Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 90

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M202 — Safe Care Act

J. Thornthwaite

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Pink Shirt Day

J. Routledge

Business Excellence Awards and ACCESS Youth Outreach Services

J. Isaacs

Prostate cancer and Step Up Challenge fundraiser

R. Glumac

Semiahmoo Animal League

S. Cadieux

Guru Nanak’s Free Kitchen

R. Singh

Pink Shirt Day

J. Thornthwaite

Oral Questions

Letter from Agriculture Minister to fish farm operator

S. Bond

Hon. L. Popham

M. Polak

Fish farm tenures and wild salmon protection

S. Furstenau

Hon. D. Donaldson

Letter from Agriculture Minister to fish farm operator

J. Johal

Hon. L. Popham

M. Stilwell

Reconsideration of Agricultural Land Commission application

I. Paton

Hon. L. Popham

M. Bernier

Agricultural land reserve advisory committee

B. Stewart

Hon. L. Popham

D. Clovechok

Ministerial responsibility for aquaculture

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

Impact of employer health tax on businesses

J. Rustad

Hon. C. James

Reports from Committees

Children and Youth Committee, review of Representative

for Children and Youth Act, February 2018

N. Simons

M. Stilwell

Petitions

J. Thornthwaite

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

D. Routley

J. Isaacs

R. Singh

D. Davies

J. Routledge

T. Wat

J. Rice

D. Clovechok

Hon. G. Chow

M. Stilwell

Hon. M. Mungall

Contents listing updated15:08:04, J. Isaacs, first "be" removed in "you will be immediately be hit"; 16:10:14,

D. Davies, period changed to comma after "unfortunately"; 18:28:51, M. Stilwell, "thriving

are economy" changed to "driving our economy"

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2018

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

T. Shypitka: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a friend of mine who’s in the

gallery. Apart from being a happy father of two, he’s also the financial

secretary for the United Steelworkers Local 1-405. Mr. Jeff Bromley is in

the House, and I would love the House to give him a warm round of applause

and welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I have four guests today that are here to witness the introduction of

a bill that I will be introducing. I’d like the House to welcome Brenda

Doherty, Lee-Anne Chinapen, Jo-Anne Landolt and Linda Proctor. They’re here

today. Could the House please make them welcome.

G. Kyllo: I had the privilege today to dine and have lunch with four beautiful,

passionate and lovely young ladies with the Catholic Women’s League. Joining

us today is Sharon Geiger. She’s one of my constituents from Salmon Arm, and

she’s the resolutions chair. We also have Evelyn Rigby. She’s the past

president, and she’s from Powell River. We have Gisela Montague, the past

president from Chilliwack; and Blanca Stead from Duncan, the legislation

chairperson. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

J. Rice: I know we’re not allowed props in this House, so I won’t tell you that

I’m holding the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous

Peoples in my hand. I wanted to take a moment to welcome two guests of mine

— Christine Martin, from Lax Kw’alaams; and Kirby Muldoe, who’s from the

Kispiox region — who are here today talking about UNDRIP and how we can

implement UNDRIP. They’re also known as wild salmon advocates for my region.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: I, too, would like to welcome Christine Martin-Smith for being here

with us today. For those of you that were in the chambers with us two years

ago, she’s a proud member from a northern First Nations community, along

with Sheldon Martin from the Nisga’a Nation. They drummed us in, the member

who was formerly from Burke Mountain and myself — the first time that we

ever had the drum in these chambers. I just want to relish in that moment.

Will the House please join me in welcoming our guests.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M202 — SAFE CARE ACT

J. Thornthwaite presented a bill intituled Safe Care Act.

[1:40 p.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: I’m pleased to stand in this House to introduce a bill, which was

previously introduced by my colleague Gordie Hogg, entitled the Safe

Care Act, 2018. It’s a bill that the former Representative for Children

and Youth said allows for the apprehension of vulnerable children and

youth whose situation places them at an unacceptable level of risk and

allows for the subsequent safe placement in a service that will respond

to their trauma and high risk of harm — children in need of support and

assistance to deal with issues of mental health, substance abuse, sexual

exploitation or partner violence.

Parents, guardians and social workers try to save their children

from a destructive and potentially life-threatening lifestyle and are

frustrated and desperate. The provision of voluntary services such as

detox, residential treatment, recovery programs and mental health

services is the most effective way of helping these youth, but voluntary

services are not always enough.

This act would affect a very small percentage of the hundreds of

youth who come into contact with the child care system every year and

will be used as a court-mandated last resort. The focus on safe care

would stabilize the emotional and physical health of these children for

a short period of time so that their needs can be assessed and a care

plan can be developed. This safe, secure environment will allow a child

to access the services available to better meet their needs.

Youth will have an individualized safety and support plan prior to

returning to their community. Participants in the development of this

plan include the youth, their family, service providers and other

identified community resources. This Safe Care Act has provisions that

would ensure that Indigenous people are engaged in the development and

delivery of culturally sensitive and appropriate plans for each

individual.

B.C.’s current legislation does not provide for safe care, and

this legislation would provide a short-term safe option for those youth

at risk.

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

Motion approved.

J. Thornthwaite: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M202, Safe Care Act, 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

J. Routledge: Today marks the 11th annual Pink Shirt Day celebrated in B.C. This

Bullying Awareness Day has its roots at a Nova Scotia high school where

two students, Travis Price and David Shepherd, organized a protest in

support of a grade 9 boy who had been bullied for wearing a pink shirt.

Price and Shepherd rallied their peers to wear pink shirts in support of

the younger student, and he was not bullied again.

Price and Shepherd’s act of kindness has gone on to inspire an

international bullying awareness movement that saw approximately 180

countries participate last year, Canada being one of them. The B.C.

government issues an annual Bullying Awareness Day proclamation,

speaking to our commitment to ensure a safe and inclusive province for

all. No one deserves to be bullied, intimidated or harassed. Pink Shirt

Day offers an important opportunity for people of all ages in this

province to stand together and call for an end to bullying.

The theme of this year’s Pink Shirt Day is cyberbullying. Unlike

other forms, cyberbullying can occur 24-7 and follow victims wherever

they go. According to Statistics Canada, 19 percent of Canadian children

have experienced cyberbullying or cyberstalking. Other research suggests

that vulnerable youth are at a greater risk of mental health challenges

and may be more susceptible to bullying and cyberbullying

behaviour.

It’s important that we all take responsibility for what we post on

line. It’s important that we choose to spread kindness rather than hate.

It’s also important that we offer support to our children, ensuring they

have the tools to navigate on-line spaces safely.

[1:45 p.m.]

Parents and students can access bullying prevention resources and

an on-line anonymous bullying reporting tool at www.erasebullying.ca.

It’s part of the province’s comprehensive bullying prevention strategy

ERASE, Expect Respect And a Safe Education. Since its launch in 2012,

ERASE has received national and international recognition for its work

in keeping students safe.

BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS AND

ACCESS YOUTH OUTREACH

SERVICES

J. Isaacs: Last month I had the pleasure of attending this year’s Tri-Cities

Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards. I’d like to congratulate

all of the outstanding nominees and winners. With so many innovative

businesses who contribute to our local economy, it was a tough job for

judges to choose just one finalist in each category.

The awards included three separate categories for Business of the

Year, along with Young Professionals of the Year, Business Leader of the

Year, Chamber Member of the Year, the Community Spirit Award and the

Not-For-Profit of the Year Award.

Just a few days prior to this grand event that celebrates

excellent businesses, I met with the executive director of ACCESS Youth,

Jerome Bouvier, recipient of the Not-For-Profit of the Year Award. In

his office and on the grounds of Riverview, I learned more about the

impact that ACCESS Youth Outreach Services is having in our community.

Project Reach Out is an award-winning mobile outreach program where the

mobile bus and engaging staff and volunteers travel to streets, back

lanes, parks, party houses and hot spots to support youth who find

themselves in vulnerable and challenging situations or simply need

someone to talk to.

ACCESS Youth started 15 years ago and, in 2016, raised the service

age from 19 years to 23 years to support youth who are aging out of the

public system. The non-judgmental, accessible and flexible approach

delivered by dedicated volunteers and staff has seen drug use go down

and school attendance go up.

Congratulations, ACCESS Youth, on your Business Excellence Award

and for delivering exceptional programs, services and mobile outreach to

our street-involved youth.

PROSTATE CANCER AND

STEP UP CHALLENGE

FUNDRAISER

R. Glumac: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in Canada. One in

seven men will be diagnosed in their lifetime. But the good news is that

if it’s detected early, there’s more than a 90 percent survival

rate.

It’s not an easy subject to talk about for a lot of people. That’s

why events like the Step Up Challenge, organized by Prostate Cancer

Canada, are important. The Step Up Challenge took place on Sunday in

Vancouver, where teams of five race up seven towers twice. That’s a

total of 5,000 feet that they have to climb. That’s more than two Grouse

Grinds. Their goal is not only to complete this challenge but to raise

money for prostate cancer research. Sixteen teams participated,

including teams from Ellis-Don, Oxygen Capital, Oxford Properties,

Tricor Founders, the Pan Pacific Hotel and many others.

They raised over $85,000. The team from Oxford Properties

completed the race in 73 minutes. Every one of their team members went

up all seven towers twice in 73 minutes. It was incredible. The Step Up

Challenge has been around since 2014, and they’ve raised over $2 million

for prostate cancer. In Vancouver. That’s $500,000 that has gone to the

Vancouver Prostate Centre.

I want to thank Prostate Cancer Canada for organizing this event.

And to all those who participated and volunteered, your contributions

have saved many lives. Let’s keep the conversation going, and if you

have any suspicion about this, get a PSA test.

[1:50 p.m.]

SEMIAHMOO ANIMAL LEAGUE

S. Cadieux: I’d like to take a moment today to tell you a little bit about a

little-known organization in my community but a really good one. That’s

the Semiahmoo Animal League, SALI. SALI is guided by two basic

principles — that people make the world a better place for animals and

that animals make the world a better place for people.

I had the pleasure of attending their fundraiser, Black Tails and

Boots, in 2016 and, unfortunately, missed the one last fall. It’s a

terrific event in September — outside in a tent on the farm, alongside

the animals. They raised over $30,000 at each of the events. They punch

well above their weight for an organization of their size and an event

of that size.

The farm facilitates the rehabilitation of both animals and

people. One of the farm’s understandings is that the abuse of people and

abuse of animals often intersect. Because of this, SALI offers animal

therapy for children at risk, knowing that the overall well-being of a

community is related to the well-being of its children. They’ve

partnered with the Surrey school district, and it’s absolutely

heartwarming to hear the stories of the positive changes in those

children whose lives are touched by the farm.

The farm is also an oasis for animals that have escaped violence.

Many of the creatures living there have faced abandonment, neglect,

instability or violence. They are sheltered by SALI and its army of

volunteers so that they can live out the rest of their lives in safety,

surrounded by a loving community.

However, the beautiful farm they operate is being asked to move.

SALI is looking for another farm-status home and property in Surrey, so

if anyone listening has suggestions, please don’t hesitate to bring them

forward.

I’d like to thank Semiahmoo Animal League and founder Keryn

Denroche for the invaluable refuge they offer to our society; to people,

animals and the connections between them.

GURU NANAK’S FREE KITCHEN

R. Singh: Today I want to take the opportunity to applaud the work of Guru

Nanak’s Free Kitchen, which is doing amazing work not only in my

constituency but across B.C. to help those who are poor and less

fortunate.

The concept of Guru Nanak’s Free Kitchen is based on the teachings

of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the founder of Sikhism, who preached and

practised sharing and equality. In order to break age-old caste

barriers, Guru Nanak had started the institute of Langar, a community

kitchen that was open to everyone.

To keep the legacy of Guru Nanak alive in Canada, a group of

like-minded individuals got together in 2007 to start a free kitchen to

feed those in need in Metro Vancouver. The first free kitchen was

organized during November and December 2007. The six-day program saw

hundreds coming together and serving the poor, irrespective of their

race and ethnicity. The Guru Nanak’s Free Kitchen organizers never

looked back after that.

Apart from serving langar , the Guru Nanak’s Free Kitchen

has ventured into other areas, such as providing shelter to women and

children both inside and outside Metro Vancouver. To meet this end, Guru

Nanak’s Free Kitchen holds annual events in partnership with groups such

as Global Girl Power, Sikh Academy and Akal Academy. Their annual events

include a toy drive for children from low-income families and a cupcake

drive for shelters across the Lower Mainland.

During the past holiday season, Guru Nanak’s Free Kitchen, in

collaboration with Akal Academy, assisted shelters in the Surrey area.

Following the true principles of Sikhism, Guru Nanak’s Free Kitchen is

committed to creating a positive environment within our communities and

helping our society to learn compassion and sharing to make this world a

better place

PINK SHIRT DAY

J. Thornthwaite: Today is Pink Shirt Day in British Columbia. Today we stand up

against bullying at schools, in the workplace, at home and on line.

Today we declare that intolerance has no place in our

society.

Pink Shirt Day began in 2009 when David Shepherd and Travis Price

organized a protest at their Nova Scotia high school in support of a

student who was bullied for wearing a pink shirt. A day after the

bullying, Price, Shepherd and 50 other students showed up to the school

wearing pink shirts. Since then, the campaign has become a global

phenomenon, with more than 25 countries adopting their own anti-bullying

campaigns.

Bullying is not a new phenomenon, but bullies now have new

networks and tools with which to harass. Cyberbullying has become a

pervasive problem, particularly for youth. One study estimates that more

than half of teens and adolescents have been bullied on line, and one in

three has been the target of cyberthreats.

[1:55 p.m.]

In 2014, I filmed a video at Sherwood Park Elementary in my riding

with renowned digital literacy expert Jesse Miller. The video is

designed to help children realize that what they post stays on line

forever, to help them become good digital citizens and to educate

parents on how they can help their children be safe on line in a world

whole.

In 2008, our B.C. Liberal government was the first provincial

government to make Pink Shirt Day an official day of action in Canada.

Bullying is no longer restricted to the halls of the schools or to the

hours of the school day. It happens 24 hours, often under the false

assumption that when you’re on line, you’re anonymous. The best way to

fight it is to raise awareness and to get parents and educators

involved.

It is my firm belief that we should not limit the principles of

Pink Shirt Day to just one day, but let us stand against it every day in

our schools, our workplaces and everywhere we go.

Oral Questions

LETTER FROM AGRICULTURE MINISTER

TO FISH FARM

OPERATOR

S. Bond: Tenures in British Columbia are supposed to be handled by the

non-partisan public service, not by activist ministers and their

political staff. However, new documents reveal that political staff and

the Minister of Agriculture personally interfered on a fish farm

tenure.

To the Minister of Agriculture, can she tell us why?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. I can confirm for the member that

there was no interference.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, nice try, Minister.

It was this activist minister who personally ordered the

intimidation letter threatening a company’s tenure. It was her political

staff that added a direct threat to Marine Harvest. This is clearly

inappropriate ministerial behaviour.

Again to the Minister of Agriculture, why did she directly involve

herself in this file?

Hon. L. Popham: I can also confirm there was no threat. The letter was written to

get breathing room while we tried to forge our way forward on a very

difficult situation.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a second

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, let’s be clear to the minister. The minister decided to

interfere in a process that is supposed to be handled by the

non-partisan public service, but instead, she ordered the letter and, in

fact, overruled her staff.

Again, can the minister tell us why she broke such very clear

rules?

Hon. L. Popham: I’ll repeat again for the member in case the member didn’t

understand: there was no threatening letter. There was no threatening

letter, but we did ask for some breathing room while we tried to make

our way forward on a complicated issue that that opposition ignored for

16 years.

M. Polak: The Deputy Minister of Agriculture actually warned the minister

specifically against threatening Marine Harvest, telling her the company

had to restock their site, but the minister still insisted on

inappropriately threatening the company through an intimidation

letter.

To the minister, who advised her to write the letter?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I’ll repeat: there was no threatening letter. But what I can say

is we are very proud of the work that’s happened since we were sworn in

as government on this file. And I can report out to this chamber that on

January 30, an historic meeting happened between our government and

First Nations government. This is very historic, because when that side

was in government, they refused to take those measures. So we are very

proud of the work that we’re doing. I can also tell this House that

we’re slated to have our second meeting in the middle of March, and

we’re very proud of that as well.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the opposition on a supplemental.

M. Polak: Well, I have here an email written to the Minister of Agriculture

from a very well-known fish farm activist. It reads: “You have a short

window of opportunity to get out ahead of this. You need to give Marine

Harvest a heads-up on your intentions as soon as possible.”

Will the minister admit she took the advice of her activist friend

over her deputy minister?

Hon. L. Popham: One of the things I can be sure of is that our government is very

committed to protecting wild salmon. Ten thousand jobs depend on this,

and it’s a $1 billion industry. We’re also committed to working in a

respectful relationship with First Nations.

FISH FARM TENURES AND

WILD SALMON

PROTECTION

S. Furstenau: It’s a historic day. We’re both asking about the same topic today,

although with, certainly, different outcomes in mind, I think. Yesterday

my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head asked this government if the

restocking of fish farms shortly before contracts were up for review

would impact the government’s assessment of their tenure status. The

minister said they had a good meeting with First Nations. That’s great.

I’m truly glad to hear they had a good meeting, but we need to start

getting some actual answers.

Communities across B.C. are trying desperately to get their

elected officials to save wild salmon. Where we are failing, they are

trying to do the work themselves. Mr. Campbell is trying to prevent

contaminated bloodwater from infecting wild fish. Thousands in Squamish

are ringing alarm bells about BURNCO’s quarry application and the threat

it poses to the spawning estuary in McNab Creek. The ’Namgis members

near Alert Bay, many of them courageous young women, have spent all

winter camped out in protest of fish farms in their traditional

territory. They deserve an honest answer.

To the minister designated as the government’s lead for strategic

aquaculture policy: will you remove open-pen fish farms from wild salmon

migratory routes?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I just want to start off by saying that members on this side of

the House share the values that are expressed by the member around the

importance of wild salmon to this province and the importance of

protecting wild salmon in this province.

We have embarked on a process with First Nations. We’ve had

respectful discussions with five First Nations, as a matter of fact. In

a January 30 meeting, they agreed to a process that we’ll be embarking

on in order to get to a government-to-government resolution of what,

really, we’ve inherited as 16 years of lack of focus by the previous

government on this issue.

All topics are on the table in these government-to-government

discussions with First Nations, including the topic raised by the

member. I just want to say it’s a process of reconciliation. That means

it would be disrespectful to make a unilateral decision outside of the

agreed-upon process.

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

S. Furstenau: According to government documents, the Minister of Agriculture is

actually the lead for strategic aquaculture policy. If anything, this

week we’ve seen how disorganized and confusing the jurisdictional

responsibilities are for salmon and steelhead issues, even within a

single government. “The health of B.C.’s wild salmon population is

paramount…. The industries that are wholly dependent on wild salmon —

sport fishing and the commercial fishery — represent a significant

majority of our coastal economy and cannot be put at further risk.” The

impacts of aquaculture “must be minimized for the industry to continue

operating in B.C., and investments must be made in technologies that

ensure this. Investments must also be made to rehabilitate and enhance

wild salmon populations.”

Perhaps these words sound familiar to some of the members in this

chamber. They should. They come from a 2007 Legislative Assembly Special

Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture, a committee that a number of the

MLAs in this chamber — some of them now ministers — were a part of. The

final report called for immediate action. A few years later the Cohen

Commission further amplified that urgency.

[2:05 p.m.]

My question is to the Premier. We have enough reports. Given the

severe threats to wild salmon, what, concretely, is your government

going to do differently to protect this foundation species?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member raises questions about tenures. Tenures are part of the

responsibility for my ministry when it comes to foreshore leases

associated with fish farms. Obviously, that’s the question I’ll be

answering.

I want to say that the member does raise valid points. I would

assume that she does not want to presuppose a reconciliation process,

agreed upon with five First Nations, around concerns around open-net

Atlantic salmon fish farming in the Broughton Archipelago — concerns

that were raised repeatedly in the last 16 years and where the previous

government did nothing to act on those concerns.

LETTER FROM AGRICULTURE MINISTER

TO FISH FARM

OPERATOR

J. Johal: The email from the fish farm activist tells the minister she needs

to write a letter threatening Marine Harvest. This email is dated

September 23, nearly three weeks before the Marine Harvest letter is

sent. Again, the email reads: “You need to give Marine Harvest a

heads-up on your intentions a.s.a.p.”

Did the Minister of Agriculture write the letter to Marine Harvest

at the instruction of activist Alexandra Morton, yes or no?

Hon. L. Popham: I think what the opposition doesn’t understand is that this side

of the House, the government of B.C., is doing things differently, much

different than it’s been done in the last 16 years. We’re working with

First Nations and building new relationships.

One thing that everybody agrees on in this situation, including

First Nations, industry and our government: status quo is not good

enough. We’re making changes to make sure that we respect First Nations

and protect wild salmon.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: Let’s try this again. On September 24, the minister responded to

the author and forwarded the instruction to her deputy minister and the

Premier’s office for action. On October 13, the letter threatening

Marine Harvest was sent, just as she had been told to do so.

Again to the Minister of Agriculture, did she write the

inappropriate letter to Marine Harvest at the instruction of activist

Alexandra Morton?

Hon. L. Popham: The letter was written to get breathing room while we forged a

path forward.

M. Stilwell: The Minister of Agriculture was not forthright last fall when she

was questioned about her activism and political interference in

threatening Marine Harvest. At first, she said it was First Nations

complaints. Then it was because of the federal Department of Fisheries

and Oceans, and then it became a story on W5 .

Why did the minister not reveal that the email from an activist

came before all of the excuses?

Hon. L. Popham: What I would like to say is that we’re proud of the work we’re

doing. As we forge our way forward on a very complicated situation,

we’re making new relationships, and respectful relationships, with First

Nations. I’m excited as we go into the meeting in the middle of March.

We had a successful meeting on the 30th of January.

My colleagues and I support wild salmon. We support a new way

forward, and we do not support ignoring the issue, like the House on the

other side did for 16 years.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

[2:10 p.m.]

M. Stilwell: Let’s try that again. The minister initially claimed complaints

originated with DFO. Then it was on account of a W5 story that

aired on October 14. But the documents we have reveal that the minister

brought the complaint to DFO on October 11, and this was only after

first receiving instruction from a fish farm activist on September

How does the minister reconcile these glaring contradictions in

her statements?

Hon. L. Popham: I think what we know is that ignoring an issue for 16 years

doesn’t make it go away. We will move forward on the path that we think

is right, and it would be nice to see some support from the other side

of the House.

RECONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL

LAND COMMISSION

APPLICATION

I. Paton: On August 3, 2017, an application to exclude MK Delta Lands from

the ALR was approved by the ALC south coast panel. That decision is now

under reconsideration. To the Minister of Agriculture: why is this

application being reconsidered?

Hon. L. Popham: I don’t know. The Agricultural Land Commission is an independent

commission, and it makes independent decisions.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

I. Paton: On August 10, 2017, the Environment Minister sent the Agriculture

Minister an email on this very topic with the subject heading: “We

should discuss.” To the Agriculture Minister, did her

colleague…?

Interjections.

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

I. Paton: Did her colleague tell her to initiate the reconsideration of this

application?

Hon. L. Popham: As I said, the Agricultural Land Commission makes independent

decisions, and I do not interfere with those decisions.

M. Bernier: The minister might want to take that comment to heart. Here’s the

issue. The NDP government doesn’t seem to understand what the processes

are for lawful applications here in the province. First the

minister….

Interjections.

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

M. Bernier: First the minister interferes with tenures. We’ve seen that. Now

we have her and the Environment Minister conspiring about the

independent ALC and the decisions they’re making.

To the Agriculture Minister again, will she stand up and explain

what the conversation was between herself and the Minister of

Environment?

Hon. L. Popham: I don’t interfere with the independent decision-making of the

Agricultural Land Commission, but I can tell you what we are doing.

We’ve got an amazing committee struck on revitalizing the agricultural

land reserve — something that’s going to make the agricultural land

reserve stronger than ever.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River South on a supplemental.

M. Bernier: Here’s the issue that we have. This was an already-approved ALC

application, approved prior to the Minister of Environment and the

Minister of Agriculture having a discussion. Now, all of a sudden, the

ALC has been asked, and they’re looking at reconsidering that

application.

So a simple request. It is absolutely against policy for the

minister to interfere and have discussions on an application — an

offence for the minister to talk to them. Will the minister acknowledge

the fact that she spoke with the Agricultural Land Commission and

actually went against the actual policy that says she’s not allowed to

do so?

Hon. L. Popham: No, I didn’t.

[2:15 p.m.]

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

ADVISORY

COMMITTEE

B. Stewart: To the minister, I want to ask about the activism. It doesn’t seem

to end with fish farm tenures and ALC applications. Her committee to

reshape the ALR is flawed as well. Despite having 90 percent of the ALR

land base, farmers in the Interior and in the north only have 10 percent

of the representation on your new committee that you just

championed.

To the minister, what was the appointment process for this

committee?

Hon. L. Popham: I couldn’t be more happy to talk about this issue. The committee

members are made up of people all around our province who are passionate

about farming, and they’re passionate about the agricultural land

reserve. We have large-scale farmers and small-scale farmers. We have

organic farmers and conventional farmers.

We have Chief Byron Louis, the chief of the Okanagan Indian Band,

who’s also the director of the new relationship trust. We’ve got local

government represented. We also have a former MLA, Vicki Huntington. We

know how passionate she was.

The collection of committee members, which also includes

academics, is, I think, an incredible representation of people who

believe in the ALR and want to make it stronger than ever.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna West on a supplemental.

B. Stewart: Well, again to the minister, Arzeena Hamir and Lenore Newman are

outspoken activists when it comes to the ALR. When asked what she would

do, Professor Newman said: “I would definitely stop the exclusions in

the Lower Mainland.”

Again to the minister: what was her involvement in ensuring that

activists were appointed to this committee?

Hon. L. Popham: I am very proud of the committee members and the work that they’re

doing. In fact, currently they’re out on the road, doing face-to-face

meetings with groups. They are compiling an extensive list of

consultation. They’re going to create a report, they’re going to give

that report to me at the end of August, and we will take those

recommendations to heart.

I can tell you that the people that are involved in this committee

are highly respected around the province, and I have had positive

feedback on every one of them. I think that if the official opposition

would like to help make the agricultural land reserve stronger than

ever, they should share the website for their constituents to give

feedback to us on how we’ll do that.

D. Clovechok: That’s an interesting answer. The Minister of Agriculture has

handpicked activists for this committee, but that’s not all. British

Columbians wanting to take

part in the review are being told: “Sorry,

meetings are by invitation only.”

To the minister: are only handpicked people able to present to her

handpicked panel, yes or no? Simple.

Hon. L. Popham: Absolutely not. There are meetings that are open for face-to-face

meetings around the province, but we also have an on-line system that’s

open 24-7 until the end of April. I would suggest you go on line and

give us your input.

Mr. Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

D. Clovechok: The current Premier has said that the NDP has got to “set aside

its activism and start being better administrators.” But the Minister of

Agriculture has clearly demonstrated she has not left activism

aside.

The question to the minister: how can the minister call this an

unbiased process?

Hon. L. Popham: I think what I’ve demonstrated is that I’m passionate about

agriculture, and I’m going to fight for agriculture 24-7.

[2:20 p.m.]

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

FOR

AQUACULTURE

A. Wilkinson: We saw last fall that the Minister of Agriculture demonstrated

some rather lax judgment in writing to Marine Harvest in a letter that

was taken by the commercial community and by the fish-farming industry

as being a clear threat to their existence.

So the question that obviously arises is how that came about.

We’ve heard the tale unfold here that statutory decision–makers were

involved, but they were essentially overridden by political staff and by

the minister herself. Her motivation for that is not quite clear, but

the time sequence suggests she was responding to outside forces and,

essentially, taking the file away from statutory

decision–makers.

Certainly, from my own experience as a deputy minister, this is a

grave matter because the statute provides that the statutory

decision–maker is in charge, and the minister must not

interfere.

The obvious question arises for the Premier. Will he do the

obvious, necessary step and move fish farming entirely into the Ministry

of Forest, Lands and Natural Resources and take it away from this

Agriculture Minister?

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition. But

I’m curious. I’ve been listening to the line of questioning, and I’m

just wondering why the opposition doesn’t like engaging with people.

Maybe that might have been the problem that put them over there rather

than over here.

I welcome the renewed membership in this House of the member for

Kelowna West, but the notion that you should disallow people from

participating in public-policy-making because they have a point of view

seems rather odd to me. I would argue that British Columbians want their

elected representatives to be passionate about the issues that matter to

them.

As the member’s been saying since she was sworn in, British

Columbians care about wild salmon. This government cares about wild

salmon because the people do. We going to listen to them every time.

We’ll take our advice from you later on.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: We’ve all become accustomed, in this House, that question period

sometimes addresses fairly minor issues. Sometimes it deals with things

that are of a local nature. Sometimes it deals with the fundamental role

of ministers in government, and this is one of those

occasions.

From the Premier, we have just heard — to be blunt — a glib and

dismissive response that did not address the question at all. So the

opportunity arises for the Premier, if not to deal with the ministerial

issue of transferring responsibility to the Forests Ministry, at least

to answer the question.

Please answer the question, sir.

Hon. J. Horgan: Far be it for me to follow in a long tradition of glib and

dismissive responses in the Legislature. I only know what I’ve learned

in my time here. And after spending a dozen years asking questions of

those people when they were over here, “glib and dismissive” just

springs to mind instantly.

But I appreciate — and I’ve said this to members individually and

collectively — the hard work of the opposition to ensure that they’re

holding government accountable. This is a legitimate line of

questioning, but I have to just disagree with the fundamental premise. I

believe that members in this House all came here to make life better for

British Columbians.

The Minister of Agriculture is among the most passionate people

I’ve ever seen when it comes to agriculture. She’s doing a great job and

has my full support.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

BUSINESSES

J. Rustad: Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture refused to stand when asked

about the devastating impact the employer health tax will have on

farmers. Farm families know this is a high-labour, low-margin business.

Richard is a second-generation farmer who works long days, six or seven

days a week, year-round. He’s very concerned about the NDP tax, and I

quote: “The payroll tax will make my business significantly more

difficult.”

[2:25 p.m.]

To the Minister of Agriculture: do you think this family farm in

Saanich South should lay people off or increase prices?

Hon. C. James: What made it difficult for businesses, for school districts, for

municipalities, for not-for-profits, for the people of British Columbia

was when that side doubled MSP premiums and provided a lack of

affordability for families.

As of January 1 this year, we have reduced MSP premiums by 50

percent, a $1.3 billion savings to businesses and to individuals. We

have reduced PST on electricity by 50 percent. We will eliminate PST on

electricity altogether in 2019 to assist businesses, a request that

they’ve asked. We have lowered the small business tax rate. We are

continuing to provide investments like housing and child care that

support all businesses in British Columbia, and we’re going to continue

in that direction.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes on a supplemental.

J. Rustad: Hilltop Greenhouses in Saanich grows bedding plants, poinsettias

and cucumbers. They employ close to 40 people and ship their product all

over the lower Vancouver Island. To quote Richard: “I feel this tax is

unfairly targeting Hilltop and other farming operations.”

Will the Minister of Agriculture explain to her constituent

Richard why she is targeting farmers with this unfair tax?

Hon. C. James: I’m happy to continue talking about the budget. I have an

opportunity to talk about what we’re doing for British Columbians,

including having a minister as passionate about agriculture and

supporting farmers across this province; a $1.3 billion saving this year

with elimination of MSP, which will support all businesses and families

in British Columbia who have been paying MSP, getting rid of a

regressive tax, as every other province in this country has

done.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE

N. Simons: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select

Standing Committee on Children and Youth for the third session of the

41st parliament titled Review of the Representative for Children and

Youth Act .

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

N. Simons: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

N. Simons: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select

Standing Committee on Children and Youth for the third session of the

41st parliament entitled Review of the Representative for Children

and Youth Act . The Representative for Children and Youth Act

requires the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth to review

the act every five years. The committee started the review in the 40th

parliament in early 2017, as required under the act. I was pleased to

resume the review once the committee was reactivated in the current

parliament.

The Office of the Representative for Children and Youth was first

created in 2006, when the Legislative Assembly unanimously adopted the

Representative for Children and Youth Act. The act implements

independent oversight of the child welfare system as recommended by the

Hon. Ted Hughes in 2006.

In addition to considering 18 written submissions from individuals

and organizations, the committee heard from the Hon. Ted Hughes in the

previous parliament. The committee also consulted with both the current

Representative for Children and Youth, Bernard Richard, and the former

representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond.

Our report today contains nine recommendations. Highlights include

recommendations to amend the act to expand the Representative for

Children and Youth’s mandate to include advocacy for young adults who

have previously been in care and, in doing so, align with key government

programs intended to support them, such as agreements with young

adults.

[2:30 p.m.]

It also is to clarify the representative’s existing mandate with

respect to advocating for children and young adults with special needs,

confirm that the representative’s authority to monitor and oversee the

child- and youth-serving system includes reviewing certain internal

government reviews of child welfare matters and reviewing the provision

of services referenced under the act’s regulations, and continue the

committee’s role in reviewing the act every five years but remove the

language requiring the committee to determine if the representative’s

functions are still required.

As committee Chair, I’d like to thank the Deputy Chair, the member

for Parksville-Qualicum, for her assistance on the committee. I’m

grateful, as well, for the thoughtful participation and insight of all

committee members during our detailed consideration of the

act.

Thank you, as well, to the Chair and committee members from the

previous parliament who began this important work.

On behalf of the committee, I wish to acknowledge Monsieur Bernard

Richard and staff of the office for their ongoing participation and

support of the committee.

Finally, I’d like to thank Kate Ryan-Lloyd, the Clerk of

Committees, and Alayna van Leeuwen, our research analyst. Their

knowledge and insight was formidable and gratefully received.

M. Stilwell: I’d just like to take a moment to echo the words of the Chair,

from Powell River–Sunshine Coast. It was unanimously agreed to

strengthen the act, among the members, and we came forward with the nine

recommendations that I truly believe will build on the foundation of the

act, recognizing the good work that the representative does for children

and youth in our province.

I just want to thank all of the members for their input throughout

the deliberations and the discussions that we had that got us to the

point of the report, especially giving a shout-out to the Clerk, Kate

Ryan-Lloyd, and the rest of the support staff who helped us get to the

point where we did — to bring this to the Legislature. Thank you very

much.

Mr. Speaker: The question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Petitions

J. Thornthwaite: I have a petition to present: 838 signatures that have been received,

as of today, on line, that will be directed, hopefully, to the Ministry of

Children and Families by Brenda Doherty to demand that the B.C. government

pass the Safe Care Act.

Orders of the Day

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

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

D. Routley: I’ll continue my remarks that I began last evening shortly before the

adjournment of the debate, and I’ll continue with the theme that brought me

to that point.

It’s been, in my experience, 12 years sitting in the opposition

benches, trying to make the previous government accountable that has led me,

finally, to this place, where all of that hard work by all of the people who

support us in community and in our constituencies has led us to government

and to reading this first B.C. NDP budget that I am so very proud to stand

and defend and endorse.

[2:35 p.m.]

There’s really nothing more prescriptive and descriptive of a

government’s values and its principles than its budget. Its budget declares

its priorities. Its budget declares the depth of its sympathy and empathy.

And the budget may display the height of its arrogance — if we see the kinds

of budgets that they did the 12 years that I sat in opposition.

Not only is the budget itself a description of principle, but it’s a

challenge to British Columbians. It’s become a challenge — after 12 long

years, in my experience. Sixteen years of neglect by the previous

government. Sixteen years of continued and repeated deficits in classrooms,

hospitals, care homes, lives of children in care — deficits that aren’t

immediately switched on and off by a change in government, deficits that

will take years and years to correct, deficits in classrooms, deficits in

hospitals.

The members opposite can chuckle at that notion that what they’ve

given us in reply to the budget really displays the fact that they haven’t

yet embraced and accepted the reason that they were put back into opposition

benches — that is that they had stopped listening to people, and they had

stopped making people their priority.

I spoke yesterday about the generations of students that — I think

that it’s three cohorts now — have passed through the K-12 system, as

depleted as it became after the B.C. Liberals tore up contracts and took

$200 million a year out of that system.

People became used to their government featuring tax breaks for the 2

percent, tax breaks for the richest people in the province and advantages to

those who least needed them. They became used to paying for that through

increased fees and decreased services.

It’s come to the point where people almost felt they had…. I feel

people had forgotten that government could make different choices. I feel

that people had come to the point where, after being told when the B.C.

Liberals came to power that there was a deficit — that didn’t exist; in

fact, they inherited a $2 billion surplus — and making massive cuts to all

forms of supports for citizens of this province….

They were told that that had to be done because of austere reaction to

bad economic times. Then times got better, and they were told: “Well, we

can’t possibly afford to support education and child care and all the things

that people need — families need — in support of their lives because times

are good, and we wouldn’t want to change that.” Then a recession rolled

around, and again, times were bad. “We wouldn’t want to challenge the fiscal

strength of the province by answering the priorities of the people.” It was

wrong all the way through. It was a choice, a priority, that that government

made.

Now it’s clear, with this budget, that other choices could’ve been

made. Other choices should’ve been made — choices that would have supported

the thousands upon thousands of people in this province who are homeless.

The face of homelessness changing to working families, young people and

seniors…. All of that was unnecessary.

What we have now is a truly balanced budget. A budget that’s balanced

fiscally, a budget that makes the burden of supporting our society more

fairly distributed, and more fairly distributed towards those who can afford

it rather than those who couldn’t afford it. But even so, I think that there

have been statements made by opposition members in response to the budget

that really do reflect exactly what their priorities and principles

are.

One of the things that we’re, obviously, most proud of in this budget

is the $1.3 billion investment in child care — the establishment of the

beginning of the first universal public service that this province has seen

in several generations. I’m so proud to be a part of bringing that to

British Columbians.

The response from the official opposition spokesperson on Children and

Family Development revealed exactly why this government had lost touch with

people. Rather than answering the need of people, rather than providing

support for child care that would then support an engagement of citizens and

full participation in economy and community by everyone, they would prefer

to disparage the notion of a universal child care program.

[2:40 p.m.]

The comments actually reflect the elitist favour that that government

paid to its friends. The comment from that member is: “There could be some

economic gain if those entering the workforce were high-income earners, but

by definition, those who benefit from this subsidy are low-income earners.”

Does that not crystallize the disconnect between that former government and

the people of B.C. — that someone could think that subsidizing high-income

earners was a higher priority for government than assisting struggling

families in this province?

Why are those families low-income earners? Perhaps they’ve chosen to

abandon a career because they really had no choice and couldn’t afford child

care. Now, how would that be seen as fair, or positive for our economy? But

somehow the official opposition spokesperson for Children and Families found

it strange that this government would support working families.

He says: “I find it strange that the government…ignores the cries of

an infant leaving its parent who has to go to work, and the sadness of a

parent who would rather stay home with their new baby for a while.” That’s a

sadly partisan and ideologically dismissive comment. It’s obviously rooted

in a world view that doesn’t share the goodwill and benefits of our society

with those who struggle or those who have ambition to be full participants

of a society.

We are attempting to empower parents, particularly women, who are

disproportionately affected by a lack of child care support. When I was a

stay-at-home parent with my daughter — I consider that the luckiest time of

my life — it was all so very challenging. I had some support from child care

programs and before-kindergarten programs, but it was very difficult. It

makes it very difficult to continue a career or to strive for one’s dreams

when the support for a family isn’t there. So I think it’s strange that he

finds it strange that the government would offer support to families in that

manner. I find it strange that anyone could question that as a

motive.

The budget is a reflection of priorities. People became used to this

mantra, “We couldn’t support the people because times are bad,” and then:

“We can’t support the people because times are good, and we don’t want to

upset the apple cart.”

I think they became so fatigued by a government that wasn’t listening,

a government that for 16 years shut people out, a government that for 16

years explained to people why they couldn’t support them and why they would

ladle fees on top of their already struggling families in order to balance a

budget and in order to offer tax breaks for the wealthiest British

Columbians. Those are poor priorities, in the minds of most British

Columbians, and finally we’ve seen a correction.

This budget does so much to support my own constituency. The Nanaimo

Regional Hospital gets an electric-system upgrade of $12.5 million. The

South Island unit dose medication distribution renovation in various

communities installs a pharmacy hub system to our facilities. The Nanaimo

Regional Hospital also will see the purchase and installation of a second

MRI unit. This is a $5.5 million investment that will increase the

efficiency and the flow in the hospital.

The Nanaimo Habitat for Humanity affiliate is receiving $100,000 to

complete the building of two four-bedroom houses which will provide two

larger family houses as the second phase of their Vancouver Island Meadow

Hill development. This is another piece of the spectrum of housing answers,

and this government is finding a way to support those. In Nanaimo, we are

also seeing new Aboriginal housing developments. The Nanaimo Aboriginal

Centre Society is receiving $5 million for a 35-unit project in

Nanaimo.

[2:45 p.m.]

In child care, we’ve received millions for new spaces on Gabriola

Island, in the Snuneymuxw First Nation.

The Vancouver Island University — shared, in my constituency, with my

neighbour to the north in Nanaimo — is receiving a health and science centre

replacement. That’s a $41 million investment. Vancouver Island University is

also expanding their marine, automotive and trades complex. That’s a $20

million investment. As you can see, the priorities of this government are

also spelled out and symbolized by the choices that it makes.

We have seen years and years of costs for families rising — MSP

premiums that were doubled, a 100 percent increase in MSP premiums in the

first ten or 12 years of the former government’s record. We, on the other

hand, have cut MSP premiums by 50 percent and will eliminate them altogether

by January 1 of 2020. This will save families $1,800 a year. This is an

example of us answering to British Columbians who have complained that they

haven’t got the means to support their families or get ahead, no matter how

hard they work, no matter how many jobs they have.

The government had forgotten that the fundamentals, the foundations,

of a thriving society are at least contributed to by a government — if the

government is activist enough in their lives to answer those calls. If the

government simply abandons them and says, “You’re on your own. Sink or

swim,” then we get what we had, and it’s unfortunate.

I’ve seen the members on the other side, how angry and upset they are.

I think they had come to take for granted that they were the natural

governors of this province because of their 16-year-long reign. I see them

angry. They’re angry as wet wasps over there, just not comfortable with the

place that they’ve been put in, and I understand that. But they’re going to

have to turn back and re-examine and reconnect with the principles that

British Columbians expect would guide their party.

This child care program that we’ve invested so heavily in and that we

are placing so much hope in is a social service, but fundamentally, it’s a

piece of economic infrastructure. In Quebec, after they invested in a child

care program in their province, it was shown conclusively that they had the

highest participation of women in the skilled trades. This is directly

linked to their child care investments.

In an economy like ours, where a skills shortage and labour force

recruitment and efficiency is one of the biggest challenges to our economy

and to our businesses, child care is a fundamental investment. It will

empower a huge cross-section of our labour force that should be able to

participate, not simply on economic terms but as citizens in our province,

not shuttered away and dismissed because of the cost of raising children.

That is something that I’m very, very proud of.

When we look at small business, I think we all in the House

acknowledge that small business is the backbone of our economy. Small

businesses are the number one employment creators. It’s sad when we see this

barrage from the official opposition, trying to frame and paint the budget

as negative toward towards small business.

In fact, what the budget does is directly in support of small

business. In the case of a 20 percent reduction in small business income tax

rates — from 2.5 percent down to 2 percent — and phasing out the PST on

hydro bills for small business, that is a huge advantage, and it will save

small businesses very much. But it’s more than that. When I was in

opposition, opposing the closure of some schools in my school

district….

[2:50 p.m.]

There’s a very good friend of mine who owns a bicycle shop in the

Cowichan Valley, actually the second-oldest bicycle shop west of the

Mississippi. He’s a fantastic fellow. His name is William Arnold, a very

good businessman and a very good contributor to the community.

He came and spoke at that meeting. He talked about the nonsense that

he was seeing — the small schools closed not simply because of educational

pedagogy that would say that it would be more efficient to offer programs in

a bigger school. That’s an argument that I can support or at least engage

with. But this was purely driven by funding considerations — cynical funding

choices made by the previous government that basically condemned small

schools no matter what level of support they had in their

community.

My friend Will came to the meeting. He made one of the most sensible

statements that I’ve ever heard since I became involved in politics. He

stood up and said: “When I look for a new place, a new location for a

bicycle shop, I don’t look for a community closing its elementary schools. I

don’t look for a community that’s losing support in its hospitals and losing

its child care spaces. Those are the things that fundamentally support a

thriving small business economy in British Columbia — local economies.” He

saw that.

It’s unfortunate that the members on the other side have such a

simplistic view of competitiveness. They think that the only element or

factor in the competitive equation is cost, particularly the cost of

taxation, when everyone in small business — and everyone, I think, who cares

to examine this subject — would recognize that competitiveness is an

aggregate of a number of things. It’s an aggregate of a lower cost, a better

product, an efficient workforce, and effective and productive employees. All

of those things require investment, and most small business people recognize

that. Also, I would argue at this point, so do large business people

eventually come to realize that.

I would refer the members to one of their former colleagues, Iain

Black, now the CEO of the Vancouver Board of Trade, who gave this budget a

B-plus. The Vancouver Board of Trade endorsed the child care program that

we’re supporting, several years ago. Chambers of commerce throughout the

province are coming out with positive statements about what we’ve done. I

think that reflects something that is reassuring, and that is that the

people of the province understand that their bottom line is more than simply

a mathematical equation. They understand that the health and well-being of

the province are defined by more than simply the GDP of the province. It’s

defined by so much more.

These are essential investments, and I have framed them through the

lens of economy. Obviously, it wasn’t the simple economy of poverty, the

poor economy of poverty or the poor economy of neglect that brought us here.

It’s more than that. It’s about principles.

We are elected to protect the people. We are elected to do the things

for people that are in their public interest. That is not defined by

contentment, by the most elite cross-section of this province. That is

defined by the well-being of all of the people. My friend Rick Doman, who is

the CEO of Western Forest Products, put it really well when he said: “If I

were running a train, a railway, I wouldn’t pour all of my resources and

wealth into the parlour car, into the best car. I would identify the cars

that need the most attention and take care of them so that the whole train

can run speedily and effectively.” Now, that makes a hell of a lot of sense

to me. That speaks to the economic efficacy of taking care of people, but it

is so much more than that.

[2:55 p.m.]

In a wealthy province like ours, in a province that has so many

advantages, it is absolutely unconscionable, unacceptable and terrible that

700,000 people live below the poverty line. That is bad for our economy. But

even if it weren’t, even if the other side were right…. They actually think

that that’s good for the economy. Even if they were right, it would still be

wrong, because it’s not fair.

I think we were elected here to make things fair. In a world that has

scant fairness, that has offered so many advantages to a narrow few, I think

it’s the job of government to correct that balance, to do what it can to

help elevate those who have been left behind. Some of the waste…. I think of

the potential in people that has been lost over the last 16 years, the great

things that could have been done by people. Great economic things. Great

social change that could have been supported by those people being engaged

in the economy and society of our province. But they weren’t, because they

had 16 years of neglect from that former government.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: Now, finally, they have a government that brings a truly balanced

budget. Not simply robbing Crown corporations to make a phony balance or

selling public properties at discount rates to their friends in order to

balance a budget, but more than that. Balanced in the way it approaches

people. Balanced in the way it approaches the environment. Balanced in the

way it approaches the economy. Balanced in every way — in the ways that

matter to people, in the ways that pay off for people, that improve their

lives and reduce the costs that they face.

Those are the things that people want their government to care about.

Those are the things that they had almost lost faith in. It makes me proud

to stand and defend this budget.

J. Isaacs: Colleagues, I am honoured for the opportunity to speak with you today

as the representative of the riding of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and to offer

my comments on Budget 2018. I understand the responsibility that has been

entrusted to me to not only act on behalf of my constituents but also to act

in the best interest of all British Columbians, and I do take that

responsibility seriously.

I’m grateful to be living in one of the most beautiful and safe cities

in the world, a city that embraces and welcomes diversity. Coquitlam is an

active community where celebrations take place all through the seasons. You

can enjoy the beautiful spring and autumn landscape Coquitlam offers, hike

or bike the numerous trails, participate in the Coquitlam Crunch Challenge

or simply take in a play or concert at Evergreen Cultural Centre.The vibrant

downtown core boasts fantastic restaurants, eateries and pubs, as well as

shops and services that promote economic development and growth and create

local job opportunities.

Coquitlam has it all, including a world-class transportation system

that sees over 30,000 riders a day. The Evergreen Line provides easy access

to all the amenities and has itself become a signature piece of Coquitlam’s

landscape, displaying beautiful hues of colour to light up the

evening.

We are a diverse community of hard-working families, seniors,

students, young families, new immigrants and entrepreneurs. Over the past

few months, we’ve had many constituents from all walks of life visit our

office to ask for assistance and help. From MSP applications to mental

health and addiction issues, health care, senior issues, housing and

daycare, we are there to help and support.

I am grateful that I have two amazing constituency assistants. Linda

Matthews and Chantal Lee bring their impressive life experience and business

skills to our office every day and work diligently on behalf of our

constituents. They go above and beyond to serve Coquitlam–Burke Mountain

constituents, and I want to thank them for their commitment and passion to

serve. Their dedication and support mean a lot to me.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’d also like to thank my Victoria staff, Elishia, Justin and Dion,

whose determination to make life a bit easier for me in Victoria has not

gone unnoticed. I appreciate their support and hard work. It’s a pleasure to

work with them every day. Of course, to my husband, Joe, and my two sons, I

thank them for their continued encouragement and support also.

As a new MLA, I’ve had many conversations with parents, business

owners and entrepreneurs, community leaders, advocates, industry, educators,

health and medical professionals, and seniors. I appreciate the honest and

frank discussions we have had and understand that the inherent complexity

working through different challenges can be, at times, frustrating. I look

forward to having more discussions.

As co–Health critic, I have heard from patients, advocates and family

members who have been involved in one way or another in the health care

system. With my focus on seniors, I understand the challenges that seniors

and their families face; the trials and tribulations that go with finding

the right care, the right changing care, as we need, as we change; and the

care that every one of our seniors deserves. I was pleased when the previous

government made commitments to increase investments for seniors. From my own

experience with elderly parents, I know the challenges families face when

parents are aging.

There is clearly a need to provide families with timely access to a

model of care that works with and for families. And it is necessary that the

continuum of care be first supported at the primary care level and that the

care model continues to adapt and change and offer a range of care options

that are flexible and provide for changing needs and

requirements.

Seniors do better when they stay in their homes. They do better when

they’re connected to family and friends and are socially engaged. Providing

options for support for seniors and services will help seniors live

independently in their homes for as long as possible. Doubling the home

renovation tax credit and the introduction of a new respite tax were

positive steps made by the previous government that financially help

families who care for seniors and individuals with disabilities.

Affordability and transportation issues are as important to seniors

and their caregivers as they are to millennials.

Health and seniors care should be a top priority as we care for those

who built our province. Half of every dollar in our provincial budget

currently goes to the cost of maintaining the health care system.

While the previous government more than doubled health care

investment, which led to a 40 percent increase in surgeries — such as a 176

percent increase in knee replacements and over 50 percent of the 500,000

total annual surgeries that were never placed on a wait-list — that also led

to $13 billion in capital investment, such as the Penticton Regional

Hospital, and an increased amount of a half-a-billion investment a year in

seniors care. But we know there’s still more to do.

Effective management of our health care budget will ultimately provide

for the highest quality of patient care and the best health outcomes while

also supporting health care professionals and seniors who are in residential

care.

Expanding the scope of practice to include medical professionals that

deliver modern health care, such as mobile health care, and changing the

process for how we renew and deliver prescriptions will free up doctor

office visits and emergency rooms. It can reduce waiting lists and provide

access and opportunities to unserved areas.

As new medicines and new therapies become available, we need to find

solutions for patients who need access to life-saving drugs, particularly

for pharmaceuticals that are not approved under the B.C. Medical Services

Plan. Supporting research and development is the best approach to provide

education, prevention, treatment of chronic conditions, genetic diseases and

pain management.

We cannot continue to fund an opioid epidemic without balancing out

the root causes of mental health and addiction and recognizing that

specialized care and ongoing support is essential to help people get on

track and stay on track to live a productive and purposeful life. It’s time

to modernize the delivery of health care and assure that mental health and

addictions care receives the dedicated, wraparound care and support it

requires.

[3:05 p.m.]

There is still a critical shortage of health care providers and

professionals, with many in the health care sector retiring. Meeting the

human resource targets that are needed to manage all of the aspects of their

health care system will be a challenge all on its own.

These are just a few examples that emphasize the enormity of the

challenges that we are faced with and how important it is that government

have a plan in place that will meet the demands of change and the pressures

of increasing financial burdens that consume nearly half of the annual

budget.

I was glad to see the additional $548 million of spending for seniors

over the next three years, and I commend the government for recognizing this

much-needed contribution. This will build on the previous government’s

announcement of $500 million in 2017. With many health care professionals

retiring over the next five years, a solid recruitment and retention

strategy to hire an additional 943,000 employees is going to be paramount in

delivering services.

I want to assure that quality of care for seniors — that continuum of

care that seniors deserve — remains focused and centred on patient-centred

care. Quality of life is precious, and each of us deserves to be afforded a

reasonable quality of life. It is something that every government should

strive to provide for its citizens. This budget came up short and provided

no assurance that there is a solid and secure plan in place that generates

the necessary revenues to meet even the most minimum of revenue

targets.

Increasing taxes, as this government has already done, to the tune of

almost $8 billion in just seven months; increasing taxes at a rate of $1

billion a month; and creating new taxes and relying heavily on other streams

of revenue, such as the federal government, to pay for infrastructure is not

a plan.

There is a long list of new taxes — speculation tax on housing,

increases to additional property transfer tax, increased school tax on

residential properties over $3 million, carbon tax that is no longer

revenue-neutral. We are all going to experience a price hike at the gas pump

as well as at the grocery stores.

Nearly every family will get hit with a personal tax hike, which is

going to cost families about $1,000 per year. If you are managing a

household budget, you’d better be prepared to put away another $100 to $300

a month to pay for these increases.

If you’re a business owner, you will immediately be hit not only with

continued MSP premiums for the next year, but you are now going to have to

pay the new employer health tax. This tax is coming at the same time as a 34

percent wage hike to increase the minimum wage. This does not bode well for

businesses that are already at thin margins, which took on business risks,

faced market and seasonal economic cycles. Businesses will have to make

difficult decisions in the coming weeks and months — decisions on whether

they should hire additional people or lay people off to help manage the

costs of running a business, decisions on what is a reasonable price point

for their goods and services.

Everything is simply an exchange of goods and services for money. What

is the appropriate price point? How much can be downloaded to consumers? And

how much can the consumer absorb?

I received an email from my constituent Lisa, who employs 60 staff

between her chain of Tri-Cities-based cafés and bakeries. As an inclusive

employer, Lisa is proud to employ several staff on the autism spectrum. The

new NDP employers health tax will cost Lisa $6,000 a year. I would like to

quote what Lisa wrote to me: “This $6,000 may seem small, but it isn’t to a

family-run business. We will be forced to re-evaluate employment of some of

our team members.”

[3:10 p.m.]

This is serious. After building up three different locations, working

so hard to market and expand her company, she may be forced to lay off some

of her employees. Increasing prices is not an option. She needs to remain

competitive. Lisa goes on to say: “We are not talking about CEOs with

million-dollar salaries. We’re talking about families working seven days a

week to put food on the table, pay their mortgage and, in this case, afford

to pay for the therapy for our daughter who has autism.”

The health tax does not make life more affordable to small businesses

and family-run businesses, it doesn’t make life more affordable for their

customers, and it really doesn’t make life any more affordable for their

staff.

Government has a responsibility to provide opportunities to all of its

citizens and to expand economic development and infrastructure that create

opportunities to advance education and skills training and lead to

sustainable jobs and prosperity. Simply expanding services and programs and

increasing expenses without balancing the repercussions of an inadequate

revenue stream to meet those increased costs is, by definition,

irresponsible.

Government needs a plan that will grow our economy by developing the

gifts that the province of British Columbia was given — resource

development, mining and energy, forestry, oil and gas and LNG. There was

nothing in this budget that supports a plan to secure these vital revenue

streams. We cannot grow our economy by stifling resource development and

creating regulations that cripple innovation and diminish opportunities to

participate in diverse market opportunities.

Businesses and industry alike face growing and financial pressures.

Government needs to support and develop the new economy with technology and

innovation but also needs to allow for transition, prepare for automation

and disruptive technologies. Businesses that may contemplate a start-up in

B.C. or who are already headquartered in B.C. will surely take a second look

and consider whether their hard work and sweat equity will be eroded through

these taxes.

There are neighbours to the east and to the south that offer a much

better business climate with much more favourable taxes. We cannot grow our

economy and provide jobs and opportunities by increasing taxes and placing

an unfair tax burden on those who have worked hard, sacrificed time and

family and taken on the financial and business risks. Governments also need

to expand and diversify our markets to safeguard us from ups and downs of

economic cycles.

We cannot grow our economy by creating debt that is kicked down the

road only to land on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. The

consequences of this kind of mismanagement will clearly compromise future

generations. Our economy is best supported when we welcome domestic and

global entrepreneurs to our province and when our province provides an

attractive environment for business to thrive in, reduces unnecessary

regulation and policies and takes positive steps to diminish business

risks.

While certainty cannot be guaranteed in any industry, governments have

an obligation to encourage a healthy and stable economy on behalf of its

citizens by enhancing relationships with neighbouring provinces and the rest

of Canada, as well as the U.S. and other international countries.

The budget has not produced a healthy, stable environment that would

attract business entrepreneurs. The promise of affordable housing fell

short, with only 2,000 modular units scheduled to be completed by the end of

2018 rather than the 114,000 housing units promised over ten years. As the

Leader of the Opposition noted, it will take this government 67 years to

fulfil their promise at the current rate.

As it turns out, the number quoted in the budget even double-dips the

housing units. So they’re double-dipping on the employer health tax, and

they’re double-counting on their housing units.

[3:15 p.m.]

The speculation tax on out-of-province Canadians owning homes in B.C.

is punishing families who own vacation homes in B.C. People who have owned

property for ten, 20 and 30 years, enjoying wonderful summer vacations with

families and friends, will now have to pay a speculation tax on top of the

property taxes they already pay. This is nothing more than a tax grab that

hits out-of-province fellow Canadians who own homes in selected parts of

B.C.

The $10-a-day daycare plan has been downgraded to a mere slogan, as

the Premier put it. It is great to see the government putting funds into

child care, but they clearly never had any intention of implementing a

$10-a-day system when they made their election promise. The $10-a-day slogan

has turned into an undetermined ten-year plan.

The rental subsidy was an election promise that vanished under a cloud

of disagreement from the Green Party. We agree with our Green colleagues

that the rental subsidy was a bad idea. But it was a major election platform

promise, and the NDP have completely reneged on it. No mention either of the

completion grant for university students, a clear election

promise.

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain is a growing community, and the lack of

schools has been an issue for some time. During the last campaign, the NDP

promised to fast-track schools and led parents to believe that if the NDP

were elected, there would be more schools on Burke Mountain. This was

another broken promise and a disappointment that this government and their

budget did not deliver on.

Families are looking for housing affordability, daycare and making

life more affordable. These are goals that everyone wants in place. But this

budget will not achieve any one of these goals and, in fact, hurts the very

businesses who provide the jobs. It hurts the staff who rely on wage

increases and benefits when businesses do well and care for their employees.

And it hurts economic development in almost every sector of the province. A

tax-and-spend plan is no plan at all.

That is why I cannot support this budget — a long list of false

promises, a massive cash grab on the backs of family-owned businesses and

job creators and unrestrained spending increases that don’t come close to

fulfilling the NDP platform.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Surrey–Green Timbers. [Applause.]

R. Singh: Thank you, friends. I’m so excited to share with you Budget 2018, a

budget that works for you. We live in a province rich in people, resources,

natural beauty and opportunities. That’s the reason I made this province my

home 16 years ago when I came to B.C., along with my son and my husband.

Although it is such a beautiful place, since then, what I’ve noticed is that

people are struggling.

People are just falling behind, and there are not many opportunities

for people to get ahead further. I saw families working harder than ever,

and they can’t even get ahead. Young people starting out can’t find

affordable housing, and seniors cannot get the services they rely on. It is

high time that everyone in our province is part of our prosperity. We took

the first steps in the Budget 2017 Update to carve a new path to shared

prosperity in this province, and we have taken an even bigger step in Budget

What I’m very proud of in this budget is that people are at the centre

of every choice made in this budget. Our government is working each and

every day to make life more affordable, improve the services you can count

on and build a strong, sustainable economy that supports jobs in every

corner of the province.

[3:20 p.m.]

For too many parents, child care is nearly as expensive as housing and

even harder to find. Being a mother myself and having raised two children, I

know what a struggle it has been to find affordable child care for my

children. I hear this from my constituents every day. A lot of women are

struggling. They are having a hard time making a choice between working and

taking care of their children.

Businesses also tells us that when parents can’t find child care, they

lose a worker. They have told us that economic growth is being hampered and

their labour supply is restricted. I remember having a meeting with the

executive of the Surrey Board of Trade, along with my Surrey colleagues, and

child care was one focus that they were reiterating. They were telling us

the struggles that businesses are having because we don’t have a proper

child care plan for families.

I’m so proud that Budget 2018 offers the largest investment in child

care in B.C. history, with a $1 billion child care investment over three

years to lower the costs for parents, increase the number of child care

spaces and make sure those spaces meet the highest standards of quality and

care.

The plan starts with a new affordable child care benefit starting in

September. It will provide up to $1,250 each month per child. It will lower

fees for an estimated 86,000 families per year by the end of 2020-21. Also,

starting April 1 of this year, a child care fee reduction program will

provide funding directly to licensed care providers. It will provide up to

$350 a month for a child care space.

These fee reductions will benefit an estimated 50,000 families per

year by 2020-21. Together this is the largest investment government has ever

made to reduce child care fees in B.C. Last week I was at a non-profit

agency in Surrey. It was Options child care resource and referral society.

They were so glad about the investment that our government is putting into

child care. They were talking about all of the families that they are

talking to and who are going to benefit from all of these

investments.

We have heard from parents that even if they could afford child care,

there are not enough spaces. That’s why in Budget 2018 we are creating more

than 22,000 new licensed child care spaces throughout the province. We will

work with municipalities, school districts and not-for-profit operators to

accelerate the creation of new spaces.

Our plan to build more child care spaces will mean a higher demand for

early childhood educators. We will work with all of our partners to develop

a comprehensive workforce development strategy that will examine ECE

education, training and compensation. These commitments set us on the path

to universal child care.

Now I want to talk about another key element in our budget, and that

is our comprehensive housing plan. We all know that housing affordability

affects us all, and for far too long, B.C.’s housing crisis was ignored. The

result is that renters have seen vacancy rates drop while prices rise

dramatically. Young adults attending schools haven’t had access to student

housing. Young professionals are faced with moving out of their communities

or the province, and seniors are struggling to meet rising housing costs on

fixed incomes and are at risk of homelessness.

[3:25 p.m.]

This is one issue that comes up in my constituency over and over

again. I have discussed this before too, but I have met so many people who

have a dream to buy a home. But because of the rising housing costs, they

are not able to fulfil that dream. So many of the people I know are living

in basement suites, or they’re renting spaces, and it seems to them that

their dream of owning a home is getting farther and farther away.

I’m so glad that our comprehensive housing plan is working to curb

speculation, crack down on tax fraud, support renters and build the homes

that people need. It starts with taking action to stabilize the market and

curb demand. We will introduce a new annual speculation tax starting in

B.C.’s urban areas. It will also tax foreign and domestic speculators. This

tax will apply to property owners who don’t pay income tax here, people who

leave units vacant, and satellite families — those households with high

worldwide income that pay little income tax in B.C.

The other half of the affordability equation is the supply. With

Budget 2018, we are going to help build the homes that people need. These

homes will be a mix of housing for families, people with disabilities and

seniors. They will range from supported social housing to market rental

housing for people with moderate incomes. We will also make significant

investments to preserve and protect our existing social housing for the

people already living in them.

Our government is finally allowing colleges and universities to borrow

and build much-needed student housing. Together we will help finance 5,000

new student housing units.

We can’t fix the housing crisis overnight. We know that, but we can

act now and plan for the future. That’s why, in Budget 2018, the government

has decided to invest more than $7 billion over the next ten

years.

We know that housing affordability can hit renters the hardest, and

many of our most vulnerable citizens are at risk. That’s why Budget 2018 is

going to make improvements to two rental programs — RAP and SAFER. We are

going to increase the benefits of RAP so that low-income families will see

their average payment increase by approximately $800 per year. And seniors

who receive SAFER will see their average payment increase by more than $930

per year. These important programs will help more than 35,000

households.

Another important thing that Budget 2018 covers is the elimination of

MSP by 2020. We saw, in 2018, that the MSP has been reduced by half. Now

Budget 2018 commits that it will be completely eliminating MSP premiums by

January 1, 2020. That means that families will save $1,800 per year and

individuals will save $900 per year. This, I would say, is in contrast to

the previous government that was bent upon increasing MSP premiums and,

also, was putting unfair taxes on people.

One example of that was the tolls that we had on the Golden Ears and

Port Mann bridges. That, also, previously has been eliminated by our

government.

Budget 2018 marks a new direction in our province. It puts us on the

path where people are put at the centre of the government’s decisions. It

also takes significant steps to help our businesses get the workforce they

need by addressing child care and housing affordability. It also makes key

enhancements to services that people count on. I believe that our people in

British Columbia deserve services they can depend on. Whether that is

ensuring health care for a loved one, securing education for their kids or

keeping communities safe, people need access to quality services.

[3:30 p.m.]

That’s why we took immediate steps in Budget 2017. In Budget 2018, we

are continuing to invest in the quality, reliable services that people need,

like health care. We are investing in our hospitals because the government

knows that investing in our hospitals is investing in the people we care

about. We are making significant investments in health care, including $3.1

billion over three years in infrastructure investments.

Far too many British Columbians do not have a regular family doctor.

That’s why Budget 2018 invests $150 million to assist those without a

regular family doctor and to help them access team-based care. Also, our

government is investing $105 million to expand PharmaCare coverage to 24,000

B.C. families. Drug prices have risen, and many British Columbians can’t

afford to take their medications as prescribed. That’s why we are

eliminating PharmaCare deductibles and keeping family maximums for

low-income families. This will help people get the prescription medications

they need but they are struggling to afford.

Education is another key area that has been neglected for far too

long. We all know that investing in our children means investing in our

future. That’s why, in Budget 2018, we are investing $2 billion over the

fiscal plan to maintain, replace, renovate or expand schools across B.C.,

from Surrey to Prince George. We are hiring more teachers, bringing our

total to about 3,700 new hires across the province to support our students.

We are also providing additional funding to address enrolment growth. Our

children deserve the best education from dedicated teachers and our teaching

assistants.

Budget 2018 also supports our Indigenous peoples. Our government is

committed to learning from and working with the Indigenous peoples as we

chart a path towards reconciliation. Advancing reconciliation is about

shared responsibility, and that’s why we will see support for Indigenous

peoples throughout this budget, including $158 million over three years for

housing; $30 million to continue the Indigenous skills training program; $16

million over two years for the First Nations Health Authority to support

mental health and wellness; $6 million over three years for Aboriginal

friendship centres; investments in the Head Start program, both on- and

off-reserve, in partnership with the federal government; and the creation of

a new Indigenous law program at the University of Victoria.

Budget 2018 also provides a historic and immediate $50 million

investment for the preservation and revitalization of Indigenous languages

in B.C. I think that is extremely important, because we know that every

culture is dependent on the language. If we don’t boost the language, that

culture dies. Our government takes that very, very seriously. Putting money

into the languages, I’m so proud to say, is something we all feel so great

about. Of the 34 First Nations languages in our province, eight are severely

endangered, and 22 are nearly extinct. This funding will flow immediately,

because there is no time to lose.

An area that I’m very, very passionate about is women who are fleeing

domestic violence. For far too long, support for women who are survivors of

violence has been lacking. In the fall, we invested $5 million to help

expand vital services such as counselling, outreach and crisis support. In

this budget, I’m so honoured that we are again standing with the survivors

of violence with a commitment to ongoing funding of $18 million over three

years to increase supports for them.

[3:35 p.m.]

As part of our comprehensive housing plan, we are also investing $141

million to support 1,500 new units for women and children fleeing domestic

abuse. That, I feel so proud about, having worked in this field

myself.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Knowing that when women are fleeing domestic violence, the challenges

they face when they are calling different crisis centres and when they don’t

have a place to go to — how hard it is for those women — these investments

will go a long way to help those vulnerable women.

We saw, in recent years, that cuts to legal aid and reductions in

family law services have left people without legal representation for far

too long. That’s why we are expanding legal aid, including Indigenous and

family law services, with a $26 million investment over the fiscal plan. We

are also investing $10 million over three years to fund new family dispute

resolution services and increase digital access to justice services to

better reach people all over the province.

In Budget 2018, there is support for people with disabilities. The

transportation needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens have been

ignored, dismissed, or worse, clawed back. That’s why we reversed the

previous government’s decision to claw back bus passes for people receiving

disability assistance. We are proud to invest $240 million over three years

so that people with disabilities can travel more freely in our communities.

Our action will help more than 100,000 people with disabilities connect with

the services they depend on.

We are also making ferries more affordable. This is something that I

know my parents would be very happy about. The ferry costs have skyrocketed,

putting coastal communities at a disadvantage. That is costly and unfair.

That’s why we are freezing ferry fares on all three major routes, rolling

back fares on small routes by 15 percent and restoring the

Monday-to-Thursday 100 percent fare discount rate for senior

passengers.

Both my parents being seniors, this was something they were feeling

personally hurt by. My son is studying at the University of Victoria, and

many times my parents wanted to come over to Victoria and see him, but

because of the ferry prices, they were not able to do that. But now, with

ferry prices being restored again — with the 100 percent fare discount — I

think they will get more opportunity to come and see their

grandson.

Talking about seniors, we know that seniors deserve to live full lives

without having to worry about the cost of housing or the quality of care in

assisted-living facilities. That’s why we are investing $548 million over

three years to improve support for our seniors, adding more specialized

primary care services for seniors, helping seniors stay in their homes

longer and improving the quality of care our seniors receive in residential

care homes. And 22,000 low-income seniors will benefit from the investments

in the rental assistance program known as SAFER.

I would now like to touch upon the investments in my own community of

Surrey. With Budget 2018, we see a lot of investments in the health care

sector. Fraser Valley cancer centre in Surrey is getting an expansion of

acute care unit chemotherapy, which is about $8 million. Surrey Memorial

Hospital’s in-patient psychiatric and seclusion room will get $460 million

from this budget.

[3:40 p.m.]

B.C. Housing is providing $50 million in capital funding for 50

transitional beds and 50 shelter beds for men and women who are homeless or

at risk of becoming homeless. This project is located at 14150 Green Timbers

Way in Surrey. B.C. Housing is also providing capital funding to new

Aboriginal housing developments through the provincial investment in

affordable housing program. The Elizabeth Fry Society of Greater Victoria is

receiving $1.3 million for a 15-unit project in Surrey, and the Kekinow

Native Housing Society is receiving $9.4 million for a 106-unit project in

Surrey.

The province is also providing capital funding of approximately $30

million for three modular housing projects, totalling 160 supportive housing

units, for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The modular

housing will be located at three sites, including 106th and King George

Boulevard, 135th and 105 Avenue, which is known as the tent city in Surrey.

The third site will be confirmed at a later date. The new homes will be

operated by the Lookout Housing and Health Society.

Our schools. As I mentioned, we have a big investment in education.

But in Surrey, which is the fastest-growing community in B.C., we are

getting a big expansion in education. We are getting a new secondary school,

Grandview Heights secondary; a new elementary school to provide 605 student

spaces, with Burke Road Elementary; another new elementary school, Regent

Road Elementary, which will provide 655 student spaces; Salish Secondary, a

new secondary school to provide 1,500 student spaces; Edgewood Drive

elementary, a new elementary school to provide 655 student

spaces.

For Pacific Heights Elementary, there is a 12-classroom addition to

provide up to 300 more student spaces in Surrey. Bear Creek Elementary will

get a seismic upgrade, same with the Mary Jane Shannon

Elementary.

In post-secondary education, Kwantlen Polytechnic University’s Spruce

Building replacement labs are worth $22 million in provincial funding in

this Budget 2018. Simon Fraser University will get a sustainable energy and

environment engineering building, which is worth $126 million — from our

provincial government. That will go a long way, with both SFU and Kwantlen

being such great institutions in my community of Surrey and getting this

funding.

Thanks to our Minister of Advanced Education, too, for promoting this

funding. Thank you so much, Minister.

Transportation is another key sector for which we are getting key

funding. Surrey Central station, which is one of the big SkyTrain stations

in Surrey, is going to get an upgrade. The project includes construction of

capacity, which will cost $24 million, from which $7 million will be

provincial funding.

Also, the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge, which is at the end of

its service life, with a new four-lane structure, was just announced last

week by the Premier. The cost is $1.377 million, inclusive of removal of the

existing structure. The completion is expected by the end of

South of Fraser rapid transit early works include the widening of Bear

Creek Bridge and utilities relocation, as well as upgrades to transit

exchanges at future LRT stations. Also in Surrey, the provincial courthouse

will be expanded. It’s a $34 million project, and it is also expected to be

completed by 2018-19.

In closing, I would just say that I’m so proud of this budget, which

is in contrast to the previous government’s commitments. While the services

were deteriorating, the previous government was doubling MSP and was

ignoring the fast-growing communities like Surrey, where students had to

study in portables and the funding for special education was

reduced.

[3:45 p.m.]

It is so good to see that this budget is keeping people as its focus.

Budget 2018 puts people first. It makes a historic investment to take care

of our children. It takes bold steps to tackle the housing crisis. It

invests in a record level of infrastructure to create jobs and spur economic

growth in every corner of the province. It adds value to our province and to

our future as a progressive society.

The investments that we are making have been carefully considered with

one thing in mind. That is that the actions we take today to build a better

future for British Columbians start by putting people at the centre of the

choices we make every day.

D. Davies: First of all, on behalf of my constituents of Peace River North…. I’ve

been waiting for a little while here to make my comments on this budget

debate. First of all, I want to take a moment to recognize my wife, Erin,

and my children Hana and Noel, who have both graciously lent me to my

riding, Peace River North, as well as to the people of British Columbia.

Without them and their support, I would not be here today. I certainly want

to send out a big thank-you to them.

I also want to send out a big thank-you to my constituency assistant

Tamara Wilkinson, who is always very busy, always waiting to look after the

needs of my constituents in my community. As well, I also want to recognize

my newest constituency assistant — today was her first day on the job — Kim

Eglinski. She is going to be serving the people of Fort Nelson in my newly

opened office in Fort Nelson. A big shout-out to them. Of course, everybody

in this place certainly works well and appreciates the work that our

constituency assistants do.

I plan to give some thorough analysis in what is contained in this

2018 budget because there are lots of people in my riding who are asking

questions about this budget and how it’s going to be affecting them. It’s

been just a little more than a week now since the NDP government released

their budget. We’ve had, now, a little bit of time to digest the details,

and we are getting a little clearer picture of how this is going to impact

British Columbians.

By any standard, the budget is a fairly important piece of legislation

for the life of any government, and this one is no different. As we’ve heard

often heard, as we hear from our parents, first impressions are very

important. Certainly for a newly elected government, they are under a lot of

pressure to satisfy high public expectations.

The NDP budget did start off fairly well, introducing some tax cuts.

They adopted a number of tax cuts from the former B.C. Liberal government in

2017, including the 50 percent reduction on MSP premiums, the small business

tax from 2.5 percent down to 2 percent, the elimination of PST on industry

electricity. Unfortunately, those appear to be the last tax cuts that

British Columbians will be seeing for a very long time.

When it was introduced by the B.C. Liberals in the 2017 budget, the 50

percent reduction in MSP premiums was supposed to represent a $1 billion tax

break to both individuals and companies that paid the MSP on behalf of

employees. But now the NDP wants that money back, because it is no longer a

complete tax break or tax savings. Unfortunately, they have cooked up a new

fandangled way to transfer these costs on to our private sector.

If anything, the 2018 budget did achieve an element of surprise. I’m

sure that many of us, certainly on this side, have received a lot of phone

calls from our business owners asking: what the heck? Just ask any small

business owner in this province about the shock they did receive when they

first heard about the NDP’s new employer health tax. Without any warning or,

really, any public consultation, the Finance Minister developed this tax to

hammer our private sector.

[3:50 p.m.]

In fact, on budget night, Iain Black, a very well-known person to

everybody in this room, president of Vancouver Board of Trade, immediately

responded by saying: “This is a hammer that came down, and we didn’t see it

coming.” Now companies large and small from across this great province are

starting to do the math and figure out that they are on the hook for a

massive bill and a very threatening bill. We’re talking about $4.2 billion

worth of revenue over the next four years. That’s a huge tax, just out of

the blue.

The Finance Minister is trying to defend the employer health tax by

setting a payroll threshold of $500,000. That means if your company is small

enough, perhaps ten employees, the government is letting you off the hook.

Well, a small shop, maybe like a plumbing shop…. I’m sure many of our

communities have plumbing shops, or similar shops, with five plumbers and

maybe a couple of staff people. They’re going to be nailed by this tax

because they would have a $500,000 employment payroll. See, $500,000 in

payroll isn’t really a lot. That affects many small business owners. It will

be hammering hundreds and hundreds of small businesses across this

province.

In fact, the Finance Minister says that 85 percent of businesses won’t

pay a thing. Well, we have a hard time believing that, as $4.2 billion worth

of tax revenue has to come from somewhere. It is really, though, I think

just the remaining 15 percent of the companies that might not pay a

thing.

It turns out that it’s not just the private sector, though, that is

going to be footing the bill. Non-profit organizations, service

organizations, social service organizations, even school boards and

municipalities, already trying to manage tight budgets of their own, are

going to be subject to this tax as well. In fact, yesterday during question

period, I asked the Education Minister about how school boards in our

province are going to cope with the millions of dollars of payroll tax that

they didn’t see coming.

It’s one thing to increase the education budget, but it’s quite

another to turn around and tax it all back. Ultimately, this is going to

mean — it has to mean — there’s a lot less money that is going to be going

into education — in fact, on top of what I can already see is no real new

commitments to the education budget.

But that’s not the worst part. What the Finance Minister doesn’t want

to tell you is this government intends to double-dip a new payroll tax. The

employer health tax comes into effect in 2019, but the government will

continue to charge the MSP premiums until 2020. So during that year of

overlap, the government is going to be reaping a $1.8 billion windfall by

double-dipping this MSP as well as collecting the health tax at the same

time. That’s a pretty neat accounting trick, if you ask me.

I can assure you companies large and small don’t appreciate the double

whammy. For example, again, a small business with an annual payroll of $1.5

million will be hit with the annual cost of $30,000 more in taxes. That is

quite a tax hike, an unfair tax hike, to come out of nowhere to our

businesses in British Columbia, and to lump the MSP premiums on top of that

is just plain not fair.

The small business community is already being hit with a 34 percent

increase in minimum wage over the next four years. In fact, here’s what Val

Litwin of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, a well-known individual to everybody

in this House, had to say. “When I look at the dogpile of increasing

corporate taxes, increasing minimum wage, loss of neutrality around the

carbon tax, and now we get to add a payroll tax, that is going to be leaving

businesses by 2021 footing an almost $2 billion bill.”

Litwin goes on to add: “By the time we reach 2021, the business

community is going to be picking up 70 percent of the tab. That is a lot.

That is too much. The impacts are real, and I think it will stifle growth

and investment in key sectors.”

There are plenty more tax increases that will stifle economic growth

in this province, the very growth that we need to grow this province. The

dramatic increase in carbon tax is going to hit the business community as

hard as it will hit consumers.

[3:55 p.m.]

Last fall the NDP announced that it would be increasing the carbon tax

and abandoning the very important principle of revenue neutrality. British

Columbians are going to be getting hit with this increase in tax on April 1.

This is not an April Fools’ joke. It’s a new tax coming to a wallet near

you.

Under the B.C. Liberals, revenue neutrality meant that governments

could not increase the carbon tax without a corresponding decrease in income

tax or some other form of tax. It didn’t increase the overall burden on

taxpayers, that is, until the NDP got a hold of the carbon tax last fall.

The new government is going to be increasing the carbon tax by $5 a tonne

each year for the next four consecutive years. That may not sound like very

much, but considering what it’s going to cost you every time you fill up

your gas tank….

In fact, prices at the pumps are going to go up about 8½ cents a litre

for gasoline and more than ten cents a litre in diesel. This means consumers

are going to be paying more than $5 extra in carbon tax every time they fill

up and nearly $10 if you drive an SUV. I’m going to get to the little

comments about electric cars and a cookie-cutter approach for transportation

needs in this province.

This is what the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says….

Interjections.

D. Davies: Wait for it.

“If you have two vehicles in your family, this means the carbon tax is

going to cost you about $360 a year just to drive your kids to school and

get yourself to work or to the grocery store.” In Peace River North, this is

much different, and this has a much larger….

Interjections.

D. Davies: It is not cheaper up there. The member across says gas is much

cheaper, and we should all drive electric cars in Fort St. John.

Born and raised in Fort St. John, I would love the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head to come to Fort St. John today and ride a bicycle around the

streets of…. I will pay for your flight to come up and ride your bicycle

around Fort St. John. I better watch myself. He might join our Blizzard

Bicycle Club that we have in Fort St. John, because they do ride their bikes

year-round.

On a serious note and, of course, this is all seriousness, people in

Fort St. John and the northeast corner will have a much larger impact when

it comes to carbon tax. There are many people that drive 30, 40 and up to an

hour just to drive their kids to school, to go get groceries, to attend

classes.

I can speak from experience. I attended Northern Lights College, a

fantastic college. I had the opportunity to meet the president last night.

You know, a great college in Fort St. John. I got my associate of arts

degree there, but I had to drive often to Dawson Creek just to get the

courses that I could get. That’s 80 kilometres that I was driving three,

four times a week to get the courses, in blinding snow. And I was not even

thinking about riding my bicycle. We are just talking the price of gasoline

and how it will affect our people that live in the interior of the

province.

The carbon tax is also going to hit homeowners whether you’re using

oil or natural gas. Again, in my riding and many ridings that are in the

interior of the province…. I’ll tell you. This winter, we have been locked

in at 20 to 30 degrees below zero pretty much since November. I don’t have a

choice to turn off my natural gas. I need to heat my home. I have to heat my

home. That is a fact. I’ll tell you. The fact is that it is going to hit me

very hard, in my family and my residents’ families, to have this extra

carbon tax that is no longer revenue neutral.

But that’s just on the consumer side. This government knows that it

can rake in a lot of money on fuel and taxes to business. But like it or

not, fuel is still a part…. And diesel is a big part of our economy, whether

you are talking buses, transit buses or rural people that still rely on

generators to get electricity. Tractors.

[4:00 p.m.]

Whenever the cost of this overhead increases in the private sector….

You know where that ends up, ladies and gentlemen? That ends up being taken

out of the pockets of the consumer. It’s not enough that the NDP is just

going to stick it to the people filling up at the gas pump. In the end, we

are all going to be paying more for just the basic necessities that we need

to get through our day-to-day lives.

It doesn’t stop there. Don’t take this wrong. I am not excited. But it

doesn’t stop there. This government isn’t required to tell British

Columbians how much money it’s raising by the carbon tax cash grab. It

doesn’t even have to report where the money is going to be used, whether

it’s going to fight climate change or pay for coffee. We don’t know where

that’s going to go. All of this money is just going to magically flow into

general revenue in the province. So that’s just two big tax

increases.

Interjection.

D. Davies: The hon. member across the way can have her chance later on, but it’s

my turn.

The surprise introduction of the employer health payroll tax, the NDP

plan to raise carbon taxes for the next four years…. If this all sounds a

little bit unfriendly to our consumers and the business community, well, you

are right. It absolutely is.

Interjection.

D. Davies: You took the words right out of my mouth, hon. member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head.

It doesn’t end there. Let’s talk about real estate. If you read the

Finance Minister’s budget speech, it sounds like the NDP is going to crack

down with some fairly punitive measures. They have the average homeowner in

British Columbia right in their sights.

However, market interventions can be a dangerous thing, especially

with some measures that have never been used or tested before. Any market

intervention could have some nasty unintended consequences. According to the

Finance Minister, the new annual speculation tax will crack down on foreign

and domestic speculators.

Now, there’s no mention exactly of what defines a foreign or domestic

speculator. British Columbia shares a very long border with our closest

neighbour, Alberta. I know this well because I represent a riding that has a

huge border that I share with Alberta in the northwest. In fact, we even

share the same time zone with our Alberta neighbours for half the year, just

in case you didn’t know that.

It’s not uncommon for a lot of Alberta residents to buy a vacation

property here in British Columbia where they can enjoy the mountains, the

coast, the Okanagan and maybe even Fort St. John. Let’s look at the example

here.

This is an example. Mark and Debra Hunter bought a rather modest

vacation home on Pender Island for $211,000 in 2012.

Interjections.

D. Davies: Yes.

This is where I take offence. I’ve heard a couple of members across

the way implying that we are protecting elitists. I’m sorry, but the Hunters

are not elitists. They’re hard-working people making hard choices and

buckling down. They’re investing in their children’s future. They’re

investing in their future. Shame on you for calling us protecting elitists.

I call that good old Canadian hard-work ethic.

The Hunters and their four children love their B.C. home, but now

they’re facing a punitive tax. Currently, they pay $1,800 in property tax,

but that’s going to balloon to nearly $9,000. According to Debra Hunter,

they’ve enclosed…

Interjection.

D. Davies: Member, they bought it in 2012.

…the fine so that it creates financial hardships on any owner that

isn’t a B.C. resident. By doing that, they’re forcing people to sell. So

essentially, it’s the deportation policy of financially ruining people so

that they have to sell their properties.

That begs the question: does a couple that owns a small cottage on a

Gulf Island really constitute a foreign threat? Are Albertans really

foreigners, let alone a threat? What about all the British Columbians

working and making a living in the Alberta oil and gas industry, commuting

back and forth between the two provinces? Are they foreigners? Don’t these

people…? I assume these people would have rights under the Canadian

constitution.

Now, we all know that this seven-month-old government is fairly

scrappy — we’ve seen it in this budget and some of the comments — but we

also know that they were quite quick to immerse British Columbia into a

trade war.

[4:05 p.m.]

We’re heading to court over a constitutional challenge against Alberta

and the federal government, but in terms of holiday properties, we are

talking about a good chunk of the tourism sector that relies on these

vacationers to come to British Columbia, live here and support our province,

just like the Hunters. Well, they are here to support local businesses. They

pay property taxes to the local government. They generally do boost our

provincial economy. And now we’re treating them like foreign invaders. That

is not the Canada that I know.

When the former B.C. Liberal government introduced a foreign buyer’s

tax, it did have a measurable effect on house sales for the short term, but

it did quickly rebound within a year. That pretty much indicates that the

influence of out-of-country buyers is really quite limited. Now we’re

demonizing other Canadians with homes here in B.C. that never were really

part of the rental housing stock. You are not going to lower the real estate

prices in Metro Vancouver by taxing the crap, or taxing the you-know-what,

out of people that have a small little cottage on Pender Island.

Interjection.

D. Davies: I withdraw my comment.

Average homeowners in British Columbia are also rather taken aback by

another recent comment by the Finance Minister. She stated that her

intention is to deliberately drive down the value of homes.

Deliberately drive down the value of homes. For a lot of middle-class

British Columbians, their house represents — like many people, probably,

here in this House — a big chunk…. One of their most valuable assets that

they have. We’re talking about people like myself, who have invested in a

home which is part of…. Apparently, I am an elitist.

Their retirement plan depends on the value of their home. And for

people that have just recently purchased a home, they could find themselves

under water pretty fast. And by under water, we’re talking about owning a

mortgage that exceeds the total value of your home.

Cameron Muir, the chief economist at the B.C. Real Estate Association,

says:

“I can’t imagine a government telling homeowners who bought a home in

the last year that we are purposefully trying to put you under

water.”

Mr. Muir went on to say:

“I’m fully in favour of having prices grow at a much lower rate.

Ideally, you would want home prices to grow at or near the price of

inflation. Perhaps a little bit less, so incomes can catch up over time. If

home prices were arbitrarily driven downward by a government policy, there

are large consequences to that in the marketplace, including builders

pulling back on production, so you’ll end up with another supply crunch down

the road, as well as impact the overall economy.”

Here’s what the Bank of Canada has to say: “We calculated in 2016 that

a 15 percent drop in housing prices would put one in eight mortgages in

Greater Vancouver under water, with a 25 percent drop, leading to one in

four mortgages in negative territory.”

We are talking about triggering — purposefully triggering — a

recession. On purpose. It sounds absolutely like something out of a horror

movie.

But the attack on homeowners doesn’t stop there. The Finance Minister

has admitted that there are a couple of campaign promises that are just too

expensive.

We’ve heard this already. I’m almost tired of saying it myself, and

it’s not even my campaign promise — $10-a-day child care. While we don’t

agree with it, there were lots of middle-class British Columbians that

bought into that and believed th