations and gender identities feels safe, accepted and

respected. Pink Shirt Day is about joining together to take a stand against

transphobic and homophobic bullying and showing each student that they are

valued in our schools.

We must continue to work together to create welcoming and inclusive

schools for young British Columbians. Our children and youth deserve to grow up

in a world where they are valued and celebrated as their true, authentic

selves.

Thank you to everyone for participating in Pink Shirt Day.

BULLYING AWARENESS AND PREVENTION

R. Merrifield: I can remember the exact moment that I fully understood bullying. I’d

just marched in the Women’s Day parade in downtown Manhattan with over 25,000

women, as I was the Canadian delegate to the UN for the Status of Women

conference. I can remember where I was sitting in the room at the anti-bullying

panel, listening to Amanda Todd’s father speak of the online bullying that his

daughter had endured, to the point that she had lost her will to

live.

It was at that moment that the tears started streaming down my face,

hearing about the common signs of bullying that too often go unnoticed: changes

in sleep patterns; changes in eating patterns; frequent tears or anger; mood

swings; feeling ill in the morning; doesn’t want to go to school; a frequent

target for teasing, mimicking or ridicule at school.

[1:50 p.m.]

As Mr. Todd spoke of his daughter’s bullying, I could have put my own

child’s name in her place. Yes, my child was still alive, but I recognized that

they were being bullied. So I took my Momma Bear tears, and I started working

on making sure that not only my child was safe but that all children would have

the opportunity to be.

Bullying is still going on today, and 47 percent of Canadian parents

have at least one child that has been the victim of bullying. Around one-third

of teenagers have been bullied recently, and 40 percent or nearly half of

Canadians are bullied in the workplace every week. We must all stand up against

it.

Whether it’s race, gender, sexual orientation or identification,

religion, age, education, background, abilities, personal beliefs, medical

choices or occupation, bullying still happens today. Regardless of age, it is

inappropriate, damaging and discriminatory.

We must all wear our pink shirts and stand up against it.

PINK THURSDAY INITIATIVE FOR

BULLYING AND RACISM

AWARENESS

R. Glumac: It’s upsetting to think about how many children have experienced

bullying. So many kids end up feeling alone and isolated and depressed. Today

is Pink Shirt Day, and it’s a day for us to remember that you’re not alone.

There are so many people, people that care, people that want to end

bullying.

I want to talk about one of those people who is my constituent. His name

is Mark Williams. He came to this country as a young immigrant from Saint

Vincent and the Grenadines, and he had to navigate his new life here on his

own, without any family. It’s during this time that he experienced racism and

bullying. It was a very difficult time, but he was resilient. He was able to

rise above the adversity, and he has dedicated his life to caring for others,

with a career in health care.

When he thought back and remembered those times, he decided he was going

to start Pink Thursday to raise awareness of anti-bullying and to keep

discussion and action about this issue on the agenda year-round. In his own

words, Mark says: “I’m hoping that I can inspire a movement in B.C. and

globally to end bullying and racism and to give hope and inspire other

minorities that they themselves can be a positive difference in B.C. and around

the world.”

hundreds of people in pink shirts, and he’s given a voice to people that have

been able to share their experiences and let others know that they’re not

alone.

You can add your voice. Search for “pink for Thursdays.” It’s No. 4 on

FRASER VALLEY FLOOD RELIEF

GROUP ON SOCIAL

MEDIA

B. Banman: It is a pleasure to get up in the House today and acknowledge a special

new group in my community. That group is Fraser Valley flood on

Facebook.

There is no doubt the residents of the Sumas Prairie have been tested.

They’ve experienced the heat dome and then, a very few short months later, the

floods. The losses were catastrophic, and at one point, a 20-foot wall of water

flowed out over the eastern portion of Sumas Prairie. As we all know, farmers

and residents were forced to escape with little time to save anything but

themselves.

Upon their return, the true magnitude of the damages caused became

evident. Many were left with nothing but a layer of mud and sludge. The waters

took everything. It seemed as if all hope vanished, washed away with the

waters.

Farmers and those who call this farmland home are a special, diverse

lot, but they do share a few common traits. They’re tough. They have grit and

courage many of us will never know. I watched neighbours helping each other —

first saving one another and then, when the waters receded, helping each other

to clean up and begin rebuilding.

be used for good, a way to help one another. That group is the Fraser Valley

flood.

[1:55 p.m.]

Currently its membership is 12,000 and growing. Daily they post what is

needed, be it donations, warm boots, clothes, work gloves, household items or

needing volunteers for a task. It is grassroots at its finest, reaching out to

offer help where it’s needed.

If anyone is looking for a way to help, go check out Fraser Valley flood

group on Facebook. They still have a ton of work left to do, and they could

sure do with some help.

AY LELUM DESIGN HOUSE

D. Routley: Well, it’s been a tough couple of years in this province, and I think

everybody can use a little inspiration. On Pink Shirt Day, we look around for

colour. We look to art, and we look to fashion. This is how we tell our

stories.

I’d like to tell you the story of a couple of people from Nanaimo. Ay

Lelum is a second-generation Coast Salish design house from Nanaimo. It’s run

by two sisters who design and produce clothing with fabrics in patterns

featuring traditional Coast Salish art produced by their father, William Good,

and their brother Joel Good of the Snuneymuxw First Nations. Their mother,

Sandra Moorehouse-Good, had the very first Coast Salish clothing line, called

Ay Ay Mut, in the 1990s.

They are committed to sustainability, ethical practices and following

cultural protocols. While their ready-to-wear line is produced in Vancouver,

their couture garments are made by hand on Snuneymuxw territory. They’ve shown

across North America, at Vancouver Fashion Week and most recently at New York

Fashion Week.

That was just no small trip. In fact, their warehouse was destroyed by a

fire last summer — 90 percent of their stock, all of their artwork, all of

their samples destroyed. It was the community rallying around them, plus the

recovery grant from this government, that helped them produce more goods and

get to New York and get to that show.

In the end, they’ve won Indigenous Business of the Year awards. They

were top five in the Small Business B.C. Awards. They received the Excellence

in Culture Award.

Really, in the end, they are a story of beauty and resilience, much like

our beautiful province and its people.

B.C. ATHLETES AT 2022 OLYMPIC

AND PARALYMPIC WINTER

GAMES

S. Cadieux: In 2010, when I was appointed Minister of Community Sport and Cultural

Development, those closest to me chuckled just a little. I am not sporty in the

slightest. All of those genes in my family went to my sister Emily. I am a good

fan, so today I’d like to say congratulations to the more than 30 B.C. athletes

who competed in the 2022 Winter Olympics.

Over the past two weeks, our B.C. Olympians demonstrated outstanding

determination, courage and sportsmanship as they competed in their sports and

represented our country. These athletes faced tremendous obstacles in their

training throughout COVID-19, but they’ve shown nothing but resilience and

perseverance. There is no doubt these Olympians have also inspired future

generations of athletes in all of our communities.

I’m so proud to recognize the six B.C. athletes who’ve returned home

with some new bling: medal winners Micah Zandee-Hart, who won a gold in women’s

hockey; Cassie Sharpe, silver in women’s freestyle ski halfpipe; Marielle

Thompson, silver in women’s ski cross; Justin Kripps, bronze in bobsleigh; Ryan

Sommer, bronze in bobsleigh; and Meryeta O’Dine, two bronze in snowboard

cross.

I extend sincere congratulations to all of our Olympic athletes and

remind everyone that the competition is not over. The former member for

Parksville-Qualicum is whispering in my ear, in this moment, that the

Paralympics start March 4, and 49 more athletes are anxiously awaiting their

opportunity to compete for Canada.

Good luck to the eight athletes representing Canada from B.C.: Mollie

Jepsen, Logan Leach, Adam Kingsmill, Ethan Hess, Emily Young, Natalie Wilkie,

Tyler Turner and Ina Forrest. We’ll be cheering you on. Go, Canada,

go!

[2:00 p.m.]

Oral Questions

TAX POLICIES

AND AFFORDABILITY ISSUES

P. Milobar: Yesterday’s budget was just more of the same NDP platitudes. There was

nothing in it, again, to make good on the repeated promises by this Premier to

make life more affordable in B.C.

In fact, at a time when we see people shifting their buying habits in

grocery stores to store brands and cheaper cuts to try to make their grocery

bill and their dollar last, what did we see in the budget yesterday? Increased

taxes on home heating, increased taxes on used cars and a brand-new tax on the

online marketplace — more NDP taxes, despite the Premier’s promise during the

election, just this last election.

I will quote him. I know he loves it when he gets asked to actually live

up to a campaign promise. This is what the Premier said in the last election,

just a year ago. “Our plan does not include any new taxes. We have no intention

of raising new taxes.”

When will the Premier start to actually live up to one of his campaign

promises and actually start to take steps to make life more affordable for

British Columbians?

Hon. S. Robinson: Clearly, the member opposite doesn’t know how to quite read the budget

document.

I think it’s really important to, certainly, clarify that the

marketplace PST is about closing a loophole. If you have a bricks-and-mortar

store, you have to charge PST. That’s standard. We certainly saw, with activity

through the pandemic, that lots of folks went online and are using different

marketplaces to sell their wares. Well, they, too, should be collecting PST. So

this is about closing a loophole. It’s not a new tax. It’s closing a

loophole.

Now, in terms of heating equipment, I think it’s really important. We

are living with climate change. We are living it every day. We want to make it

more affordable for people to switch over to heat pumps when they need to

change their furnace, so we have removed the PST.

I want to say, in terms of affordability…. The member did ask and

suggest somehow that affordability wasn’t something that this government has

been taking action on, which is absolutely not the case. I just want to talk

about one of the items in which we’ve addressed affordability particularly in

this budget. That’s about affordable child care and how that is changing

lives.

With this budget, by the end of this year, people with children under

the age of six will be paying, on average, $20 a day. That is well on the way

up to…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let’s hear the answer, please.

Hon. S. Robinson: …the end of our ten-year plan, when we will deliver

$10-a-day.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.

P. Milobar: Well, the Premier’s silence on his own campaign promises speaks volumes

in this chamber. It’s quite incredible that in the middle of an affordability

crisis, the NDP are going after people trying to save money on used

goods.

In fact, the minister references child care. Only the NDP could think a

plan that is six years late, at twice the cost, is a success story. But I

digress.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Order, please.

P. Milobar: The minister is, frankly, out of touch. There is the rising cost of

housing at all-time highs, record gas prices to couple with record high levels

of taxation. Groceries are up, skyrocketing. And nothing to help the most

vulnerable keep pace…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Quiet, please.

P. Milobar: …with record high inflation. In fact, the NDP tax increases target those

who can actually least afford it.

Now, again, I know the Premier and the minister don’t like having their

own documents quoted to them. But on page 91 of the budget, it very clearly

says: “Individuals involved in private vehicle transactions are more likely to

be low to medium income.”

Again, why is the Premier doing everything possible under his power to

decrease affordability for those on low and middle incomes in this province, as

referenced in their own budget book?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, we’ve updated reporting requirements to be in line with other

provinces in Canada. This is about fixing, again, another loophole. It closes a

loophole and prevents tax avoidance.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, the members opposite seem to scoff at child care. I don’t

understand what their problem is. They scoff at child care….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, a question has been asked. Let’s listen to the answer,

please.

Hon. S. Robinson: They scoff at child care and its impact on families. When we put

together the first new social program that this province has seen in a

generation, we said we would build it out over ten years, and that’s exactly

what we’ve been doing.

We have been building it out. We have included a wage enhancement for

those workers. We have training seats for early childhood educators. We are

building spaces left, right and centre. More and more keep coming online. We’re

going to continue down that path towards $10-a-day daycare. It will be $20 by

the end of the year, and we’re going to keep going until we get to $10 a

day.

AFFORDABILITY ISSUES AND SALARIES

FOR PREMIER AND CABINET

MINISTERS

T. Stone: The truth of the matter is this. Just like their pandemic supports for

small businesses, there would be no support for child care enhancements in this

province if it wasn’t for the federal government stepping up to the

plate.

When you hear this government, when people hear this government

constantly patting themselves on the back instead of addressing the real

affordability challenges that people have, do you know what British Columbians

want to say to this Premier? They want to say: “Give me a break.”

Now, Paul Kershaw of Generation Squeeze says: “Whether it’s in trying to

fight housing unaffordability or the crisis around child care

unaffordability…the numbers show clearly these are lower-level priorities in

the 2022 budget.”

Fighting unaffordability for people is not the priority of this budget.

But what was one of the priorities? Making life more affordable for the Premier

and for NDP cabinet ministers. You’d think it was a joke until you actually

read on page 42 of the budget book, read it with your own eyes, that there is a

$20,000 pay raise planned for the Premier and for NDP cabinet

ministers.

At a time when British Columbians are being hit with higher housing

costs, higher rents, higher fuel and grocery costs, higher taxes on heating

bills and used cars, higher taxes on online marketplaces, how could the Premier

possibly justify providing himself and his cabinet ministers with a $20,000

raise?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, the deficit holdback, which is what the member is referring to….

It’s a deficit holdback. It’s a holdback. This measure sent the wrong message.

What it says is that it prioritizes…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, come to order, please. Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: …austerity and cuts over investment, even in an emergency. It forces

government to balance books on the backs of British Columbians, making sure

that we…. If we followed that holdback provision, we wouldn’t have supports for

business. We wouldn’t have vaccination clinics. It is the wrong

message.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, that’s enough. Members, be quiet.

Hon. S. Robinson: We’ve made unprecedented investments over the last two years to support

people. Ministerial responsibility, however, still remains, with the holdback

measure to ensure that ministers stick to their budgets.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: For the average British Columbian, a tax increase is just taking care of

a loophole. For this government, when it comes to a pay increase for the

Premier and the cabinet ministers, it’s just dealing with a holdback. Talk

about a double standard.

Page 42 of the budget document says: “Budget 2022 includes a proposed

amendment…to repeal the collective 10 percent salary holdback provision

applicable to a minister in respect of cabinet’s collective responsibilities to

avoid annual deficits or achieve a surplus.”

[2:10 p.m.]

This is a choice that this government is making. Increase the taxes of

average British Columbians…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the question, please.

T. Stone: …and pad their own pockets. Talk about being just a little bit

tone-deaf.

In the middle of an affordability crisis, with half of all British

Columbians about $200 away from not being able to pay their bills, the

Premier’s priority was a $20,000 pay raise for himself and his cabinet

ministers. How much did the average person get from this budget? Zero. How much

does the Premier and the cabinet get in this document? They get $20,000 in pay

increases. Where is the relief that this Premier promised to help British

Columbians with, British Columbians who are being crushed under the weight of

unaffordability across this province?

Will the Premier stand up today and say to British Columbians: “You know

what? Upon second, sober thought, I am going to cancel this planned pay

increase” — a $20,000 pay increase for himself and for his cabinet?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member just read from the budget book. He did that reading very

well, and he actually called it a holdback. He knows full well that it’s a

holdback.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we are not….

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s a….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, you’re wasting your time.

Members. Members will come to order now, please.

The minister will continue.

Hon. S. Robinson: As I’ve said…. The member himself called it a holdback. It is a holdback

that is in place when you have a deficit budget. The reality is that we chose

to support people through the pandemic. That has resulted in a deficit budget.

In a holdback provision, its fundamental value, its message is: “Don’t do the

right thing by the people. Otherwise, we will hold back your

salary.”

We said we should always be doing the right thing by the

people.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. S. Robinson: We are eliminating that holdback.

And the accountability? The member wants to know about accountability.

Ministerial accountability is still there. Every single minister that is

surrounding me is required to work within their budget. That’s what we’re

committed to.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we are really going too far. Questions are asked, and answers

should be provided, and vice versa. Let’s pay some respect to this institution,

all right?

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND GOVERNMENT

REVENUES FROM HOUSING

SECTOR

S. Furstenau: Property tax revenue is expected to grow by an average of 5.2 percent

annually, and according to the budget and fiscal framework, this projection is

in line with inflation. It’s true that inflation is a problem. According to

StatsCan, inflation is the highest it has been since 1991, but those numbers

fall short of the grossly inflated prices of housing in B.C.

B.C. Assessment data released last month showed that housing prices

jumped enormously across the province. Some communities saw the average home

value increase by 40 percent. When homes jump in value, their owners pay more

in property taxes, and government benefits from the increased revenues. This

government says it cares about the housing crisis, but it is hooked on the

funds from the runaway housing market that’s leaving so many British Columbians

struggling to pay rent, much less be able to get into a home of their

own.

To the Minister of Finance, how does this government reconcile the

promise to fix the housing crisis with the ongoing reliance on the tax revenue

that the crisis generates?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for the question.

The housing crisis has been with us for some time. We were making some

headway before the pandemic. We were seeing some moderation. That certainly

suggested that we were moving in the right direction with our 30-point plan. We

know the speculation and vacancy tax certainly made a difference. Not only did

it tamp down speculation, but it also turned 18,000 empty units into homes for

British Columbians.

I appreciate the member’s question.

[2:15 p.m.]

We’re continuing to spend $1.2 billion every year to build the kind of

housing that British Columbians need. In fact, in this budget, we accelerated

the community housing fund by $100 million to continue on that path and to

continue to deliver housing for British Columbians that they can

afford.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND

REVENUES FROM NATURAL GAS

ROYALTIES

S. Furstenau: While I recognize the government has been trying to address the housing

crisis, I think British Columbians can acknowledge and see that for many, many

people the crisis is getting worse.

Our reliance on problematic revenue sources isn’t just limited to

housing. It also extends to the other crisis we’re experiencing, which is

climate change.

On page 59 of the budget, it states that revenues from natural gas

royalties will decrease because of declining gas prices, but these decreases

will be offset by increased production volumes. So let’s be clear. This

government’s so-called climate budget is predicated on increasing the volume of

methane and carbon emissions from fracking in British Columbia. After the

climate disasters we endured last year, it is business as usual from this

government.

To the Minister of Energy and Mines, how does he reconcile this

government’s promise of climate action with their ongoing expansion of publicly

funded support for fracking?

Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate the question from the member.

What we have engaged in is a royalty review. It was initiated with a

report written by Dr. Jennifer Winter of the University of Calgary and Dr.

Nancy Olewiler of Simon Fraser University. They set forward a series of

conclusions. There’s been a public consultation process. We’ve made it very

clear that we are going to eliminate outdated, inefficient fossil fuel

subsidies.

We’re in process. We will be making an announcement fairly soon, I hope.

I invite the member to await that announcement.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SALARIES

FOR PREMIER AND CABINET

MINISTERS

M. Bernier: Look, we’ve just heard…. We all know that housing has never been more

out of reach for most British Columbians than it is now under this NDP

government. What we learned yesterday is that the NDP is profiting off of the

skyrocketing housing prices to the tune of almost $3 billion.

What have they decided to do with that money? Well, as we heard today, I

guess their top priority is making sure that cabinet members and the Premier

make almost $20,000 more each, using that money, rather than helping people who

need help.

Interjections.

M. Bernier: I can hear the back bench heckling. I guess they’re just upset they’re

not in cabinet, because they’re not making the $20,000 extra.

This is the peak of NDP hypocrisy. So it’s a real easy one. The Premier

has been promising now for five years that he is going to lower housing prices,

make life more affordable. When is he going to do that, rather than trying to

make life more affordable just for himself and his cabinet?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, what I want to say to the member is that in the last five years,

we’ve registered more rental homes than in the previous 15 years. That’s

action. Last year alone housing starts reached 47,000, an all-time high and 53

percent greater than the old government’s plan. That is action.

We’re investing $1.2 billion in housing and homelessness supports every

year. That’s three times the level that was funded in 2017. We’re continuing to

do the work that needs to be done to make up for the 15 or 16 years of

negligence that was left behind by the previous government.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Peace River South, supplemental.

M. Bernier: Well, here’s what the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association had to say

about the budget: “Those waiting for an affordable home will need to now wait

longer.” They’re also saying that there are 10,000 promised homes in the

pipeline. They’re sitting there. They’re waiting, and guess what. They’re

unfunded in this budget by the NDP.

[2:20 p.m.]

The minister can spout off whatever numbers she wants about imaginary

houses that must be for imaginary people. Nobody’s living in them because

they’re not built. Five years into a ten-year plan. We are halfway through a

ten-year plan, and guess what. Just 5,200 homes have actually been built with

people living in them.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Real people. Exactly.

I think what the Premier should have done was add the $20,000 raise into

the election platform. It would have been, finally, an election promise that he

came good on.

Again, the Premier can change this. The Premier can easily change this.

So can the Finance Minister. Will they reduce the raise that they are going to

get for the Premier and cabinet and put that money into homes to help people in

British Columbia?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, certainly, what we’ve seen is a significant appetite to build the

kinds of homes that people can afford. That’s why, in this budget, we’ve

accelerated and put $100 million more into the community housing — so that

those projects that weren’t successful can be successful, so that we can

continue to build more.

Let’s just talk for a second about what the folks on the other side have

been saying about our housing plan. They have been saying that they would

eliminate the speculation tax. Mr. Falcon said that he would do that, and I got

a hear, hear.

You know what would happen, what that would do? Eighteen thousand

people, families, would be turfed while those homes sat empty, because they

would get rid of the speculation tax. You know what else it would do? It would

drive up real estate even higher.

They have opposed nearly every major step we have taken on this housing

crisis. They would eliminate our cap and make renters pay even more — 2 percent

plus CPI, instead of just CPI. I think that renters and homeowners are better

off with us folks here on this side, because we’re making the investments at

the right time in the right way.

AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING

AND REBATE FOR

RENTERS

S. Bond: I guess the Finance Minister can stand in the Legislature and basically

make it up as she goes along, but let’s look at what British Columbians are

actually facing today. It’s not just the cost of housing.

By the way, for the minister’s reference, it used to take 34 years to

actually save to buy, for a home in Vancouver. In the short time these guys

have been in government, they’ve managed to drive it up to 36 years. So that is

one thing they’ve accomplished on the housing file.

It’s not just home ownership. It’s actually rental rates in British

Columbia. In fact, there are new statistics from CMHC which show that renting

is less affordable than ever under this NDP government.

Let’s just take a look at what it’s costing people who live in Surrey,

for example. They are paying $3,200 more a year under this government. I can’t

wait to hear the minister’s answer to that. Let’s look at Langley. Langley

renters are paying $3,400 more a year, and renters in North Vancouver are

paying $4,700 more a year under this government.

Last week, when we asked the Housing Minister about the renters rebate

that was promised not only once but twice in big flashy brochures from the

Premier during two election campaigns, finally someone admitted: “We’re working

on it.” Well, it’s been five years of empty promises, the sixth consecutive

budget, and guess what. No renters rebate.

Maybe the Housing Minister would like to get on his feet today and

explain to British Columbians exactly how long it’s going to take for them to

work on the renters rebate.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I listen very carefully to the member’s question and try to

understand exactly what she is getting at.

[2:25 p.m.]

She’s suggesting that we don’t know what we’re talking about or

something like that. But I have to say it’s the people on the other side who

seem to forget that they allowed landlords to increase rents 2 percent plus

CPI. That was the people on the other side. We eliminated that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: We eliminated that automatic 2 percent. Let me tell the members what it

saves British Columbians. That, in and of itself, has saved hundreds of dollars

a year for British Columbians.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: By eliminating the 2 percent on the rent hikes, we’re reducing costs for

families. Cutting this annual rent increase to inflation is saving an average

B.C. family over $1,000 a year on a two bedroom.

To be specific, if you live in Surrey, that’s $850 a year. If you live

in Kelowna, that’s $930 every single year that you’re saving, because we took

action. It would be so much worse if we hadn’t done that. They would be

paying…. If you lived in Vancouver, you’d be paying an additional $1,440 a

year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: Because we took action, it is helping families. There is still much more

to do. All I can say is thank goodness we took off that 2 percent, because that

would really have devastated families in a way that we…. We got rid of their

policy because their policies, frankly, stink.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

S. Bond: You know what? While we might sit in this House and think it’s funny to

listen to the Minister of Finance, it’s not funny to the families in Surrey.

She can pretend all she wants, and her MLAs can be as silent as they want. They

are paying $3,200 more every single year under this NDP government. That’s her

record, and that is nothing to be laughing about.

Let’s talk about a very simple, very straightforward, very repetitive

promise made by this Premier. It’s not the first promise. It’s a long list of

broken promises. And you know what? It would be so, so easy for this Premier to

have included it in his sixth consecutive budget. He made a promise to the

people of British Columbia that life would be more affordable under his

government. He has utterly failed on that promise to British

Columbians.

He made a promise that renters would receive a $400 rebate. A pretty

straight-up, straightforward promise. Well, guess what. Right now, if we look

at the cost of that rebate, it’s probably about $350 now and shrinking as we

speak. Saying you’re working on it, as the Housing Minister did last week, is

pretty cold comfort if you’re a renter in the Tri-Cities, which, of course, the

Minister of Finance represents. They are paying $4,500 more a year in rent

under the NDP. Rent is skyrocketing.

This is a two-term government that’s done nothing to implement a promise

this Premier made not once but twice. When will the Premier deliver on at least

that simple, straightforward promise to help renters in British

Columbia?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, we have made lots of promises, and we’ve kept lots of promises. We

promised to fix ICBC, and we did, saving families about $500 a year. We also

promised to eliminate MSP. And you know what? We did. We eliminated MSP. We

promised to remove tolls on bridges. We did that. We promised to remove

interest on student loans, and we did. We promised a child opportunity benefit

of up to $2,600 a year, and we’ve delivered on that too. I’m very proud of our

record.

[2:30 p.m.]

OVERDOSE DEATHS AND FUNDING FOR

MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION

SERVICES

T. Halford: This minister can do a victory lap, but there is one number that I think

that she needs to remember — and all of us in this House need to remember. How

about 2,224? That’s how many British Columbians lost their lives in this

overdose crisis last year.

The B.C. chief coroner says: “We have not seen a response commensurate

with the size of this crisis, with so many people dying every day.” And what

did we see yesterday from this minister, from this Premier, from this

government? An $8 million transfer. Not a bump but a transfer into the Ministry

of Mental Health and Addictions’ budget for communications. For advertising.

For staff.

This minister’s priority: spin doctors. At a time where British

Columbians are losing their lives, over six a day — $8 million. That’s over 200

treatment beds.

My question is to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. Will she

immediately do the right thing, and will she put that money where it belongs:

into treatment and recovery for British Columbians?

Hon. S. Robinson: The tragic loss of life is something that I think everybody in this

House thinks about every day.

We are spending $375 million every year to put together a mental health

and addictions framework that works for people who are most impacted by the

opioid crisis, the poisoned drug supply, who have mental health issues. It used

to be, once upon a time, a hodgepodge of services that had no coordination,

that had no framework around it.

I am very proud to be in a government that has put a laser focus on

developing and building out a mental health and addictions framework and

program that makes sense. That work has been going on for five years as we

continue to build it out.

I want to point out to the member that it’s actually not true when he

talks about it as a communications piece. I can break it down for him. The

money includes services for people. It includes $6 million for the community

innovation fund, which funds community-based actions to combat the toxic drug

crisis. I think that everybody here can really appreciate that people on the

ground know what their communities need, and that’s what $6 million of that $8

million is doing.

The other $2 million is for the Stop the Stigma public awareness

campaign, with online and physical advertisements in communities across British

Columbia. I know that everybody here stands up in the face of stigma and

challenges it, and that’s what that money is going for.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. I would like to get the debate underway. If you would

like to make your conversations elsewhere, I would appreciate it so that we can

listen to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

Member, please proceed.

P. Milobar: I’m happy to continue my comments from yesterday on the budget and try to

add a little more detail and, certainly, get into some other areas that are very

problematic, as we see it, within this budget.

[2:35 p.m.]

A lot of times, we as opposition get…. People assume we’re just looking for

the negative and we’re embellishing on things and we’re just making it up as we

go. But the reality is that the way the process works on budget day…. I alluded to

this yesterday, but I think I’ll take a couple of minutes, since I have a little

bit of time on the clock, to give the viewing public just a little bit of insight

into how budget day works in the Legislature. I think a lot of people think we get

advance notice of budgets and legislation and advance copies. The simple fact is

that we don’t.

We saw a bill introduced today. That would be the first time that we saw

that bill. Likewise, with the budget, for understandable reasons — this goes

across every government; they do it the same way — the budget lockup starts at

10:30 in the morning on budget day. Myself and a few of my colleagues and some

staff go in a room, and that’s it. It’s just us. There’s no one else in that room

other than ourselves.

In a different building in Victoria, there’s another budget lockup

happening where there are stakeholders and interested parties that are allowed in

by the government. This year, unfortunately, there were probably more left out.

Well, there were more left out than allowed in, because the minister chose to cap

the room capacity at 10 percent instead of, despite the capacity restrictions

being lifted in time, opening it up to as many people as possible. But I digress

on that part.

That group is with the minister and people from within the ministry. They

get to dive into the budget and get some questions answered, and they talk to the

media. The media is in the room. They get a better sense of what’s going on within

the budget.

Back in our room, we’re left to just basically have 2½ hours or so to

really dive into the budget and figure out as best as we can where the numbers

are, what they’re trying to achieve with the budget and what our overall

impression of that budget is. There are no ministry staff in the room, and

rightfully so. There shouldn’t be. But that’s really the process.

We’re sitting there, and we come out of that room, and we quickly cobble

together the words I said yesterday, in terms of how we want to do an initial

response to the budget and our initial impressions. The interesting

part is that

we’re not allowed to have cell phones or any communication device in that room

whatsoever, and likewise in the other lockup.

Coming out of both lockups, I had staff hurry me in…. Once they could get

access to devices again, as the minister was speaking, they sent me in kind of a

quick hit of what the online reaction to the budget was.

The amazing thing is that what we were saying and where we saw problems

within the budget were almost the exact same areas, almost word for word, what we

were seeing from a wide range of organizations — everything from health care

organizations and doctors to business groups, to social agencies, to the labour

movement. You name it. Everyone was saying the same thing about the budget, and

that was that it was a very underwhelming budget.

I said yesterday that it seems to hold the course to an underwhelming

throne speech and an underwhelming economic plan, but that’s not good enough

coming out of a pandemic. It’s certainly not good enough in a pandemic, but it’s

certainly not good enough coming out of a pandemic that we all hope we’re actually

trying to emerge out of. That’s what people need to see. They need to see that

vision moving forward. More importantly, they need to have faith and trust that

what they hear in the budget is actually going to be delivered upon.

That’s why it’s problematic when they hear in the throne speech a backwards

look, when they hear in an economic plan all of the measurables ending by 2020,

except in housing — they end in 2018 — and nothing moving forward. When they see

report after report that is supposed to be out there around environmental measures

and accountability issues and when they have a government that keeps getting the

title — branded — as the most secretive government in Canada, people get

skeptical.

I think that’s what we’re starting to see from these agencies. There’s a

skepticism growing that this government simply cannot deliver what it is they’re

telling people they would like to try to accomplish.

I have every belief that they think this is what they want to do when it

comes to things like child care or affordable housing. But the actual measurables

just don’t match that.

[2:40 p.m.]

We hear the minister talk about 30,000 affordable housing units in the ten

years out of their 114,000. First off, that’s still not good enough, because we’re

halfway into a ten-year plan. Secondly, when you actually look at the units that

people are living in, it’s 5,200 in five years. The rest are “either under

construction or in planning.”

The vast majority of those other 25,000 are actually in the planning stage

still. They’ve actually not even started construction on them. When you have five

years left to go in a ten-year plan and you’re at about 5 percent of it so far,

it’s no wonder that groups say it’s a 100-year housing plan — just to hit that

target.

Same with child care. We just heard, in question period, the minister

referencing $20-a-day child care by the end of this year. Well, that’s only coming

to pass because the federal government has forced the hand of the provincial

government and said: “If you want any federal money, you must meet certain

benchmarks by a certain timeline.”

Here we are, sixth budget. It will be the end of their sixth year in

government when they finally might — maybe, possibly — have child care that’s

twice as expensive as what they promised people they would receive in 2017, and

the minister calls that a success.

We heard questions around gas revenues. Now, that’s on the natural gas side

of things.

Let’s just look at the budget in a little more detail — again, I referenced

it yesterday — about where the government actually is with their environmental

plan, their much heralded CleanBC. CleanBC is, again, a very interesting marketing

document. But I will point out again and again and again, as I have all along,

that the actual end-point targets in CleanBC are no different than the plan that

was introduced in this Legislature in 2007. Those targets have not

changed.

There was an updated plan, as there should be as technology evolves, as

environmental awareness evolves. Of course you need to update the plan, and that’s

really what CleanBC did. But it didn’t actually change any of the actual end

targets. We’re still waiting on the missing 25 percent of the plan. They found 4

percent a couple years ago, because they decided to do a different calculation

again. That’s about the only gains we ever see out of CleanBC — when it issues

another way to calculate emissions.

Let’s look at the budget document to get an insight into whether or not the

government’s truly walking the walk when it comes to the environment. Frankly,

they’re not, and I have pointed this out year after year after year, both as the

Environment critic, previously, and now. The government maintains and continues to

budget this way.

If you look at the carbon tax — and I’m not talking about carbon tax as a

concept; I’m just talking about it as a line item in a budget, very matter of fact

— the assumption is that the revenue went up because the carbon tax went from $45

a tonne to $50 a tonne. But if you actually divide the revenue from last year by

the $45 a tonne from last year, you actually get a tonnage.

When you look at this year’s projected revenues and divide that by the now

$50 a tonne — that’s how they actually get that revenue — lo and behold, emissions

are increasing yet again. It will be 44-point-something megatonnes to get to that.

When this government took office we were at about 40½.

Every single year they have budgeted for emissions to rise, and every

single year they have used that to try to make their books balance. Well, in their

own budget book, if you look at fuel taxes — which is a per-litre tax that is

directly tied to consumption of a fossil fuel by the general public — those are

increasing too.

In fact, in their budget book, it makes it very clear. There’s a

description in it, and it says that, essentially, gasoline for the average

commuter will stay static for the next three years of this plan, so that volume is

not going to increase. You know what’s expected to increase 3 percent a year?

Diesel consumption.

Again, a very clear, on the revenue side, acknowledgment that emissions are

climbing in British Columbia. Yet all the prebudget conversation from this

Minister of Finance was about the great work they’re doing in CleanBC and how this

budget is going to address climate change. It simply is not.

[2:45 p.m.]

None of their programs they have implemented in their first six budgets

under environmental awareness and reduction of emissions has worked. None of their

spending. Because we’re seeing emissions rise.

Now they want to talk about, and we heard about it today, the heat pump —

about how a heat pump, an electric heat pump, will now be PST-exempt. That will

force people over from using a natural gas–fired appliance for their

home.

Again, a complete disconnect from the Minister of Finance understanding the

economics of that decision and just how punitive it is to many in this province.

Normally in February, we’d be standing here, and it would be much warmer than it

is in Victoria, but if you look at the temperatures around the province, there are

great many areas of this province that are still 20, 25 below.

Perhaps the minister should look up the specs on the operation of an

electric heat pump in cold weather. Perhaps the minister should look up the specs

to see that that heat pump has to actually be cold rated. That cold rating

actually only goes to minus 25, and after that, you would need a gas-fired

appliance to augment the electric heat pump. Maybe the minister could look at the

specs and realize that an electric heat pump that is cold certified is

approximately $20,000 for an average-sized home.

We’re going to solve our emissions problems in B.C. by hammering the

homeowners in cold climates that the only affordable way to heat their home is

with a $3,000 or $4,000 natural gas heating appliance. By somehow thinking that

them spending $20,000 is going to accomplish something. But they saved the PST, so

they saved, what, $1,400 on that. That will make them want to switch.

The other interesting thing, and perhaps the minister could spec this out

as well before we make tax policy around it, is that an electric heat pump costs

approximately $75 to $100 a month to run. There’s not a discernible operational

savings, from your natural gas appliance in your home. Especially if you bought a

new high-efficiency one, which is undoubtedly what you’d be paying PST on, or not,

to heat your home. Now, if you live down in southern B.C., where we’re standing,

my understanding is those heat pumps are closer to $8,000 to $12,000, because you

don’t need the cold rated, but the economics of it still are a stretch.

I said yesterday it’s about how a government prioritizes spending $60

billion, $65 billion, $70 billion in a year and whether or not they’re actually

accomplishing anything with it. They’re waiving the PST on electric cars. On the

environmental side, I guess I can kind of understand it, except for all of the

environmental damage that happens when you build an electric car. But that is in

other jurisdictions that that mining happens, so I guess we don’t need to worry

about it in B.C.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that the world is switching to electric

vehicles. There’s been great uptake in B.C. Why is there a problem about getting

rid of the PST on an electric car? Go to a car dealer, and try to order an

electric car right now. See how long the wait is. It’s not going to put more cars

on the road immediately, because there’s already a waiting list. It’s not in

inventory sitting on the lots of pretty much any type of vehicle. But that’s where

this government has chosen to go for affordability and environmental

awareness.

At the same time, we know, based on their own three-year budget in front of

us, they’re expecting emissions to rise. In fact, they’re banking…. They need the

money, with emissions to rise, each of those three years.

[2:50 p.m.]

That’s why it’s surprising on the backdrop of record unaffordability in

British Columbia, with studies now coming out about how people are changing their

buying habits, understandably within their household, to still to be able to go

buy groceries. There’s news story after news story about it. The grocery stores

are noticing it. Less fresh fruit. Less fresh vegetables. More canned. More store

brand versus name brand. More discount bin. Dented can sales versus regular can

sales because people are trying to adjust their home budgets to actually make ends

meet.

When people start to get into that situation, they start looking to try to

access all sorts of cheaper options to keep their family operational. That

includes the used marketplace online. But what does this government do, with that

as a backdrop? They add a tax, which the minister tries to slough off today and

calls it a loophole.

Well, tax law is tax law. If no one is actually breaking a law, it’s not a

loophole. It’s the rules. It’s the tax rules of British Columbia. This minister

has decided, with record unaffordability, to directly target an area that was

previously untaxed. People looking for an affordable option to seat their kids

with whatever they may need and their own household with what they might need,

that little bit of savings…. She has decided to change that tax law. It’s not

closing a loophole. It’s changing a tax law. It was deliberate, and it was thought

out. It is punitive to people barely getting by.

If you go to page 91…. I don’t know how this got through the editing

department. But the fact that they actually acknowledge that their change to used

car sales taxation…. It doesn’t matter if you can find a good deal. This

government wants their cut. You can find the best deal out there that you

can.

Someone might be in a big hurry to sell, because they have to move and are

going to a different jurisdiction. That happens all the time, especially with

foreign students, if they’ve been here for a few years. They’re heading back home.

They bought a car for a few years. They need to get out of the country and go back

home. They sell their car quickly, and they leave. Totally understandable. It

happens to people moving overseas for work, moving across the country and people

that just need money quickly.

So what does this minister do? Changes a tax law — not close a loophole —

on purpose, against her own advice from her staff. It very clearly says in the

budget book that it will harm low- to middle-income families. That’s this

government’s response to affordability. It’s not acceptable. It’s not

right.

You read through this book, and you start looking at health care. You look

at the timelines that they’re offering up for health projects. It’s remarkable.

You have a hospital project in Richmond where, in 2021, during the election — and

we’ve come to realize that you should probably not really believe much that the

Premier has to say in an election — the candidate in Richmond campaigned and

promised shovels in the ground in 2021.

The Premier never corrected her in the campaign. In fact, it was in the

budget to be completed by 2024. Then we get to last year’s budget and, magically,

it’s 2029 completion. Imagine our surprise when we get to this year’s budget, and

it’s 2031. So if you want to talk credibility about backing up what you say you’re

going to do, these are all timelines and these are all projects and these are all

commitments that were made not by this side of the House but by this Premier —

direct campaign promises that, one after another, are either being flat-out broken

and ignored or just not delivered.

[2:55 p.m.]

I look at the Kamloops health commitments. Royal Inland Hospital is going

through a major expansion that started under our government. I was glad to see

this government continued the project along and didn’t kill it off. That was great

to see. We needed it to continue.

Part of that project is a major renovation, once the new tower is built,

doubling the emergency room size and reshaping some of the other internal

services. That’s where footage becomes available. It’s heavily needed. A good day

at Royal Inland Hospital is when we’re only at 110 percent capacity. That’s

pre-COVID. That’s a good day to be only that overcrowded. So we need it. As more

and more walk-in clinics close, our emergency room needs to be doubled to just try

to keep up, to give people a semblance of access to health care.

That has been on the books, with a 2024 completion of the tower and the

renovation — 2024. This year that got moved to 2025. Why that’s important is that

we have a long list of broken promises like that.

In fact, we have the Premier, during the campaign, during the election, out

of the blue promising Kamloops a cancer centre. Unfortunately, for the Premier, I

guess, he said it would be open and complete before the end of this term, by the

end of 2024, the next election. Last February he went on the radio and said that

it’s up to the Treasury Board. Anyone that has been around government for a while

knows that a project at Treasury Board is pretty much getting ready to be approved

and start construction.

That was a year ago. Then when we pointed it out and called the Premier out

on that and he had to backtrack a bit, it turned into: “It’s well in the planning

stage.” Well, “well in the planning stage” in this year’s budget has now turned

into “preliminary planning underway.” It’s just simply not good enough, especially

on something around cancer care. People in Kamloops are forgoing treatment. People

in the surrounding areas north of Kamloops are forgoing treatment because they

don’t want to have to travel all the way to Kelowna to get that treatment,

especially in the middle of a pandemic.

We have machines, linear accelerators, in Kelowna that are aging out of

useful life. They need to be replaced. Two of those five machines are used by

people in Kamloops and the surrounding area. It makes perfect sense. In fact, even

the people that work in Kelowna say it makes perfect sense. And you get a better

outcome for your patient to have that located closer than having people drive two

hours, four or five times a week, to Kelowna, to then turn around or try to figure

out how they can affordably stay in Kelowna.

Again, not our promise. Our promise was to build two linear accelerators,

and it was actually in our budget, a costed platform. The Premier shot from the

hip. The Premier doesn’t want to be held to his own words.

Look at other health care commitments by the Premier. Look at Prince

George. I don’t see it in the capital plan. Keeps getting talked about. Keeps

getting promised. Nowhere to be there. Why I get nervous about the Kamloops

commitment for 2024, with the cancer centre, is that 2024 was the same timeline

that Richmond was promised. That’s now 2031. There’s a long list of these types of

commitments that simply aren’t being met by this government in this budget. That’s

the fundamental piece to this.

[3:00 p.m.]

If we look at the cost overruns, if we look at how much more expensive some

of these projects are turning because of their favoured contractor status that

they give to their highest donors — only they are allowed to bid on it — and you

ask the public, “Would you rather spend an extra $100 million on a project to

build a road or a bridge, or would you rather see that same road or bridge built

and two schools in your community built?” I know what the answer would be. That’s

not what we’re seeing, because that’s not this government’s priority. That’s not

what this government worries about.

There are the dollars in the budget, but there’s how the dollars are being

spent in the budget that’s an even bigger concern.

Again, it’s not just me that’s saying this. This has been widely panned by

many, many groups out there — project after project after project.

The Massey Tunnel replacement. Let’s look at that. It still has a 2030 date

in the budget, if anyone can actually believe that. A 2030 date in the budget,

with next to no dollars in it for this year. Why is that? Well, because they

probably have five to six years’ worth of environmental studies to do and

consultation to do before they even know if they have a project.

It’s 2022 already. I don’t know how you’re going to do five years’ worth of

environmental work and consultation and then, in 2027, magically build a tunnel of

that size and scope in a couple of years. It’s just not going to happen. Instead

of getting a truthful, honest timeline, we’re stuck with: “Just trust us.” But

project after project, we can’t trust them. We can’t trust the

government.

What are they actually going to build? They’re going to build a project

that has the same travelling capacity at rush hour in one direction as they

currently have, instead of the bridge that would have had room for rapid transit

lanes on it — forward, progressive-looking building for growth in a high-growth

area that would have actually been open this summer. They just couldn’t bear to

acknowledge that that was the right project, so it got scrubbed.

Why the lack of forward-looking vision from this government is problematic

is…. This is the sixth budget. There should be more vision than what we’re seeing.

We saw an economic plan that took five years to develop — five years, while

everyone was saying there’s a labour shortage, to develop a plan that acknowledged

there’s a labour shortage.

Now we’ve got another ten-year plan out of that, and their centrepiece is

the building of BCIT, which is going to take five years, in this budget, to build,

if they keep it on time. That would be, probably, the only project in this budget

that ever gets kept on time. That means the first graduates out of it are going to

be two years, three years of a ten-year plan. So in a 15-year window, we’ll have

graduates starting to happen in the last two years of it. That’s the lack of

vision and action by this government.

You don’t really have to look that far to see it in real-life terms. The

Pattullo Bridge is being replaced. It’s an 85-year-old bridge. So 85 years ago

they built for a bit of growth. And 85 years ago they thought four lanes would

handle that growth. One would think that 85 years later planning for a new bridge

to connect two of the largest and fastest-growing areas in the province would

actually have a little added capacity. Nope. We’re changing four 85-year-old lanes

out for a brand-new four-lane traffic bridge. That’s it.

Because of their new sweetheart deals for construction projects, the

government couldn’t afford to do the enhanced off-ramps on the Surrey side of the

bridge. So instead of the MLAs from Surrey who represent the government side of

the House going to bat for the residents of Surrey…. You’d think more of them

would.

They all seem to be testing the waters to run for mayor these days. So one

would think they’d have the local taxpayer in Surrey’s heart a little more.

Instead of going to bat and just acknowledging that their project is way over

budget because of their sweetheart construction deals, they sat silent.

[3:05 p.m.]

What do we have as a result? We have the local taxpayers of Surrey — if

they want enhanced, proper access to the new bridge, to the off-ramps and on-ramps

— who have to foot the bill. My understanding is it’s $150 million or $200

million. Talk about representation or lack thereof.

Again, what else wasn’t in this? Businesses — not happy. Let’s see what the

chamber had to say. This is from Fiona Famulak, the CEO: “The B.C. Chamber of

Commerce is disappointed that the government did not take steps to address the

high operating costs associated with doing business in British Columbia, some of

which are the result of government policies.”

Again, the most secretive government in Canada doesn’t like to even

acknowledge that their policies might have an impact. Business associations are

now speaking out. Even the B.C. Construction Association had this to say about the

sweetheart construction deals: “We support local and diverse hiring, but preferred

union mandate remains as an unacceptable use of taxpayers’ dollars.”

Not unionized workers. I know the government likes to try to make it sound

like we’re anti–union workers on these projects. We’re not. This is about the

preferred unions, only the ones that are allowed to work on the government

projects and, magically, were the 19 that donated heavily to this government over

the years.

Interjection.

P. Milobar: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Citizens’ Services is working on a new

briefing note over there. I look forward to it coming forward.

Again, we have secrecy, we have missed deadlines, we have broken promises,

and we have record unaffordability. Yet we have a government that’s insisting

they’re listening to the people. Well, they’re not listening to

everyone.

AutismBC. They’re disappointed by the…. I’m quoting now. “AutismBC is

disappointed by the lack of new provincial investment in urgent services for

neurodivergent and disabled children and youth ‘left out’ of current programs. We

remain deeply concerned about how the B.C. NDP will fund and operate its new

needs-based system.”

Do you know why they said that? They said that because, by all accounts,

you need $350 million to $400 million, at a minimum, to try to even attempt to

make the transition to the system that will not leave kids behind, which this

government is trying to do while they claw back supports to existing families with

autistic children.

What does this budget show us? Despite protest after protest, despite

demands and concerns raised by a wide range of parents, not just within the

autistic community but from parents with FASD children, other neurodivergent, Down

syndrome — you name it — we see $172 million. Again, it’s about priorities,

priorities of how dollars will be spent.

Now, I admit that FLNRORD is a bit of a weighty, clunky ministry. Is it the

biggest priority to the average British Columbian in the middle of a pandemic with

record unaffordability that it gets severed out of government and gets changed so

we can go from having a minister of state to an actual full-fledged minister? Is

that really the biggest priority? Apparently it is to this government. There’s $44

million that could have gone to the autism programs and the neurodivergent

children. That would have gotten us a lot closer to actually having it properly

funded.

[3:10 p.m.]

Again, the priority of this government was to do that. The priority of this

government was to ram through FOI legislation. That’s what they choose to

prioritize while telling people that they’re actually concerned for them, while

telling people that they actually care for them. It simply doesn’t stand up to the

facts.

In fact, if you look at rents…. We heard the minister yesterday talk about

CMHC. They seem to not want to acknowledge that report and the rent increases in

that report during question period, even though she actually is quoted and reads

from it in her budget speech.

The minister tries to deflect away and say the 2 percent plus CPI and

everything else…. The minister fails to actually acknowledge that a large reason

that the spikes in rents are happening is because when one person moves out and a

new person moves in, the landlord winds up having to spike the rents to try to

actually maintain a building so people have a habitable place to live in. The end

result is a massive increase to people’s average rents.

We now have a budget that is applauding and actually cheering on interest

rates to rise, because nothing this government has done to try to moderate housing

prices has worked. Now, somehow, their road to affordability to the average

person, through this government’s eyes, is to have interest rates rise — so their

mortgage can be more expensive, so their car loan can be more expensive, so their

credit card debt can be more expensive. So everything can be more expensive, and

to moderate the actual price of a house down, all your payments will actually

increase. In the government’s mind, this is the road to affordability.

There’s another problem with their chart of housing. It’s also a budget

that’s built on housing starts dropping. That’s a problem. That’s a problem for a

couple of reasons. But two of the biggest are that it actually restricts supply

further, puts further pressure on prices of houses to go up. That would explain

why they’re still expecting record windfall property transfer taxes within their

budget — again, say one thing, budget for something completely

different.

The other reason is it used to be…. Just about every economic indicator,

especially of a localized economy, was what was going on with housing starts,

because it’s a big driver of jobs in a community. A lot goes into building a home.

There are a lot of people associated with that. Housing starts drop; unemployment

starts to creep up. But don’t worry: the minister will have a new training centre

open in five, six years. People can just wait.

Then we get to things like the forest industry, another example of saying

one thing and having a budget actually say the exact opposite. The financial

numbers don’t lie. We have a very professional public service that puts these

together.

I have every faith in the public sector side that helped to develop this

budget, in terms of the indicators they were using and their estimations and their

modelling that they do. A very professional team. I just wish that the Premier and

the minister would actually have their words match what their actual financial

document says.

If you look at their financial document on forestry, it’s projecting $1

billion less in revenue. Not over the three years — by the end of year 3, per

year. It’s $700 million this coming year, if memory serves, as a drop. That is the

government acknowledging in their budget that tens of thousands of job losses are

coming to the forest sector this year.

[3:15 p.m.]

When you ask the Minister of Forests about that, you get told that we’re

exaggerating, that it’s not happening. When you ask the Premier about that…. The

Premier repeatedly has campaigned, saying…. In fact, he has done it in front of

mills. “No mills will close under my watch as Premier.” The Premier’s words, no

one else’s. There’s video footage of it. The Premier was going to go and solve the

softwood lumber deal. That was five years ago. There’s no sign of him on that file

whatsoever, because they’ve walked away from forestry.

As a result, forestry investment is walking away from British Columbia.

It’s walking down to the States where they can remain competitive. By every

measure, people say, it’s partly because we are the most uncompetitive

jurisdiction in North America. That’s under this Premier’s watch and this

Premier’s tax policies, which he has brought in place to hammer away at an

industry like forestry.

Their words will never match what this budget document is saying. In fact,

when you look at the dollars they’ve put to so-called transition funding for

people…. It would be very interesting, if and when they ever come clean with the

details on that, because $185 million to help transition people to retirement,

bridge them to retirement, sounds really nice. It sounds really lovely, unless

you’re that 55-year-old forest worker that’s going to be handed some form of a

payout. But only if you’re physically tied within one of the unions will you get

that.

Again, most of them are unionized mills. This is not a knock on the unions.

They’re fighting for their membership, and that’s what they should be doing.

That’s what people pay dues for. I don’t take issue with that at all.

Where’s the transition, the bridge to help the independent contractors that

work in the forest who have $2 million of equipment sitting there? They’re

literally the people, as you drive down the dirt roads, that are living off in

those acreages and have tried developing a nice lifestyle for them and their

families. Where’s the help for them?

It doesn’t exist with this bridge. If it does, there’s no way it can — not

in a meaningful way, not at $185 million for an industry that this government just

has acknowledged is going to shed tens of thousands of jobs in the next three

years. It simply can’t happen.

This government has to actually be forthright when they talk to people

about what they’re doing with their economic plan. That’s the problem. That’s why

they don’t understand why they’re called the most secretive government in Canada.

It’s because of games like this being played. They’re not proud of these

announcements. If they were, they’d actually give you the background to it. Think

of that.

When any government, of any political stripe, is extremely proud of an

announcement they’re making, how much background documents do people get? They get

access to everything. When was the last time any announcement out of this

government was like that? It’s a couple of quick bullet points. “If you want

anything more, FOI it.” Magically, “No records found” will be your response that

comes back, or it’ll be completely redacted out, if it’s a decision note. That’s

the problem.

We’ve asked questions about gas pricing. Why is that a problem? When the

BCUC was tasked to look at gas pricing in 2019, they did it with one hand behind

their back, because the government expressly told them they were not allowed to

look at government policy and taxation as it relates to people’s gas bills at the

pump. Here we are in 2022 — record prices — talking about getting the BCUC to look

at gas pricing again, pointing the blame everywhere but at their own government

policy.

Well, it’s kind of like housing supply. Gas supply is critical to price as

well. We saw that during the floods. When the Trans Mountain pipeline was knocked

out of commission, what happened to gas prices?

[3:20 p.m.]

I know we had to restrict access to it and get people through, give them

enough to commute. Fair enough. That was totally understandable. But I think it

heightened, to everybody, just how critical supply is to the overall pricing

structure. There’s no great magic to it. The reality is that we have constricted

supply in British Columbia, and we have the highest gas taxes in North

America.

What does this government do? They’re too afraid to take credit for it.

They don’t want to take credit for it. They want to blame someone else for it,

even though their government policy is directly tied, on the environmental side of

their policies, to ever-rising gas prices.

Just be honest with people. Don’t deflect. Stand up and say: “Yeah, you

know what? We brought in a new regulation, starting January 1, that said if you

truck any fuel across the Alberta border into B.C….” I’ll remind again. Last time

I mentioned this in this chamber, the other side got quite riled up, saying I was

talking about Alberta. I have news for them. That’s where our refined product

comes from, Alberta, unless you happen to be up and around Prince George. We get

the bulk of our fuel for your cars from Alberta.

January 1. Think back to when the prices started to really spike. January

1, this government brought in a regulation that said if you truck gas in from

Alberta, there’s a 25 cent a litre premium paid to the province of British

Columbia. Now that’s under CleanBC and a low-carbon fuel standard

policy.

Do you think this government will own it? Do you think they’ll actually

stand up and say: “Yeah, you’re right. We put 25 cents a litre on”? No. They

won’t.

We’re going to dig into that in the budget and find out where exactly those

dollars are, because it’s not referenced as a fuel tax. It appears, on the surface

— again, because there’s a lack of transparency — that they’re actually pocketing

25 cents a litre, not as a tax but as a surcharge. Then, when you drive to the

pump, they’re counting on you to fill up so they can have increased fuel tax

revenues.

We’re going to double-check that as we get into budget estimates, but it’s

a government policy directly tied to the price of gas at the pump. For a

government that wants to keep telling everyone how environmentally conscious they

are and how hard they’re working to drive down emissions, they sure don’t want to

take any credit for that one.

There’s one thing when you make an announcement and there are only a few

bullet points. You’re kind of proud of it, but not really. You just don’t want

people to really dig too hard into it. There’s a whole other level of governmental

announcement when you try to pretend it doesn’t even exist. That’s what we have

with this. Just be honest with people. That’s what makes you the most secretive

government in Canada.

We have Paul Kershaw, the founder of Generation Squeeze and a public health

professor at the University of British Columbia. This is one of his quotes from

the budget yesterday. Again, this is not just us, and these are on the same

timelines that we formulated our thoughts. This is what Mr. Kershaw said on CBC:

“I don’t want to get in the game of comparing different crises, but we are at the

point where we need governments not only to walk and chew gum but to multi-task

much more.”

You can’t hide behind COVID forever. You can’t have every minister hide

behind COVID as a reason. We’ve entrusted Dr. Henry to deal with COVID issues.

It’s understandable that the Health Minister is tied up with that and the

interplay of policy around COVID and the health care system. It’s understandable

that some ministers might have to try to come up with some supports.

Unfortunately, most of those have been…. Failure is about the kindest word I can

use for their rollouts.

[3:25 p.m.]

We can’t have every other minister hiding behind COVID. Yet in this budget,

we don’t see any of that vision, in any ministry, of trying to actually do

something to move the needle. They refer back. They refer back to things that

they’ve been talking about in budgets since 2017.

There are no clear timelines on capital projects and when spending will be.

Health care projects are very complex. Health care projects take multiple years to

actually roll out. So do transportation projects. You know what’s in this book for

capital projects over $50 million? A chart with transportation projects with a

year-by-year breakdown of how the spending is going to unfold over the next

several years.

You know what’s not in this? A chart for health care projects. We see end

dates for the Surrey hospital of 2027. We have no idea how much money is actually

in this year’s budget, and neither does the Finance Minister. Despite us raising

this yesterday, despite the media questioning her today, she could not answer how

much money was in the budget for the Surrey hospital this year. A $1.6 billion

commitment to the people of Surrey — couldn’t get an answer from the Finance

Minister.

How do we know if St. Paul’s is actually on track at $2.4 billion or $2.1

billion? We don’t. Why that’s a concern is that if you look at the spending on

some of these projects to December 31, 2021, with similar end dates…. So the

Stuart Lake Hospital had $5 million expended on it up to the end of 2021. It’s a

$116 million project slated to be completed in 2024. I can kind of actually

believe that one might happen.

Cariboo Memorial Hospital had $4 million, a $218 million project in total

slated for 2026. Hey, it’s getting a little bit out there, possibly. But that’s

all we know. As of December 31, $4 million had been spent on it. It’s another 214

to go for 2026. Surrey, $2 million to December 31, $1.66 billion and a 2027

completion date. Somehow that size of a project is going to keep pace with Stuart

Lake and Cariboo Memorial.

It starts to not pass the smell test. It starts to feel like — I don’t know

— lots of seats available in Surrey and promises made, and we’ll deal with the

fallout after the fact. St. Paul’s, same: 2027 end date, only $30 million spent

last year. A $2.174 billion hospital and we don’t know how much money in this

budget is in there this year for spending. We don’t know what type of progress

this government is reasonably trying to make on major infrastructure that impacts

our health care as a province — none.

We can tell you where the Kicking Horse project is, in the grand scheme of

things, which is appreciated, from the Transportation Minister. Massey Tunnel last

year was at $3 million at the end of the year in 2021. That’s a $4.148 billion

project, with a 2030 date. I’ve already said how unrealistic that date

is.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

They had $90 million in this year to do a few studies. Oh, and to change

the name. It’s now — what? — the Fraser River crossing project or something of

that nature. That’ll make people stuck in rush hour feel much better, that it’s

got a new name. That’ll get them through to work or home much faster.

Surrey Board of Trade: “We were especially disappointed with the lack of

post-secondary investments in Surrey.” Again, crickets from the members from

Surrey. “Education, in addition to transportation, is the foundation of driving an

economy. Today and tomorrow’s workforce challenges need commitments to innovative

post-secondary investments in Surrey and the South Fraser economic

region.”

On the new hospital in Surrey, they said: “The plan is 168 new beds,

comparable to community hospitals but not to Surrey Memorial Hospital. This

increased capacity is not enough for Surrey’s needs.” So even the hospital they’re

talking about building, which is really a primary care centre, is actually not

building for the future growth and demands of Surrey. It sounds an awful lot like

the Pattullo Bridge.

[3:30 p.m.]

Project after project seems to be actually quite punitive to Surrey. Surrey

has to pay for the off-ramps and on-ramps for the Pattullo Bridge on the Surrey

side. Surrey is getting a hospital that actually doesn’t even meet their existing

needs, let alone for growth. Surrey was promised no portables in four years by

this Premier in 2017. By my last math, it’s long past four years — a record number

of portables in Surrey.

Nothing seems to actually get delivered on. There are certain parts of this

province they really don’t get delivered on. Huge promises. Huge, huge promises.

No deliverables.

It makes you wonder why they don’t have a timeline of spending for the

Surrey Hospital in their budget. The Surrey Hospital — “hospital” — which is

really a primary care centre…. The reason there’s a problem with that is…. There’s

no insight into these urgent primary care centres.

Kamloops had an urgent primary care centre built. It was the first one in

the province. It was built at our new hospital building, the first building that

was built under the previous government. It was created and opened by this

government in some of the square footage.

As a result, we’ve seen almost all of our walk-in clinics in Kamloops

close. We’ve had doctors retire or move over into the urgent primary care centre.

We’ve heard repeated reports that they have lots of highly trained professional

health care workers in that facility. That’s great. We’ve also heard reports that

they’re seeing an average of 20 patients a day when our emergency room, in the

same building, is overcrowded 24 hours a day.

Why that’s important is…. That’s what Surrey’s already starting to

understand and to say. It’s not good enough. We won’t even get into the location

today. The location is in a questionable location as well.

Here’s what Dr. Birinder Narang had to say. It ties the two together. “Is

anyone questioning the Minister of Health on the impact of urgent and primary care

centres? What are the metrics of success here? How is attachment going? How is

recruitment going?” Well, I can answer the doctor. No one knows, because this

government won’t provide the answers.

I can tell the doctor what’s going on in Kamloops. As I just said, we have

more people unattached to doctors than ever before. We have less access to doctors

than ever before — family doctors. We have the urgent primary care centre, which

seemed to be the beginning of this problem. When the member for Kamloops–South

Thompson and myself have written to the Health Minister asking for the data around

the urgent primary care centres, we get no reply.

Interior Health won’t give us the data. Not a huge shock there. The

Minister of Health won’t give us the data. We don’t want to know which patient

went through those doors. We just want to have some sort of indication of what

type of volume that centre is doing.

Now, again, I’ll go back to…. It doesn’t matter what government and what

political stripe it is. When they don’t want to answer your questions or provide

you the information, I think you already have your answer. When it’s good news,

they sure make sure they get it out to you real quick. In fact, they follow it up

with a press release, and they make sure that every time one of their ministers

comes to your riding, if it’s an opposition riding, they reference it a little.

They try to feel like they’re rubbing some salt in the wound or something about

their great success of what they’ve accomplished.

That’s not what we’re getting. We get hiding. We have to dig around in

documents to try to piece two or three things together and to try to figure out

where the money is flowing. It’s really no surprise.

[3:35 p.m.]

If you look at the references to child care in this budget, and the various

programs and shifting around of dollars that they’re talking about, it’s like a

maze.

It’s interesting. Again, when they want you to have a very clear picture of

what’s going on…. I’ll use the Transportation Minister as an example because I

think, frankly, that chart 1.7 is a great example. Now, I might quibble with him

on the timelines of some projects or even the ultimate bidding prices of those

projects. But it’s very clear what the projects are, what’s being spent this year,

what’s being spent next year, what’s being spent the year after. It’s very open.

It’s right there.

We don’t have that for child care. It’s supposed to be one of their big

signature pieces — six years late, twice the per-day cost, if it actually happens

— but no clarity in the budget. In fact, when you listen to child care advocates’

response to the budget, it was the exact same way. They agree. It was kind of

good. Then they follow it right up with another statement saying: “More could have

been done sooner, and we really hope it actually gets implemented.” Even they’re

unclear.

If you look at mining revenues and the royalties there, much hoopla. I know

my colleague from the Kootenays will have much more to say on this, I’m sure. My

first glance is: okay, they’ve put a little bit of money for the mining sector in

there, and they may talk about exploration. I’ve been here this whole time, and I

think maybe one permit has been issued in five, six years — maybe.

This government is not exactly tripping over themselves to meaningfully get

the mining industry going. Think of how those jobs would fit nicely to transition

someone from the forest sector in the same parts of the province. But no foresight

or vision to try to work on that.

We’ve heard time and again about the deficit, and again, it’s like playing

Whac-a-Mole. The numbers and contingencies are mind-boggling where they’re at. No

one can really tell if it’s just because the minister has very little faith in the

projections or is just trying to pad a deficit so they can try to look better at

the end. We’ll see how this year plays out, but one thing is for certain. In the

next few years, our debt in British Columbia will double, mainly on capital

projects.

When you look at the rise of the public sector hiring, there’s every

expectation that there’s a structural deficit in this budget, that it’s not

sustainable. Jobs that rely on taxpayer funds to fund them have gone up by almost

33 percent in five years. We’re at 500,000 jobs now, 120,000 added in the last

five years — 120,000 public sector paid jobs.

When you talk to the public and ask them if their access to government

services has improved dramatically, it hasn’t. In fact, if you look at the health

care system, we’ve lost 8,000 workers — a net loss of 8,000 workers in health

care. I believe nurses would fall under that.

That’s the problem. Say one thing; deliver something totally different.

It’s just simply not sustainable in the long run.

[3:40 p.m.]

If you think…. British Columbia has a population of, we’ll say, five

million plus. How many are actually of working age? We’ll say 4½ million. Even if

we said five million, that means 10 percent of the workforce is now reliant on tax

dollars for their paycheque. You start to hit a tipping point. And that’s not

counting all of the municipal employees.

Back in local government days — many of us in here were in local government

— the old saying was that there’s only one taxpayer. That got said a lot in

council chambers. Well, there really only is one taxpayer. It’s all of us. It’s

everyone outside of this chamber.

That 10 percent of the working public is not counting all of the municipal

employees that those same taxpayers are paying for and all the federal employees

within the system in British Columbia. I’m not saying that we don’t need

government employees and government workers. I’m saying the growth rate that we

have seen in the last four to five years has been phenomenal.

When you look at InBC, here’s another innovation from this government that

is supposed to really trail-blaze. InBC, for those at home, is their high-risk

venture capital scheme that is slated to have half a billion dollars in it but has

to wait until the end of next year to actually be fully funded. It got $100

million in last year’s budget, and it’s slated for $200 million for this year and

$200 million for next year.

That’s probably okay, because they still have no investments at year-end.

In fact, they have no investment policy statement. Only two staff have been hired

so far. They have two staff, with four more to follow this year. In fact, their

salaries, though, are still set to go from $627,000 this year to $3.9 million,

while still not making any investment decisions to try to move things along in our

economy.

There’s actually no revenue forecast through ‘24-25. Now, fair enough.

Investment uncertainty…. This is essentially high-risk venture capital that

they’re dealing with, so who knows if the scheme is actually going to work or not.

But they’re going to accumulate almost $20 million in losses over the life of the

fiscal plan, hardly setting us off on a blazing path of innovation and job

creation.

But fear not. Certainly there will be lots of reports that are made public.

Certainly we’ll have a good view into what’s going on in InBC and that high-risk

venture capital scheme. But sadly, we won’t, because they’ve been exempted from

FOI as well.

It goes from project to project to project in this budget. There’s been

lots of talk about the significant remaking of the Royal B.C. Museum. We can’t

find the capital or the redesign plan in this budget. It might be there. If it is,

government is certainly not talking about it any time soon.

There’s a property purchase for the Chinese Canadian Museum in Vancouver —

no detailed funding or plan with this budget. Promises of an Olympic Village

school and a Burke Mountain school — not even in the budget. Keep getting promised

but never seem to make it into the budget.

The training budget for ITA is actually decreasing by $8 million over the

course of this plan. Why is that a problem? There’s a one million job shortage

that we’ve all recognized and acknowledged. Took this government five years to

acknowledge it, but at least they’ve acknowledged it. It’s going to happen over

the next decade. But the training investment is decreasing by $8

million.

Again, it’s all about priorities. When I hear $8 million now, it also makes

me shake my head at the internal transfer from Health to the Minister of Mental

Health and Addictions, literally a shifting of dollars within a budget line item

so that the Premier no longer has to be embarrassed that his office budget is

technically no longer larger than the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

Let’s at least be honest that that’s why it happened.

[3:45 p.m.]

They could have transferred a whole bunch of stuff from Health over to

Mental Health and Addictions and made those shifts. They didn’t. They moved just

enough staff and workload — probably people that were already working on the exact

same thing, just under the Minister of Health’s guidance — over to Mental Health

and Addictions.

Nothing really new there. No actual new dollars. No new work actually being

done at a time when we’re losing almost seven people a day to the opioid crisis.

But they can say the budget is larger than the Premier’s office. That will bring

solace to those seven families that lose a loved one today and tomorrow and the

next day. That’s not action. That’s a shell game. It’s a shell game while people

are literally dying — seven a day.

Then, for all of the transparency talk…. It’s very interesting. I believe

it’s page 42 in the budget. We heard about page 42 earlier in question period,

where the cabinet is relieving themselves of the obligation of needing to actually

not go into deficit or see a holdback of their pay, essentially giving themselves

a raise with no accountability attached to it.

If you look a paragraph or two below that, the minister is actually doing

something much, much more worrisome and much less transparent. The minister is

actually striving to give herself the authority to bypass Treasury Board. She’s

giving herself the authority for her or the vice-chair of Treasury Board, which is

the Environment Minister, to bypass Treasury Board and just make approvals on

their own. No process. No extra back-and-forth debate. No exchange of ideas from

other cabinet members. No transparency.

That seems to be a hallmark of this government. A government that has

dragged its feet on so many files now suddenly finds the need to rush through

changing the legislation to give essentially a blank cheque to the Finance

Minister to approve whatever she wants.

It may come as a surprise to some members on the other side. I wouldn’t

have expected some to have actually read through the whole budget book. Why would

they? They’re going to get their speaking notes and look for the highlights within

their own ridings and probably try to find where their actual project is. No

wonder members from Surrey have been so silent on so many projects, because

they’re actually not listed in here with any detail.

This is a fundamental transparency issue of process. It’s actually clause

11 on Bill 6. I invite anyone on the other side that thinks that we’re just making

this up and it’s just language in the budget — don’t worry about it; it’s not

actually going to happen…. It happened immediately after the budget was presented

by way of Bill 6 being presented, the Budget Measures Act. It’s clause 11. Again,

priorities.

One of the first acts that this minister chose to do…. This is a bill that,

for the public, deals with a whole lot of taxation changes each year. It comes in

every year at budget time. It sets rates and all of that. This change is at the

very front end of it. Well, it’s actually right after they remove the requirement

for ministers to actually not go into deficit as a government. That’s the first

order of business in the legislation.

[3:50 p.m.]

The next is removing any semblance of Treasury Board input on projects and

approval and due process and proper scrutiny and challenging assumptions and

making sure that pricing and estimates seem on par with what they should be.

That’s what Treasury Board is supposed to do. Maybe for the last 5½ years, that’s

really just been a rubber stamp anyways. Maybe that’s how this government is doing

things, so they’re just trying to formalize it in legislation. Can’t be bothered

to go to Treasury Board meetings regularly.

We’ve heard the parliamentary secretary for emergency management say, about

Lytton, that Treasury Board can be a real drag on things, really slow things up.

Why? Call a meeting. It’s all government members. There are two or three or four

MLAs on it, and the rest are all cabinet ministers. You don’t need to change

legislation to help the people of Lytton out. You need to call a

meeting.

With all the technology, I can’t believe that you can’t have a Zoom meeting

for Treasury Board, if that’s the problem. If you wanted to tweak the legislation

that you needed, to procedurally change it so you could have an electronic

meeting…. If that doesn’t already exist, fair enough. I think we can understand

that. But that’s not what this minister wants. This minister wants complete

control, without any questioning, as quickly as she wants to be able to do things,

and she can defer it to the Environment Minister to do it as well.

At that point, why do you bother having Treasury Board? There’s no purpose

to it. I find it shocking that members of the executive council would agree to

this being in the budget and this legislation coming forward. There is democratic

in the name of the party, but it doesn’t seem to be very democratic when it comes

to moving things forward.

This is fundamentally wrong. There are checks and balances all the way

through our system for a reason. There is a reason Public Accounts is chaired by a

member of the opposition. It’s the only committee that actually is chaired by a

member of the opposition, because it’s meant as a check and a balance for the

government when it comes to things around the budget.

Of all things to start trying to remove checks and balances and due

process, the budget is not one of them. The spending within this, the projects

that get approved within this, is not something to be taken lightly. For a

government and a cabinet to agree to allow to have that move forward is, frankly,

reprehensible, because there is only one of two reasons they’re doing

it.

They already have just vacated that space and are letting the minister do

whatever the minister chooses to do. Or, frankly, they can’t be bothered to meet

on an urgent basis when there is a crisis happening. Either of them is completely

unacceptable, especially against the backdrop of wanting to change the legislation

to make sure you get your full pay, whether you balance the budget or

not.

How does that work in the real world? “I don’t want to have any holdback. I

want to change the rules about the holdback of my performance and pay that’s been

ingrained for years. And while I’m doing that, could we also change the rules so I

don’t have to show up to finance and Treasury Board meetings if there happens to

be an emergency in the province?”

It’s bothersome. I’d ask the people at home: who works in an environment

like that? No one. This cabinet does, though, and then they wonder why the people

of Lytton are frustrated with the slow pace. They wonder why people in Merritt are

wondering what’s going on with flood help there. They wonder why people in

Princeton feel abandoned with flood help. They wonder why people in Monte Lake

feel abandoned after their fires wiped out their housing areas.

[3:55 p.m.]

They wonder why people in the southern Okanagan, who had their structures

lost to fire, are feeling abandoned.

The best response we have in this budget is the minister saying, by way of

her cabinet colleagues: “We can’t be bothered to meet on an urgent basis, so we

want to turn over power to make Treasury Board decisions to one person.” It’s

pretty sad that that’s the level of work ethic, frankly, that this cabinet seems

to have.

It’s a failure to all those communities. It’s a failure to projects that

wanted to know they at least had a fighting chance at Treasury Board to advance,

that maybe would have a champion, with those people around the Treasury Board

table, to convince Treasury Board to move a project forward that’s of local

significance and importance.

That’s not going to happen if this passes. I’m highly skeptical it won’t

pass, because we know there’s no free votes on that side of the House. There’ll be

much applause and clapping when they do it, that they found a way to work less,

get paid more; less accountability, paid more. They’ll do it with pride, and

that’s the sad part.

Again, this budget has very little in the way of affordability measures,

very little in the way of help for people that are looking for that type of help

in terms of housing — especially people that are fully employed, working hard

every day, trying to make ends meet, trying to get ahead. This budget treats them

like they’re cheating the system.

This budget treats those people that would dare to go buy a used car and

try to get a good deal…. In the minister’s own words, they’re exploiting a

loophole. It’s not a loophole. It’s her tax policy. It’s her tax law. She’s made a

conscious decision to punish people that want to try to find affordable

transportation to get around by way of a used vehicle, at a time that they’re

having to change a lot of their spending habits in their households.

Unfortunately, this government hasn’t changed their spending habits. I think

that’s what the public would expect. That’s what the public would want to see

happen.

Inflation passed 5 percent in January — precious little to address anything

in this budget by this government. It’s remarkable to me now, six budgets that

I’ve been in this chamber, and each time, actually, the reviews have been getting

worse by the public on the budget. Each time, the amazing

part is the Premier and

the Finance Minister looked shocked that people aren’t doing cartwheels of joy

over their budget. It’s as if they’re getting more and more and more out of touch

with the average person each year they’re in government.

Imagine, if they were still in opposition, what they’d be saying if we were

adding PST, in the middle of record levels of inflation and unaffordability, to a

used car, when their own guidance says it will impact low- and mid-income people

most. Imagine what they’d say about the marketplace tax that they’re bringing in,

which will impact those low- and middle-income people the most. Imagine what they

would do if we brought in a surcharge on fuel that added 25 cents a

litre.

[4:00 p.m.]

Now, it’s very easy to tell people, then, to just take mass transit. That’s

very easy if you live in parts of the Lower Mainland, but not everywhere, or parts

of the capital regional district, but not everywhere. It’s not so easy as soon as

you start getting farther afield.

Even in Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George and Nanaimo, which have much

larger transit systems than the other communities outside of this area of the

province, it’s not always so easy to use public transit to get around, to get your

kids to soccer or hockey, to get to work, to get them to their after-school

activities. People live in those areas for the lifestyle that affords them the

ability to move around a bit and have their kids heavily engaged in things,

because they can.

This budget is very punitive. Imagine what their response would be, on

behalf of all those people, if we tried pretending that a regulation, that’s very

clearly a government regulation, adding 25 cents a litre, didn’t exist? That’s

what this government is doing.

They’ve done nothing on the environment file by any measurable piece.

They’re collecting record levels of taxes around emissions. They’re not pushing it

back in a way that will actually see emissions drop. Again, priorities.

We already know people are going to buy an electric car. We already have a

program for them to be able to access funds for an electric car. Could the money

of waiving on the PST on electric cars not have gone to some other way to drive

down an emission? How many different ways do we have to incentivize an electric

car when, at the same time, the government is patting themselves on the back for

the uptake in sales of electric cars? Is what they’re doing not already

working?

It’s just a rehashing of their policy that they keep going back to, because

they don’t know how to innovate. They don’t know how to actually move the needle

in a meaningful way.

We’ve heard the Minister of Housing finally acknowledge that taxation is

not the way out of housing affordability, but we have record levels of property

transfer tax coming in. No adjustment on those.

We have record levels of unaffordability issues around housing. We have a

budget built on the hope that people will pay more for their mortgage. That’s how

this government…. Apparently, now it’s not taxing your way to affordability; it’s

increasing your mortgage payment to a way of affordability. Somehow that’s going

to help people.

How many mortgages are going to have to be renewed over the next two to

three years of this financial plan that is built on mortgage rates rising? That’s

what this government hopes will happen: that your mortgage at home will increase.

The mortgage amount owed might not change, but your payment will. Your payment

will. If you still have a $200,000 mortgage on your home, and you go in to

refinance that $200,000 on a renewal….

This government’s grand housing plan is that interest rates rise. So you

can pay more for the same value of existing mortgage you have. That’s somehow

making that homeowner’s life more affordable.

When the landlord has to go in and renew the mortgage on their apartment

building at a higher interest rate…. Gee, I wonder why rents are going to

increase. The landlord needs to take in more money to pay the mortgage on the

building. Only this government can see rising interest rates coupled with record

housing prices as a good thing.

Again, this budget leaves a lot to be desired. We have statements, as I’ve

said — AutismBC, the B.C. Construction Association, B.C. Care Providers. Where’s

the help for seniors in this budget? There is none. Here’s from CanAge: “This is a

very disappointing budget for British Columbian seniors, who appear to have been

forgotten by this government.” We heard last week about low-income housing for

seniors actually decreasing under this government.

[4:05 p.m.]

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce is less than impressed. B.C. Federation of

Labour had interesting things to say. BCTF had things to say. Business Council of

B.C. BCNPHA had a problem with it. BCSTA had problems with it. Canadian Council of

Innovators had problems with it. Innovators — aren’t they what our InBC high-risk

venture capital scheme is supposed to be for? Innovators are a little

skeptical.

Heard about CanAge. The CFIB. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Now,

admittedly, that’s not a shock. They’re tending to be not too thrilled with most

budgets, but this one, they’re particularly not too happy with. Generation

Squeeze. The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. The Greater Victoria Chamber of

Commerce. The Mining Association of B.C. The Surrey Board of Trade. Then we had a

whole whack of tweets from media that are less than impressed, as well.

As I said at the beginning, these were all comments that were generated in

the same time frame that we were reviewing the budget books, in isolation of what

we were doing, and we were all coming to the same conclusion.

I think that’s the fundamental piece that I hope the government is

listening to: no one is buying what they’re selling. First off, they probably

can’t afford it. Secondly, after six budgets, now, rolling out the same program

after the same program with the same language, looking backwards, people want to

know what the future’s going to hold. People want to know what the plan is to

actually kick-start things, to get things back going and to help the private

sector get back to full employment. But that seems to be lost on this

government.

I guess I’ll just close out with a few transparency pieces. I really do

wish that we had more open, transparent and clear graphs and charts as to what’s

going on in individual spending areas — especially on the capital side, especially

of multi-year projects. As I’ve said before, chart 1.7, transportation projects,

is very well laid out. Very clear. Very understandable. I don’t necessarily agree

with it all, but it’s clear. It all adds up. It’s all consistent from previous

years. Fair enough.

Something as complex and as important as health care? Hidden away. Schools?

Hidden away. Help for seniors? Hidden away. Child care? Referenced 16 million

different places in the budget. Good luck pulling it all together and figuring out

what it all means in any quick fashion. It does make you wonder why. It does make

you wonder what the government is hiding.

I can guarantee the government this. We’re coming into estimates, starting

on March 3 in the afternoon. I know that our critics are more fired up than ever

to get to the bottom of these numbers, to get actual answers out of the ministers

on what is actually happening within their budgets. There are some ministers where