Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 14

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Statements

Achievements of lacrosse teams

Hon. J. Horgan

Hon. J. Darcy

A. Weaver

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

LNG industry

D. Davies

L’Arche Comox Valley supportive housing project

R. Leonard

Okanagan Forest Task Force

S. Thomson

Role of first responders

G. Begg

Response to wildfires in Kamloops area

T. Stone

Cancer awareness and Jail and Bail fundraising event

A. Kang

Oral Questions

Wildfires and reimbursements to emergency vendors

R. Coleman

Hon. M. Farnworth

Plateau fire and payments to contracted firefighters

C. Oakes

Hon. D. Donaldson

Budget priorities and tax increases

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

Attendance of Citizens’ Services Minister and Premier at

fundraising event

J. Johal

Hon. J. Sims

M. de Jong

Hon. J. Horgan

Participation by B.C. government in Kinder Morgan court

case

A. Wilkinson

Hon. D. Eby

Tabling Documents

Report required under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act for the period April 1, 2017, to July 17, 2017

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. B. Ralston

S. Thomson

Hon. G. Heyman

M. Morris

B. Ma

J. Rustad

A. Kang

L. Throness

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2017

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Statements

ACHIEVEMENTS OF LACROSSE TEAMS

Hon. J. Horgan: Many in this House will know that I was born a Victoria Shamrocks

fan and have been a diehard Shamrocks fan for as long as I can

remember.

Sadly, the Shamrocks season ended abruptly in Queen’s Park Arena

just a few short days ago. Prior to that game, I made a commitment to

the member for New Westminster that should my Shamrocks not prevail, I

would happily and gleefully don the Salmonbellie of New Westminster and

stand in this Legislature.

Of course, the Salmonbellies have a storied tradition in this

great province, and the iconic salmon on the jersey is well known to all

of us: 27 league championships, 41 playoff championships and a record 24

Mann Cups — the last one way, way, way, way back in 1991.

I am happy to be wearing this jersey particularly because it is a

game-worn jersey by one of the greatest lacrosse players Canada has ever

seen — hall-of-famer Wayne Goss, who played for 14 seasons for the

Salmonbellies. He was a Mann Cup champion. He was rookie of the year, a

three-time league MVP and one of the most decent people you’ll find

anywhere. So to be able to wear Wayne Goss’s jersey is an honour and a

privilege.

However, having said that, I want to conclude my remarks by saying

that the Salmonbellies are up on the Peterborough Lakers two games to

one. Game 4 goes tonight in the storied Queen’s Park Arena. Game 5 is on

Wednesday. If luck is at my back, I’ll be able to be there on Friday

night for game 6.

On behalf of the member for New Westminster and all of the fans of

the Salmonbellies around British Columbia, let’s all paint the town red.

Go, Salmonbellies!

Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you to the Premier, who is indeed a promise-keeper. He

promised at the Salmonbellies series that if the Salmonbellies won the

Western Lacrosse Association Championship, he would wear the jersey.

He’s doing that today. He’s having a little bit of trouble wearing it,

and he wants to get it off as quickly as possible. But I can tell you

that at every game I’ve been to since, they’re saying: “When is the big

guy going to be wearing our jersey?” He’s done that today. And now we’re

all cheering for the same team in British Columbia, the

Salmonbellies.

A. Weaver: I was going to rise on a point of order. I think that it was

inappropriate for the Premier to be wearing attire unbefitting of a

House in Victoria. I’m glad to see he has left to go and don a Shamrocks

jersey, which I’m hoping he’ll bring back in shortly.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Robinson: I notice that we have guests in the House today, and I’d like to just

acknowledge that Joyce Barrett is here in the House. She lives in my

neighbouring community of Port Coquitlam. I think it’s worthwhile to

acknowledge Joyce’s tireless work around child care. She has been an

incredible advocate for many, many, many years. She’s now

retired.

It was such a nice, delighted surprise to look up and to see her

smiling face. She has worked tirelessly to care for children and has really

been a strong advocate for making sure that children had access to safe,

quality child care. Thank you for being here, Joyce.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased we’re joined here in the chamber today by a constituent

and a supporter of mine. Mike Old is here. Mike, a friend, is the director

of communications for the Hospital Employees Union. He has worked hard and

dedicated his working life to making lives better for working people in

British Columbia. I hope everybody will make Mike welcome.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Joining us in the gallery today is Tristan Jones. Tristan started

yesterday as the executive assistant in my ministry. She’ll be based out of

the Smithers and Hazelton offices that I have. She lives outside of Smithers

in a rural area called the Driftwood. Would the members of this chamber

please welcome Tristan to the Legislature.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

LNG INDUSTRY

D. Davies: I rise today to talk about our province’s natural gas and LNG

industry. It’s an industry that provides great jobs and helps these

workers provide for their families.

LNG and its uncertain future is something talked about every day

in the coffee shops around my riding. For workers in the industry, LNG

means food on the table, heat in our homes, hockey lessons for our

children, good seniors care for the grandparents. It means viability for

so many of our northern communities.

LNG is currently trucked into the north, via Fort Nelson and Fort

St. John, to mines as an alternative fuel source to that of diesel. I

encourage the members of this House, whenever they get a chance, to

visit the thousands of people that already work in the natural gas and

LNG industry and the thousands more that wish to work in this industry.

Members of my community’s hearts were broken when we learned of the

cancellation of the largest private sector investment in Canadian

history. Some say that LNG doesn’t exist, but my communities depend on

it.

In addition to the facilities up north, Woodfibre LNG is a project

slated for construction in Squamish. Plus we have the Tilbury project in

Delta. Of course, there are the rest — the key sectors, the supplier

companies across the province, many of them in the Lower Mainland — that

support the LNG industry.

Non-profit organizations throughout my own riding work furiously

to rally people travelling to Ottawa and spreading the word about LNG.

I’d like to personally thank Mr. Alan Yu, chair of the FSJ for LNG, and

the people in Fort Nelson that have the FN for LNG for their tireless

work on rallying people and getting the facts out.

Let’s continue to get these projects to a yes. Let’s continue to

work with the proponents to get our resources to Asian markets so that

British Columbians can benefit from this resource and so that our global

climate can also benefit. We stood up for the LNG industry, and I hope

that this government will also stand up for this industry

too.

L’ARCHE COMOX VALLEY

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

PROJECT

R. Leonard: It is my privilege to rise today to speak of L’Arche Comox Valley

and its ambitious I Belong project to build six new units of supportive

housing for adults with developmental disabilities. It includes

important space for outreach and activities where people with diverse

abilities can build friendships and grow together.

L’Arche had a target of raising $800,000. I’m proud to say they

surpassed that amount, the lion’s share generously donated locally. They

have now raised $1.1 million. They are to be congratulated, because

after only three short years from when fundraising began, today I Belong

opened their doors.

I would like to acknowledge some of those who kept this boat

afloat and landed it so well: Christine Monier, the executive director;

Murray Presley, Robert Mulrooney and Paul Helpard, who jointly chaired

the successful fundraising committee; Tony Reynolds, former board chair;

and Frank van Gisbergen, the current chair of L’Arche Comox

Valley.

[1:45 p.m.]

Summing up the human value of this project are the words of Donna

Dukart, whose son Kevin will be living and thriving at I Belong. “We are

so reassured that Kevin has a home and community that can continue even

when we are not around. We know that Kevin is in a safe place, where

L’Arche and fellow residents will look out for him, and we can still be

involved. It is his home.”

A bouquet of flowers from a neighbour to the L’Arche newcomers on

the block reflects that living with — of doing with, and not doing for —

enriches all our lives. Today we celebrate, because we are a better

community for L’Arche’s vision.

OKANAGAN FOREST TASK FORCE

S. Thomson: I’m pleased to be able to rise today to talk about a great

volunteer organization in my community. I’ve had the opportunity to meet

with them on a number of occasions to learn of the work they do in

helping clean up our back country and recreational areas. The illegal

dumping of materials in our back country, off recreation roads and

forest service roads is a very significant problem, and one that

conservation officers and natural resource officers continue to address.

But the careless, thoughtless actions of individuals continue to plague

our back country and the enjoyment by responsible people.

The Okanagan Forest Task Force is a newly organized society made

up of a dedicated and growing group of individuals who commit time,

efforts and resources to cleaning up illegal dump sites off our back

country roads. Led by Kane Blake, a Kelowna landscaper and passionate

outdoorsman, this group organizes weekend events and excursions to

collect illegal dumping and garbage and remove it from area

forests.

From September 2016 to April 2017, Blake and his friends and

supporters have removed over 50 tonnes of material from our forests.

This group operates a Facebook page so that people can take pictures,

report the dumping and advise this group of the location of that illegal

dumping. This creates greater awareness of this growing problem and

allows the group to focus their efforts on the worst and most impactful

sites.

The Okanagan Forest Task Force has formed strong partnerships with

local organizations, like our local fish and game clubs and mountain

biking clubs, who share a similar passion for the outdoors. Local

businesses provide tremendous support to this group — companies like

Winn Rentals, who provided a Bobcat to assist their efforts. A.B.C.

Recycling lent them a magnet truck. RONA Kelowna donates shovels, rakes

and garbage bags. KHS Landscaping contributed landscaping crews, trucks

and trailers, and the regional district waived all dumping

fees.

Through all of these efforts, detrimental waste is now where it

should be: in the landfill, thanks to the efforts of these very

dedicated individuals. I want to applaud and acknowledge their efforts

and thank Kane and all of his members for their great work.

ROLE OF FIRST RESPONDERS

G. Begg: First responders from both sides of the border gathered yesterday

on our shared border to honour those who gave their lives to help others

during the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, and those who, 16

years later, continue to serve and protect both in their own backyard

and around the world. Police, firefighters, paramedics and other

citizens converged on the international border between Surrey and

Blaine, Washington, to remember those tragic events.

On that day, they did what first responders always do, and that’s

run to where help is needed. They don’t run from danger; they run into

danger. The terrible and tragic events of September 11 will never be

forgotten, and I am reminded of the everyday heroes amongst us in this

province who labour for us every day.

It’s timely, today, that we acknowledge and honour those men and

women in this province — firefighters, police officers, sheriffs,

conservation officers and paramedics — who have and continue to respond

to the unprecedented forest fire situation, men and women who have left

their families and the comfort of their homes to protect the lives and

properties of their fellow citizens.

We have all heard, sadly, of first responders here this summer who

have lost their own homes to fire while they fought to save the homes

and properties of others. Think for a moment of their dedication — that

purity of purpose, that answer to a noble calling that compels a person

to dedicate such efforts to the benefit of their fellow citizens. These

are British Columbians who, like you and I, when the need is greatest,

answer the call. Today I ask all members to join with me in

acknowledging and honouring them.

[1:50 p.m.]

RESPONSE TO WILDFIRES

IN KAMLOOPS

AREA

T. Stone: Today I am proud to acknowledge the empathy of many residents of

Kamloops who’ve stepped up this summer, in the way that each person

could, to support wildfire evacuees. We remain in the midst of the worst

wildfire season on record in British Columbia. At one point, 37,000 were

evacuated, and 15,000 of those were in Kamloops.

The Kamloops ESS centre, first located at Thompson Rivers

University then moved to the Sandman Centre, provided group lodging for

up to 500 people at a time. The Tk’emlúps Indian Band opened their

powwow grounds for people to park their RVs and use their facilities,

and they even provided the evacuees with three meals a day. Thousands of

evacuees were also housed in the homes of countless

Kamloopsians.

There were hundreds upon hundreds of volunteers, restaurants and

community organizations who made life just a little bit easier for those

during this time of extreme stress — people like Bernadette Siracky and

her team at the Kamloops Food Bank, which distributed thousands of

pounds of food that flooded into Kamloops from all over British Columbia

and Alberta — including truckloads from Fort McMurray, a heartwarming

act of paying it forward.

Danalee Baker and her team at the Thompson Nicola Cariboo United

Way launched United for B.C. Wildfire Recovery, a campaign to raise

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

and mental health supports, as well as rebuilding social infrastructure

to meet community needs once the fires recede and residents return home.

Bonnie McBride and the Four Paws Food Bank housed and fed hundreds of

dogs, cats and other animals. Ranchers like Doug Haughton opened their

property to house, feed and water other people’s livestock.

Seeing the people of Kamloops band together to help those in need

this summer has been inspiring. I applaud all of these Kamloops

volunteers for the compassion they demonstrated towards their fellow

British Columbians.

CANCER AWARENESS AND

JAIL AND BAIL FUNDRAISING

EVENT

A. Kang: It is an honour to rise today and raise cancer awareness to this

House, to my constituents and to the people across B.C. As the leading

cause of death in Canada, cancer is responsible for 30 percent of all

deaths. It is estimated that in 2017, approximately 80,000 Canadians

will die from cancer. As recently as two weeks ago, my friend’s father

passed away from a hard-fought battle with lung cancer. I stand here

today to encourage your continued support for cancer awareness, improved

cancer treatment and life-saving cancer research.

I am turning my passion into action by participating in a Jail and

Bail event in partnership with the local RCMP in Burnaby and the

Canadian Cancer Society, as part of the Cops for Cancer program in which

law enforcement and emergency service personnel from across the province

cycle up to nine days and over 8,000 kilometres to raise funds for

cancer services and research.

With the help of our trusted RCMP officers, I will be arrested.

Yes, I will be arrested at my constituency office, taken to a temporary

jail cell — formerly at Metrotown, but now it’s taking place at Lougheed

Town Centre — and I will stay there until I have fundraised for my

pledge amount of bail, which is the cost of sending one child to Camp

Good Times, a camp which provides a caring space for kids and families

affected by childhood cancer.

I hope many of you who find this very entertaining — seeing me get

arrested — will be there when I go to jail for good — a good cause, that

is.

I would like to extend gratitude to the Canadian Cancer Society,

all of our local RCMP members, community leaders, volunteers and

supporters for making this event happen. The Jail and Bail event starts

at 10 a.m. this Friday, September 15, on the west side of Lougheed Town

Centre by the Safeway. For those who are interested and available,

please donate to me, and come and bail me out.

Oral Questions

WILDFIRES AND REIMBURSEMENTS

TO EMERGENCY

VENDORS

R. Coleman: Yesterday we heard a disturbing narrative from the Minister of

Forests. According to his logic, unless an MLA reaches out on a daily

call or complains about something, people like Harold’s Restaurant in

Kamloops aren’t getting paid — or won’t be paid.

[1:55 p.m.]

I’ve owned a small business, and I know what it’s like to meet

payroll every month. I also know that it’s tough to run a business when

you have accounts receivable that take too long to be paid. Once it goes

past 30 days, the bank will give you 50 cents on the dollar. They start

asking for personal guarantees. They ask for assignment of the value of

your home. Margins can be tight. People get stressed. But the first job

of a small business person is to pay their payroll to their

employees.

Can the Premier explain to this House why small businesses and

hard-working families they represent, who have been out there helping to

give services to people at risk from fires and suffering from the

fires…? Why isn’t this government paying them, and why can’t they get

their act together?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The fact of

the matter is that in this unprecedented fire season, the government is

paying its bills to small business right across this province. There has

been more than $200 million so far this fire season paid out to small

businesses and contractors right across British Columbia who have been

providing services to those who have been dealing with the fires in our

communities.

In terms of the issue the minister specifically raised, the number

of staff that government has increased, which is normally one…. We’re

operating, Leader of the Opposition, on the system that your government

had in place. We’ve increased the number of staff to 50. They are

dealing with those issues on a day-to-day basis.

There is an unprecedented number of receipts there. They are

working on getting that backlog. But let’s be clear. Those businesses

are getting paid, and they will get paid. The fact of the matter is that

to say they’re not is just wrong.

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

supplemental.

R. Coleman: Well, let me tell something to the member opposite, and that is, I

was the minister responsible for his role in 2003, and I never had a

single complaint from anybody in British Columbia that wasn’t getting

paid. Harold’s Restaurant is still owed $40,000. They’re a small

restaurant in Kamloops taking vouchers to feed the very people you’re

evacuating, going through your evacuation centres. They haven’t been

paid. That’s not acceptable.

Two hundred million out of a $600 million fire season. I’ve got to

ask: where is the rest of the money for the other small businesses that

are still waiting to be paid in British Columbia? You’re government now.

You’re not just accountable to your constituents. You’re also

accountable to the constituents of Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile

House, Ashcroft and other communities where people have stepped up on

behalf of British Columbians.

I want to know: will you like to pay these people or not? If you

don’t want to pay them and you’ve got the cheques ready, give them to my

MLAs. We’ll courier them for you this afternoon.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, it’s a bit rich, listening to the Leader of the Opposition

complain about what’s happened today, when we’re dealing with a system

that has been in place by his government for the last 16 years. The fact

of the matter is…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the Chair will hear the comment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …that Harold’s Restaurant has already received $7,500. There’s

another $12,500 in the midst of being processed.

But let’s be clear. We are dealing with a system for this kind of

management put in place by this government, and one of the things we

learned that we will be dealing with when this crisis is over is moving

it into the 21st century. We are dealing with a system based on vouchers

when the Red Cross deals with it digitally. There are 50,000 forms alone

in Kamloops that were filled out every three days by people wanting to

get assistance from this government. The ministries have been trying to

get it digitized, but for 16 years, that lot over there ignored

it.

Small business are going to get paid, and they’re going to get

paid as quickly as possible.

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

supplemental.

[2:00 p.m.]

R. Coleman: The member is right. We built the B.C. emergency management

system, with a team synced with bureaucrats across the province that go

in and work immediately to save people, so well that 37,000 people were

evacuated safely from their homes during the worst fire season in the

history of British Columbia. That system of emergency management works

very well in this province. But I do know that one thing from being in

that member’s position at one time is that the accountants aren’t out

there fighting the fires, so they can sit down and pay the

bills.

Even if you give Harold’s Restaurant the next $12,500, they’re

still owed over another $20,000. Why don’t you give it all to them, or

are you just going to wait till they go broke? Hon. Member, step up and

pay the bills on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This government is stepping up, is paying the bills and is going

to ensure that we have a better system in the coming years than what

this government left. We’ve had….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the Chair will hear the response.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The folks at emergency management B.C. have done an amazing job.

They’ve done amazing work, but one of the challenges they face is that

we are on a paper-based system that this government didn’t reform or

change once in 16 years. The Red Cross moved to an electronic system

some time ago.

We are dealing with an unprecedented situation in this province

that resulted in an unprecedented number of not only claims but of forms

that are being checked, when this government only had one individual in

the office to deal with it — one person. There are now 50 people dealing

with the forms and the claims. Those claims are being processed as

quickly as possible. More than $200 million has already gone out, and

when issues are identified and brought to our attention, they are dealt

with as quickly as possible. As I’ve said, the system is working. It is

going to be improved. It is going….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Member, the fact of the matter is that you stood in

this House yesterday and said that Harold’s has already received $7,500.

There is another $12,500 coming on the way, and the system for payment

is going to be improved. After 16 years, these guys were stuck in the

past, and we’re going to make sure it’s digitized and moved into the

future.

PLATEAU FIRE AND PAYMENTS

TO CONTRACTED

FIREFIGHTERS

C. Oakes: Yesterday the Forests Minister chose not to answer my specific

question about Nazko Economic Development Corp. We’re going to try this

again today. They’re owed half a million dollars for their courageous

assistance in fighting wildfires. They’ve had to make special

arrangements to meet payroll. This is an incredibly serious situation.

We heard that the minister in fact met with them last week, so he knows

the seriousness of the situation. If they are not paid what is owed to

them by this government, their business will not survive past September.

They will not be able to work on the Plateau fire.

A simple question, once again, to the Minister of Forests: when

can Nazko Economic Development Corp. expect to be paid?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to make special note of the fact that all people in this

province pull together in emergency situations like we are witnessing in

the province right now with this unprecedented fire season. The people

that have pulled together are the professionals under the B.C. Wildfire

Service, the volunteers, the emergency responders and, as well, the

contractors. There have been over 800 contractors providing services

during the wildfire season.

[2:05 p.m.]

As has been noted, we’ve made over 50 staff available to work on

the invoices to reduce the backlog and get these payments to contractors

and local businesses. I want to thank — and I know the members on the

opposite side, as well, want to thank — the public service in their

great role they’re doing in the wildfire situation.

As far as the Nazko Economic Development Corp., a bill of $500,000

is for falling services, camp services, fuel and sundry. To date,

$170,000 has been paid, with the remainder being processed and to be

paid shortly.

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

C. Oakes: Thank you, but shortly doesn’t cut it. This is one of the most

significant employers in our region. They jumped to the call when people

needed them, and they deserve better. Over half a million dollars in

outstanding invoices from this government — what kind of message does

this send to contractors who are fighting these fires across British

Columbia? Nazko did their part. Now it’s time for the government to do

theirs.

Will the minister commit, before this House, to fast-track their

invoices to ensure that they’re able to keep their business

running?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to thank all the contractors who have helped out on the

fire season, including Nazko Economic Development Corp.

The member might not have heard me properly — that $170,000 of the

$500,000 has been paid out, so there isn’t $500,000 outstanding. We’ve

processed, just this past weekend, within the Wildfire Service, over

1,000 invoices, and of the 12,974 invoices paid, 10,567 have been paid

within 30 days and 2,407 over the 30 days.

We value the work of the contractors, and we’re going to be paying

them promptly.

BUDGET PRIORITIES AND TAX INCREASES

S. Bond: Yesterday it was great to hear the Minister of Finance acknowledge

the strength of the B.C. economy, to acknowledge the strength of the

province’s balance sheet and, for the first time, probably, in living

memory, to acknowledge that the cupboards were even more full than the

previous government was able to talk about during the writ. The minister

and her government are the envy of the country with the fiscal

circumstances they have inherited.

My question to the Minister of Finance is a simple one. Why has

she chosen, in her first budget update, to dismantle the very structure

that generated these economic accomplishments — most pointedly, by

raising taxes by almost $1 billion over the next three years?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for my first question in question period

as a minister. I very much appreciate it. And I really appreciate the

opportunity to talk about how proud I am to have tabled our budget

yesterday….

It is long past time that the people of this province had a

government that put them first, a government that made sure to invest in

people and a strong economy — not either-or. That’s the kind of change

that the public is going to see with our side of the Legislature.

They’re going to see a government that invests in people to help build

that strong economy.

If we take a look at the specific taxes that have been increased,

it will be no surprise that we are keeping our commitments and keeping

our promises to make the tax system fair, to ensure that everyone

contributes to benefit from all the programs and services we have in

British Columbia.

[2:10 p.m.]

S. Bond: To the Minister of Finance: I think what the people of British

Columbia saw you put first yesterday was actually $1 billion tax

increase over three years. I’m not sure how that puts the people of

British Columbia first.

If there was ever a time a new government shouldn’t be having to

raise taxes, it’s now, when the treasury is full. But it doesn’t

surprise me, and it probably doesn’t surprise many British Columbians,

because the NDP remains ideologically driven. They simply cannot help

themselves. They spend, and they raise taxes to pay for it. We know

this: there is more to come.

To the minister, just how does she reconcile acknowledging the

strength of the economy, on one hand, yet her first act is to extract

billions of tax dollars out of the pockets of individuals and businesses

in British Columbia?

Hon. C. James: It’s a bit rich coming from the other side, who increased fees,

who increased costs and who reduced services for families and people in

this province for 16 years. Tuition fees more than doubled. MSP premiums

up. Hydro rates up. I haven’t even mentioned ICBC and the mess that the

B.C. Liberals left ICBC in.

I am, once again, incredibly proud of a budget that invests in

people, that invests in a strong economy, that will improve the services

that the public expects and deserves in this province. They will now

have a government that will do just that.

ATTENDANCE OF

CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER AND

PREMIER AT FUNDRAISING EVENT

J. Johal: Last Wednesday in Surrey, the Minister of Citizens’ Services, in

the spirit of the new government’s openness, organized an event where

prominent people forked over up to $5,000 per plate to meet the Premier.

She also brought along Geoff Meggs, the Premier’s newly minted chief of

staff, to this invitation-only, access-the-Premier event.

Who did the minister extend these exclusive invitations to?

Maninder Gill, a man who was convicted of a 2010 shooting outside a Sikh

temple, and Jawahar Padda, a man facing firearm charges.

A question to the minister: How does the Minister of Citizens’

Services explain this new openness to meeting government

ministers?

Hon. J. Sims: Thank you for your question.

I was at a private event, and I was not aware of the full guest

list. I was not aware that Maninder Gill would be in attendance. Anyone

who knows me understands that I abhor violence. I have spent my

life…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, once again, we will hear the response.

Hon. J. Sims: …fighting against violence of all types. This man was convicted of

a very serious crime that I do not condone in any way. He should not

have been there.

J. Johal: A fundraiser is a fundraiser. I’m not sure why this member doesn’t

understand that.

The Premier has been pleading ignorance and claims he didn’t know

who was on the guest list, but the Minister of Citizens’ Services was

fully aware. In fact, Mr. Gill and the Minister of Citizens’ Services

seem to have a bit of history. She awarded Mr. Gill a diamond jubilee

back in 2013 and was forced to apologize after the fact. The minister

even tried to claim back then that she was unaware of the criminal

charges against Mr. Gill.

Well, the minister can’t deny knowing about the charges now, and

she can’t deny not knowing who was on the guest list. Did the minister

fail to inform the Premier she had arranged a cash-for-access meeting

with a convicted criminal? Or did she inform him, and he attended

anyway?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: I was not aware of the full guest list of this private event at a

supporter’s house.

Anyone who does know me…. As a teacher and being a mother and

grandmother, I have been a passionate advocate for finding peaceful

solutions. I do not condone any kind of violence, and this person should

not have been there.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader for the Opposition and member for Abbotsford

West.

Member, there are no props.

M. de Jong: The member looked awfully aware. Look, this is the party that was

dripping with sanctimony on this issue. Day after day, week after week,

they came in here speaking about this issue. Not only are they now

ramping up their own cash-for-access program; the minister seems to be

at the forefront of the new cash-from-convict program.

I’m trying to imagine how this goes. You bring someone in, and you

sit them down next to the guy who’s been convicted of shooting someone

and say: “It’s time to ante up.” Is that how it works?

The question for the minister is simple. How should people have

any confidence whatsoever in the minister’s judgment when she engages in

this behavior that is hypocritical in the extreme and falls dramatically

short of any standard of conduct that people are entitled to expect of a

minister of the Crown?

Hon. J. Sims: As I said earlier, I was not aware of the full guest list. No

money has been donated by that man to the NDP. I abhor violence and any

who take

part in it, and he should not have been there.

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

M. de Jong: I’m trying, honestly, to reconcile what the minister is saying

with the photograph I have of her smiling face standing next to the

individual in question. She certainly does not appear to be someone

offended by his presence at the event.

What worries me, candidly, is that these are the early days of a

new government, and I expect that they are on their best behaviour.

That’s what worries me, actually. Candidly, I would have thought that

they would have been super sensitive to this issue because, remember,

this is the party with a sordid history of linkage between criminality

and fundraising.

I do, however, want to give the Premier the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe I won’t do it often, but I’m going to do it today and accept the

fact that his hapless minister did not inform him of what he was walking

into.

But I’m also going to ask him this. In order to preserve any ounce

of credibility on this issue, will he stand up in the House today and

confirm that he has given the order to return all of moneys that were

raised at this little roundup at the O.K. Corral?

Hon. J. Horgan: I want to thank very much the minister, a QC, for the

question.

[2:20 p.m.]

I did attend a private dinner at a home in Surrey last week. I was

unaware of the participants, aside from the mayor of Surrey and a

handful of councillors who I was having an opportunity to meet and talk

about making life better for the people who live south of the Fraser —

taking tolls off the Port Mann Bridge, for example, so life will be

better for people on that side of the House.

I had an opportunity to talk to the mayor of Surrey about getting

7,000 kids out of portable classrooms that have been building up on the

watch of the government on the other side. I had an

opportunity….

If there’s a member on the other side of the House who’s never had

their picture taken with people they don’t know, please stand up now. I

see there are none. We were at a private home. I knew not the guest

list. I attended….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we will hear the Premier’s response.

Hon. J. Horgan: If only they actually cared about the answer. I think the good

news for all British Columbians is that the people that used to be over

here are growing quite comfortable over there hectoring and

braying.

I took advantage of an opportunity, not at a fundraiser but to

meet with business leaders in Surrey that are well known to many over on

that side and with the mayor of Surrey to talk about making life better

for British Columbians.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: If you really care about the answer, then pipe down. If you want

to just yell, I’ll take my seat.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I’ll take my seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I’m relatively new here, but I learned very early, as a

child, that it’s important to listen when somebody is

speaking.

PARTICIPATION BY B.C. GOVERNMENT

IN KINDER MORGAN COURT

CASE

A. Wilkinson: The credibility of our province and of the government of British

Columbia depends upon the quality of work done by the lawyers acting for

the province of British Columbia. We all know that the decisions of the

courts have a profound influence on investor confidence, on our

relationship with the federal government and on the people of British

Columbia.

On August 29, the Federal Court of Appeal issued written decisions

in the Kinder Morgan litigation about B.C.’s intervention in that case.

That case has a profound effect on thousands of families across this

province and on jobs and investment throughout British

Columbia.

Now, courts are normally very reluctant to criticize parties in

front of them, yet the federal court felt obliged to say: “British

Columbia does not appear to understand the basic ground rules of the

complex proceeding it is seeking to enter.” The federal court made it

perfectly clear that British Columbia’s representation at that hearing

had no idea what it was doing in the Kinder Morgan lawsuit. This is an

embarrassment for every member of this House, as demonstrated by how

quiet this room is right now.

This is nothing short of a strategic blunder in internationally

significant litigation. Will the Attorney General stand in this House

today and apologize to the people of British Columbia for this shameful

and amateurish performance in the Federal Court of Appeal?

Hon. D. Eby: I’d like to begin by thanking the member for the question. It’s a

privilege to be up on my feet as the chief law officer for the province,

as the Attorney General. It’s a great honour to be here, and I thank him

for the question.

The Federal Court of Appeal hearing is one of three hearings that

is reviewing a couple of decisions around the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

The Federal Court of Appeal hearing is about the federal National Energy

Board decision, and there are two matters at B.C. Supreme Court related

to the provincial decision.

What is startling to me as Attorney General is taking over the

file from this government and finding out that there was a matter at the

Federal Court of Appeal involving British Columbia’s interests on a very

important project that has serious consequences for British Columbians

and finding that there had been no application to intervene in that

hearing to defend British Columbians’ interests. And then to have this

member stand up and blame us for being late to the table on an

intervention that they should have brought when they were in

government…. They didn’t show up to defend British Columbia’s

interests.

[2:25 p.m.]

Now, I absolutely will not apologize for instructing counsel, for

retaining counsel — esteemed counsel, respected across British Columbia

and Canada — to represent British Columbia’s interests in this hearing

and in every hearing that affects British Columbians’

interests.

[End of question period.]

Hon. C. James: I ask leave to present a report.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. James: I respectfully present the report required under the Balanced Budget

and Ministerial Accountability Act for the period April 1 to July 17,

Orders of the Day

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

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

S. Bond: I was very pleased, yesterday, to have been able to respond very

directly to the Minister of Finance and the budget update that she provided.

I want to continue to make some additional remarks this afternoon. I know

that there are many members in the House that are anxious to speak, so I

don’t intend to take a great deal of time this afternoon.

I did want to walk through some of the…. We’ve had a chance to take a

closer look at the numbers, and I think it’s important we have a

conversation about those. When you look at the budget update that was

presented yesterday, in many ways, it is the official launch of the mandate

of the NDP government, supported, of course, by their coalition partners in

the Green Party.

I think it is important to take some time to analyze the budget and

the throne speech. It’s very critical we do that. It really is the chance

for the government to lay out not only its vision for British Columbia but,

indeed, how British Columbians are going to be asked to pay for

it.

It’s also important to hear from all parties represented in the House.

I know that a number of critics on this side of the House will be speaking

and will be bringing forward specific issues related to their particular

portfolios. I’m absolutely certain that there will be some fantastic input

from both sides of the House today.

We heard a little bit about that in question period today. One of the

things that we can agree on — or, at least, I hope we can — is the starting

point for this government’s fiscal strategy. I want to remind everyone, as I

did yesterday, that earlier in the year the previous Minister of Finance

outlined for British Columbians what he anticipated the fiscal circumstances

for the province would be.

The process is, then, that the Auditor General of British Columbia

audits the fiscal results, and they’re released so British Columbians can

see, in a very transparent way, what the current state of the economy is.

The process and the accuracy of the information are confirmed by the Auditor

General.

[2:30 p.m.]

The now Finance Minister released the audited public accounts

statements. In fact, what we found was exactly what we had said was going to

happen. The fiscal circumstances that our Finance Minister had talked about

were confirmed by the Auditor General. Our fiscal circumstances, the hard

work of British Columbians, resulted in a budget surplus of $2.7

billion.

In her presentation at that time, the presentation of the audited

public accounts, the Finance Minister agreed that British Columbia’s economy

was strong and, in fact, leads the country. She actually laid out some

excellent information in the PowerPoint that she presented on that day. When

we look at what it does, it paints a very robust economic circumstance in

British Columbia. The annual surplus for 2016-2017, as has been noted, was

$2.7 billion.

One of the things that I think is most interesting…. I very much

appreciate the comments about building a better B.C. and making sure we’re

taking care of British Columbians. But I think being accurate about what’s

happened over the last number of years is actually important.

This morning I heard one of the ministers, as he responded to the

throne speech, talk about the spending pattern of this government related to

education, for example. Well, interestingly enough, in the public accounts,

the Auditor General confirmed that program spending that occurred in

2016-2017 actually went up by 4.1 percent. That’s not insignificant. If you

look at the spending through a number of ministries, health programs

spending increased by $486 million, or 2.5 percent.

This morning the minister talked about funding for education. While

certainly British Columbians made it clear to every member of this House

that they wanted to see additional funding assigned to key priority areas

like education and health care, to suggest there hasn’t been funding

provided to the Ministry of Education and for education programs is simply

not true. The audited public accounts point out, according to the minister’s

own PowerPoint, that spending on education increased by $256 million, or 2.1

percent. In fact, spending on social programs increased by $137 million, or

3.3 percent.

It’s important that we get the context right. I wanted to reiterate

some of the numbers because this is the benchmark, this is the starting

point for the NDP government in terms of their fiscal record in British

Columbia.

We look at some of the other facts that were outlined in the public

accounts. Taxpayer-supported capital debt spending of $3.7 billion for

improvements to education, health care and other capital infrastructure. To

suggest we weren’t building in British Columbia, supporting programs, again

is not accurate.

Taxpayer-supported debt is 15.9 percent. That’s an important number to

remember. As we begin to monitor and hold the government accountable for,

first of all, this budget update, but a full budget that will appear in

February, we have to remember that number. Our taxpayer-supported debt to

GDP is 15.9 percent. That was a reduction from the forecast in the budget of

17 percent.

Here’s a statistic that’s going to matter a great deal in the days

that lie ahead. The provincial GDP grew by 3.7 percent. That is the highest

rate among provinces and better than the national average of 1.3

percent.

British Columbia is experiencing an incredibly robust economic

circumstance. It was confirmed by the Auditor General when the public

accounts were released. I think it is important. It is important for British

Columbians that there be an accurate portrayal of that as we talk about what

comes next. And as is no surprise to anyone on this side of the House, what

comes next will be determined by the new government, their coalition

partners. Our job is to hold them accountable for the spending that they

intend to do.

Other factors that are absolutely essential when we look at the

Finance Minister and the work that she’s going to do with her colleagues

over the next number of years…. We have a triple-A credit rating. We’ll talk

more about that later. But I can tell you that very few people think that

having a triple-A credit rating is an exciting headline, until you don’t

have one.

[2:35 p.m.]

We’ll talk a little bit about the risks. We certainly do see risk in

this budget update. We see risks that may well impact our triple-A credit

rating. It is always fantastic to be able to stand in this House and around

the province and talk about supports for families, important program

investments. Nobody really wants to hear about the triple-A credit rating

until you realize that if we receive a credit downgrade, it means that money

that is so important for programs, for all of the things that have been

mentioned by the NDP government, will go to service debt.

We are concerned that we are beginning to see that risk increase with

the budget update that’s been tabled. We’ve also tabled five consecutive

balanced budgets. I’m sure that the Finance Minister, even in this short

period of time, has recognized how difficult that is, and I’m going to talk

a little bit more about that later. In fact, in order to balance this

budget…. There are a number of significant commitments that have not been

addressed in this budget, some very signature commitments that this

government made that I think British Columbians are going to want some

answers about.

A fifth consecutive balanced budget was confirmed. In fact, we’re also

a leading job creator in Canada. Of significant concern to us is the fact

that this budget assumes — yes, assumes — that the economic performance

confirmed by the Auditor General will be repeated. That is an assumption on

which this government based their budget.

Now I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they didn’t stop there. In

fact, they built in additional spending commitments based on that

assumption. British Columbia today has the leading economy in the country.

Why should we be concerned? Because there’s a long list of risks that will

impact the assumptions in this update. If we’re starting with those

assumptions in the update, we still have to see a full budget in

February.

Let’s look at some of those risks. They are not insignificant. So to

simply pass them off as “we’ll manage this….” We’re talking about the

softwood lumber agreement, NAFTA — not small issues; not local, regional

issues — enormous issues that could impact the assumptions in this budget.

Let’s talk about global economic uncertainty. Uncertainty is a word you’re

going to hear a lot about, because today in British Columbia, if you ask the

business community how they’re feeling, there is a great deal of

uncertainty. Interest rates. I’m going to talk a little bit about those in a

moment. The list goes on.

Perhaps the biggest risk we face is the number of promises —

important, expensive promises — that are not reflected anywhere in this

budget update. Yes, there will be a full budget in February, but the fact of

the matter is this: any room that has been created by the number one economy

in Canada has already been used up. How will the Finance Minister meet the

commitments that this government made to British Columbians? I know that

it’s tempting to look at that as being a critical approach by this

government. Hardly.

British Columbians were told that this government — this new

government, a coalition government — was going to bring a significant number

of expensive programs. The other thing I think is really important to say

today…. I heard it in some comments earlier. One of the members opposite

talked about…. We talked about programs being too expensive because we don’t

care about those kinds of programs; they don’t matter to us. Nothing could

be further from the truth. In fact, they matter so much that it’s about

making tough choices. It’s about figuring out how you can maintain the

number one economy in this country and care for British Columbians at the

same time.

[2:40 p.m.]

What’s most important? They deserve to know how the members opposite

intend to pay for those promises. How will the Finance Minister meet the

commitments that this government has made to British Columbia? How will she

pay for all of this, particularly in the complete absence of a plan to grow

the economy or to create well-paying, family-supporting jobs? Yes, there was

some reference to an innovative economy, or we’re going to have an

innovation council. I live in a part of the province where growing a

sustainable resource sector is absolutely essential to the people where I

live and to the economy of this province.

Those questions are not insignificant. Where is the focus on growing

the economy, a sustainable resource development that creates well-paying,

family-supporting jobs? I’ve learned this in my time, both in my family and

here in the Legislature. There are only a certain number of ways that you

can find revenue to pay for investments in important programs and services.

You can grow the economy. Frankly, we see no plan for that. You can

reallocate funding from other programs or services. We’ve seen some changes

here, but there’s likely more to come. Or you can borrow, and you can raise

taxes.

I don’t think it takes a great deal of research to figure out what

British Columbians can expect from this government in the days and months

ahead. Following the release of the budget update yesterday, a number of

commentators have observed that the current state of the provincial economy

couldn’t get much better. B.C.’s real GDP growth numbers for 2016 illustrate

that our provincial economy grew by an estimated 3.7 percent, exceeding the

Economic Forecast Council prediction of 2.7 percent in the 2016 budget

announced last February.

As a matter of fact, the current minister is budgeting for just 2.9

percent growth for each of the next four years. Think about that. The

programs, the plans and the budget that we laid out were based on economic

growth of 3.7 percent, exceeding the Forecast Council prediction of 2.7.

This budget — all of its promises, all of the things that are being expected

to be paid for — is based on an assumption of 2.9 percent.

The minister is also scaling back economic growth to just 1 percent

over the next three years. While these are prudent and certainly

conservative assumptions to make in the budgeting process, it reemphasizes

the fact that this government has no plan to grow the economy. It also begs

the question: why is the government taking such an aggressive approach to

spending? In other words, the current minister realizes, I hope, that she

will very likely never have this much room to manoeuvre with again in a

budget, other than the one she tabled yesterday.

We’ve had a chance to look at the numbers. I want to look at a couple

of the programs that were announced yesterday. I also want to look at the

election promises that appeared in the NDP campaign platform but did not

surface in the budget update. Why does that matter to the Finance critic? It

matters because if at some point the government intends to meet those

commitments, somehow they’re going to have to figure out how to pay for

them. Because it is not reflected in the budget update, the prognosis…. The

minister herself spoke about retail spending and a number of other factors,

in fact, being status quo, if not dropping. So at a time when you have the

most robust economy, a volatile economic market…. We have NAFTA. We have

softwood lumber. We have a massive spending plan with no way to pay for

it.

The Minister of Finance made it clear. She wants to make life more

affordable for British Columbians. No matter how many times we listen to

members on the other side of the House, it is something that actually

matters to every person in this Legislature.

The minister has indicated that banks are warning about the dangers of

interest rate hikes. We didn’t even talk about the impact of potential

interest rate hikes and how this will affect British Columbia’s capacity to

carry increased spending.

[2:45 p.m.]

Let’s look at what has happened just recently. In July, Canada’s

central bank delivered the first increase to interest rates in seven years.

Earlier this month, the Bank of Canada raised the rates once again. While it

was only a quarter of a percentage point, from 0.75 percent to 1 percent,

the bank is already sending signals that we can expect other interest rate

hikes, potentially in October.

Because of the tremendous impact that even a quarter of a percentage

point can have on a provincial budget, I want to put the Minister of Finance

on notice. In estimates, we’ll have a great chance to discuss this. How much

does a 0.25 percent increase in interest rates cost the provincial treasury,

and what risk does it bring to the budget update?

To be sure, interest rates are not the only hikes. The interest rate

hikes not only affect government, but they affect consumers as well.

Everything from variable-rate mortgages to credit cards will get more

expensive. So, too, will the capacity of consumers and taxpayers to absorb

the government’s proposed tax hikes, amounting to nearly $ billion over the

next three years.

From the taxpayer’s perspective, this budget update is going to make

life a bit more challenging to afford, because the minister also plans to

abandon the law governing the revenue neutrality of the carbon

tax.

It’s important to talk about these individual initiatives. Under our

previous government, any increase to the carbon tax would automatically

trigger a reduction in another form of taxation to protect British

Columbians. However, this budget has made it clear that the government will

no longer abide by the principle of carbon tax revenue neutrality for the

next four years. This means consumers and taxpayers will feel the increase

not only at the gas pump but when they heat their house in the

winter.

The change will see the carbon tax increase by 40 percent over the

next three years and pull an estimated $500 million out of the pockets of

taxpayers with no direct revenue neutrality — in other words, no direct

benefit back to that consumer. That doesn’t sound like it’s making life more

affordable.

It’s also important to note that one of the things that British

Columbia’s carbon tax was recognized for was the principle of carbon

neutrality. In fact, it was recognized globally, and it was set as a model

for others to consider when you look at the effectiveness and the use of the

carbon tax. That disappeared yesterday with the budget update.

These are troubling questions not just for taxpayers but for the

government itself. The overall concern we have to have today is that: can

we, as a province, actually afford everything that the NDP and Green Party

have on their wish list? Well, let’s take a closer look.

As we know, the credit-rating agency Moody’s certainly started to pay

attention when the tolls were removed from the Port Mann and Golden Ears

bridges. Why? Because of the debt transfer to taxpayer-supported debt. That

comes right back to the discussion about a triple-A credit rating and why it

matters.

Moody’s sent a warning to say that without other mitigative measures,

this would be a negative circumstance. So we will wait and watch, and we’ve

certainly looked at some of the mitigative measures. In fact, we saw the

George Massey Tunnel replacement disappear from the budget documents. Why

was that? It was to mitigate the transfer of debt so that the members

opposite could relieve some of the pressure on the debt side.

I think it’s important for the members opposite to actually stand up,

look the people in the eye who are impacted by the cancellation of that

project and be honest with them. This budget document makes it clear that it

is not about consultation. It is about cancellation. Because if at some

point in the future that project is put back into a budget, it will impact

very significantly the ability of this government to manage the debt

load.

[2:50 p.m.]

It’s time to be honest with the people who are impacted by congestion

every single day. Binders and binders of consultation. Work done over years

to move that project forward. I understand there are even piles of sand that

are ready. There’s an office. That project has been cancelled. It is not

about consultation. It is about cancellation. That’s just one of the

projects, and it is a valid concern.

Moody’s has expressed that concern — the bond-rating agency. This

government, when it comes to the tolls, is choosing to forgo at least $230

million in revenue every year that was used to pay off construction costs.

Those costs are now being lumped into taxpayer-supported debt, and the

government certainly got Moody’s attention very quickly.

We now have to wait and see. We have to wait and see how credit-rating

agencies are going to react to a spike in the provincial debt coupled with

the aggressive spending plan announced yesterday. That’s why higher interest

rates announced by the central bank will have the serious potential to harm

the government’s capacity to borrow. In other words, we could loss our

triple-A credit rating.

What does that mean? It’s not something that people spend a lot of

time around the water cooler talking about. What it means is that important

revenue will go to additional debt servicing. That money can be spent on

programs. It’s about prudence. It’s about making difficult

decisions.

I want to remind the minister that her predecessor issued a stark

warning in last February’s budget that if British Columbia had the same

public debt charges in jurisdictions like Ontario and Quebec, we would be

paying, on average, an additional $2.23 billion in debt-servicing costs.

While I understand the Minister of Finance committed to balancing the budget

until 2020, I don’t think you have to be very farsighted to see a bit of a

blur on the horizon when it comes to the spending priorities and how they

are taken into account.

Let’s look at some of these priorities. This budget contains a number

of cut-and-paste items that were already announced in the Liberal budget

last February. I think it’s important. I think it’s important, to the member

opposite who’s questioning that, that British Columbians at least be

reminded where those announcements were initially made. I welcome the fact,

in fact, that the minister and her government chose to keep these items as a

central part of their budget update. But let’s be transparent enough to at

least recognize and acknowledge when those commitments were made in the

first place.

Let’s look at some of the main ones. The reduction of MSP premiums by

50 percent. The reduction of the small business tax rate from 2.5 to 2

percent. Phasing out the PST paid on electricity. I remember how important

that decision was for members on this side of the House — people who live

and work in those industries, who support those constituents. That was

something that they worked hard to make sure that the B.C. Liberal

government put in that budget. And as I said, we’re very grateful to see

that continuing, but let’s not pretend it’s a new budget

announcement.

Here’s one that is very personal for all of us. We’ve heard over and

over again over the last few days how much we have been appreciative of

those who work to keep us safe in this province. Whether you are a

professional firefighter, a volunteer firefighter or someone who works in

search and rescue, showing our support in a meaningful way matters. So I can

understand the pride that the minister felt in her government when she

talked about the $3,000 non-refundable tax credit for volunteer firefighters

and search and rescue volunteers. That’s why the B.C. Liberal government put

it in their budget and made that announcement previously.

As I said, I want to be thoughtful about that. We welcome the fact

that the Minister of Finance and her government chose to keep these items as

a central part of their budget. But let’s be transparent about where they

came from.

One thing the budget update did add on was an increase in the tax rate

for business. This is something that I have a significant concern about, and

I know that the members on this side of the House do. It’s not about being

focused on corporations. It’s not about that. It’s about a competitive

province.

[2:55 p.m.]

It’s about making sure that when capital, which is mobile…. Investors

can choose wherever they want, in many cases, to invest. When they get the

message that corporate income taxes are going up, that personal income taxes

are going up and, by the way, that the carbon tax is going up and is no

longer revenue-neutral, what kind of message does the government think that

that sends to investors? Then the rationale that’s provided for an increase

in the corporate tax rate is that we’re going to be on par with Manitoba,

Saskatchewan and Alberta.

I don’t want to be on par. I don’t want British Columbia to be on par

with Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I want British Columbia to remain a

competitive, growing, strengthening economy. By saying we’re just going to

be on par, that doesn’t exactly send a message of confidence to investors

that “British Columbia welcomes you in our province. We’re going to support

your investment, we’re going to attract your investment, and we’re going to

support you as you help create well-paying family-supporting jobs in our

province.” No, we’re going to be on par with Manitoba, Alberta and

Saskatchewan.

I wanted to include this quote from the now Premier, talking about

what his government would strive for. I know that governments make different

choices and they take different approaches, but I’m not sure that striving

to be on par is something that British Columbians would be proud of. The

Premier said…. When asked about what we should do when it comes to being a

tax jurisdiction, here is his quote: “The lowest-tax jurisdiction in North

America is not something we should strive for. Why wouldn’t we strive to be

the middle tax jurisdiction in North America?”

Well, we wouldn’t strive to be the middle tax jurisdiction because we

want to be competitive, not just in Canada and North America but globally.

That means you’ve got to make sure that your tax burden is competitive — not

on par, not middle of the pack. You have to strive to be the best, to

attract capital that is mobile. They can choose to invest wherever they

want. We want them to choose British Columbia, not Manitoba, not Alberta and

not Saskatchewan.

We’re sending a message to investors that it’s going to be more

expensive to do business in British Columbia. What we want to be sending

them a message about is that this is a fantastic place. We have a skilled

workforce. We have a geography that works for them when we talk about the

Asia-Pacific. We have enormous advantages in this province. It is a shame

when we are relegated to be looking at what’s on par or the middle of the

pack in North America. We are going to lose our competitive advantage with

our other western provinces. That is simply not good enough for the province

of British Columbia.

I want to talk a little bit about the spending initiatives, not just

the ones that are contained in the budget. To be fair to the government,

certainly they have begun and launched a number of projects, a number of

supports to British Columbians, which they campaigned on. That is not a

surprise to us. But I can tell you that I think there are some surprised

people this morning, as we start to unpack what is not reflected in the

budget update.

When we think of perhaps the signature piece of the new government —

or, at least, one of the ones that they certainly talked to British

Columbians about — it was the $10-a-day daycare program. Now, that program

is not captured in this budget, at all. In fact, today and yesterday we’ve

heard some interesting explanations as to why it isn’t.

The big concern that I have…. I have to admit that this was something

that very much attracted a number of voters to the NDP and to the Green

coalition. Young people struggle with child care spaces. How do they care

for their children when daycare and child care are expensive, and they can’t

find the spaces they need? This NDP government raised expectations. Voters

decided that they wanted to support a $10-a-day daycare model, styled after

the Quebec model.

Interjection.

[3:00 p.m.]

S. Bond: I’m sure the member will have her opportunity to stand in the House

and speak.

The most important element…. I’m happy to have a conversation with her

about this issue. The facts of the matter are, to the member, that the

$10-a-day daycare program is not reflected in the budget update. My job, as

the Finance critic, is actually to be able to point out to British

Columbians that without some way of paying for it, it will be difficult to

deliver that in a February budget. The point is that someone has to pay for

it. I think all we’re asking the member and her colleagues to do is explain

to British Columbians that if they are going to deliver that promise, it is

an expensive one.

There may not even be a discussion about the merit of the program. All

of us want to see improved benefits for families in British Columbia. But I

think the member owes it to British Columbians to talk about where they’re

going to get the almost $1 billion, in addition to all the spending promises

that have been made here, to deliver that promise in British

Columbia.

The other thing that’s been an interesting development is the fact

that the Finance Minister yesterday said the reason it wasn’t in the

budget…. She didn’t reflect on the financial aspect of it. She reflected on

the fact that her Green partners weren’t happy with it, that there needed to

be more discussion about the model. Well, isn’t that interesting. So today

British Columbians who put their faith in many of the members on that side,

although not a majority government…. They put their faith in this government

delivering a $10-a-day daycare program, which today we do not see reflected

in the budget update. We now hear that there’s got to be consultation with

the partners in the coalition to get the policy right.

So what is it? Is there going to be a $10-a-day daycare program in

British Columbia or not? And who is going to pay for it? Those are pretty

simple, straight-up questions that deserve an answer. British Columbians

want to know. The young families that supported members on that side of the

House want to know. And, certainly, the official opposition wants to

know.

We also want to talk about the other missing pieces. There is a list

of promises: the $400 rent subsidy, support to students in post-secondary

education, parks, conservationists. The list goes on. The issue isn’t that

we’re necessarily critical about additional investment. The issue is this:

it doesn’t appear in the budget update at a time when the economy of British

Columbia is in the best state that it probably will ever be. The room to

move is probably the best it will be right now, and the most expensive

promises made by the NDP government are missing from their financial

equation. That is an issue for concern — a legitimate issue for concern —

for the British Columbians who heard the budget update yesterday.

We know how important it is to continue to look at the taxation regime

in British Columbia. We know that there have been a number of other promises

that have not been included. Our concerns today relate to the fact that

British Columbia is in the most robust financial position that it can be.

That’s been confirmed in the audited public accounts released just several

weeks ago.

But we’re also concerned about infrastructure projects not mentioned

in the budget. In fact, today we’ve heard the Minister of Education talk

about their desire to add additional funding for schools. There are no new

schools reflected in the budget update. And the answer can be: “They’re

coming.” But so is $10-a-day daycare, so is a hydro freeze. A number of

other expensive promises — they’re coming.

Where is the revenue generation plan that is actually going to pay for

this, or are they going to require additional tax increases that come out of

the pockets of British Columbians? That’s a fair question. It’s a question

that over the next number of days and I’m sure throughout estimates I won’t

be the only person asking this government and the Finance Minister how she’s

going to pay for all of these promises.

[3:05 p.m.]

I know that my colleagues are going to get up in just a little while

and, throughout the budget estimate processes, they’re going to be asking

about that new hospital in Surrey that was promised. They’re going to be

asking about the Peace River North hospital in his region. I know that the

member from Skeena is going to ask about where the hospital in Terrace is

at. It’s nice to have the Health Minister, and I’m sure that he’ll have

answers to support the Finance Minister as we walk through those.

Interjections.

S. Bond: And Prince George. I’d be remiss if I didn’t take the opportunity to

mention the Prince George hospital, and I thank the Health Minister for his

intervention and reminding me about that.

I very much appreciate the time that I’ve been given to respond to

what is a budget update. The budget is notable for what is not included.

What is not included is a plan to create jobs. In fact, what the budget

update and, certainly, the commentary from the government and the actions of

the government today have created is uncertainty about the economic

stability of British Columbia.

In fact, the other concern that people have is about job creation in

British Columbia. Not only are we not talking about creating jobs; in fact,

we’re talking about taking away jobs. Now, I don’t know how know how many

members here…. I certainly live fairly close to Site C. It’s not in my

constituency. Not only are we not talking about a jobs plan that creates

jobs; we’re talking about a loss of jobs for British Columbians. While some

of the members may think that’s funny….

Interjection.

S. Bond: Well, the member may think that’s funny. I am absolutely positive that

the over 2,000 people that work at Site C today are concerned about their

future.

To absolutely dismiss the Trans Mountain pipeline and engage in

expensive litigation…. In fact, one of the risks listed in the Finance

Minister’s update was about unexpected costs for litigation. What’s coming

next? I don’t know if the member knows, but the Trans Mountain pipeline is

planned to go through my riding as well. There are a number of views about

that project in British Columbia. It is certainly not unanimous, and there

are a large number of British Columbians who want to see that pipeline move

forward because it has well-paying, family-supporting jobs attached to

it.

So we have a budget update that relies on almost $1 billion of tax

increases over the next three years, including significant increases in

business and personal taxes, removing the revenue neutrality requirement for

the carbon tax and elimination of the children’s arts and fitness tax

credit. In addition to that, there is not a single indication of what the

plan is to grow the economy, to create jobs and, in fact, to deal with the

uncertainty that the actions of this government, in just a few weeks, are

causing to the investment climate in this province.

This budget assumes the economic performance of the province last

year, which resulted in a $2.7 billion surplus, will be repeated. There are

no guarantees, and the risks are substantial. It relies on a substantial

increase in forecasted GDP growth.

The cancellation of the George Massey Tunnel replacement project —

9,000 jobs. Site C, Trans Mountain pipeline, George Massey Tunnel

replacement — what’s next? At some point, this government has to work toward

identifying a plan for British Columbia that is going to rely on a

sustainable resource economy in this province.

Yes, there needs to be innovation. Yes, there’s an innovation economy,

but the bedrock of this province is a sustainable, well-managed natural

resource sector. There is no indication of a single plan that talks about

jobs. In fact, we’re impacting them with virtually every decision that’s

made. That matters, not just to the people who elected me and where I live,

but to the entire province of British Columbia.

It’s hard to understand. Just Friday the Premier promised…. Or at

least, I shouldn’t say that. I want to be accurate in this House, and I

apologize for that. The Premier implied that the $400 renters rebate would

be the budget. It isn’t.

[3:10 p.m.]

As I conclude my remarks today, I do want to thank the Minister of

Finance. I appreciate the very difficult task she’s been given, but I also

want to recognize that she’s been given a circumstance that is the envy of

Finance ministers across this country. If, at this point, when British

Columbia is at its peak economic performance — at least, that is likely the

indication…. We’re already seeing $1 billion of taxes piled onto British

Columbia’s people and businesses in a budget update. Completely missing from

this budget are some of the signature pieces that this government ran

on.

Today we are appreciative of the opportunity to comment. Our job, as

the official opposition, will be to watch the benchmark. The public accounts

that were released recently set the benchmark. British Columbians deserve to

know that they have a government that is going to have a strong economic

plan, that is going to focus on job creation, that is going to welcome

investment to this province and that they are going to be mindful that every

time they increase…. Every time that they’ve been in government, they use

the same pattern. They’re going to spend, and they’re going to increase

taxes to pay for it.

That’s not fair to British Columbians. Our job will be to hold the

government to account for the promises they made and for the economic

situation that they have inherited.

Hon. B. Ralston: It gives me great pleasure and it’s an honour to rise in the House to

address the budget that’s just been tabled. I want to thank the Finance

Minister for the work that she’s done in preparing this document and the

excellent job that she’s done in explaining it to the public of British

Columbia.

Naturally, there are detractors opposite. I think that comes from

their obligation to oppose, and they’ve taken to that very clearly and

strongly. That, I’m sure, will improve the quality of decisions on this side

of the House by hearing and reflecting upon the positive, constructive

criticism that we hear from the members opposite. I look forward to that,

and I welcome that.

I don’t think anyone would be surprised by the tone or the comments of

the opposition Finance critic, although I do note that there is an

assumption in what the member says about the economy. Yes, on the numbers,

the economy was doing well. But what I encountered — and what many of my

colleagues encountered in our own ridings and during the campaign and,

indeed, throughout the province — was a sense that the prosperity of the

province was not shared in the last 16 years and that the central

preoccupation of the government, in economic terms, was with those people at

the very top of the economic scale and not with all of the people of the

province.

Certainly, many of the people in my riding — the average per-capita

income is lower than the average of the province — find themselves working

part-time, working at minimum-wage jobs, working in contingent labour with

economic prospects in the employment sector that are tough. There was not a

great sense, in the way that the opposition Finance critic has just set it

out, that economic times were fantastic or great for them.

I think that’s part of the problem that the members opposite still

seem to have. It’s that they don’t seem to understand what the public and

their perception of their own economic circumstances…. It wasn’t and it

isn’t perfect or great for everyone in British Columbia, and our commitment

as a government is to try and make sure that the economy works not just for

a few at the top but that it works for everyone. That’s what we’ve set out

to do, and that’s what this budget sets out to do. It doesn’t….

[3:15 p.m.]

After 16 years of the previous government in power, there are

obviously many changes that are required to achieve that goal. It certainly

won’t be achieved overnight or in six months. We begin on a path, as we look

forward to what looks like four years in government — or 4½ years; we’ll see

— and a chance to build an economy that works for everyone.

Now, the member opposite — and I think this seems to be a standard of

the criticism or the speeches that we’ll hear — talks about taxes,

particularly personal income tax. Indeed, in this budget there is an

increase in personal income tax to the top-income earners.

The top-income — 2 percent — tax filers, did, under the B.C. Liberals,

receive a substantial reduction, which, over four years, amounted to $1

billion. That decision has been reversed, and those earners, individual tax

filers…. This is your net taxable income. This is after all of your

deductions, and obviously, people at the top of the scale have a few more

deductions available to them, in tax-planning terms, than people who are

working for wages and whose tax is deducted at source. Those people earning

in excess of $150,000 net taxable will be paying 2.1 percent more on their

income tax.

Now, that seems…. I don’t think that’s a calamity. Certainly, some

people will resent that. I’m not sure that there are many that welcome

increases in taxes, although some more philanthropic millionaires and

billionaires in the United States, such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett,

have said that they welcome the opportunity to pay more taxes because, as a

very famous judge — Louis Brandeis, I think it was — said: “Taxes are the

price of civilization.” So they understand that people who, like

themselves…. Bill Gates or people like that understand their obligation,

through the tax system, to support the rest of society, thanks to the

benefits that they receive through their own effort, but relying on the

support of society at large.

I think that that modest increase in personal income tax for a very

small group of people at the top, although it won’t be received with

universal acclaim, is a reasonable measure, and that’s why it’s there.

Similarly, on corporate income tax, there is a 1 percent increase, and it

keeps corporate income tax consistent across western Canada. Somehow the

members opposite seem to resent that we’re competitive with Alberta. I’m not

sure what motivates them, although I might want to speculate about

that.

On the other hand, for ordinary citizens who perhaps earn less than

$150,000 net taxable, there are measures that begin to implement and relieve

some of the financial pressure that they feel. For example, MSP premiums,

Medical Services premiums, will be cut in half beginning January 1 upcoming,

saving the average family up to $900 a year.

The small business tax rate will be lowered from 2.5 percent to 2

percent.

Those are some small measures, I think — but a big impact on

individual families, particularly families in the riding that I represent,

Surrey-Whalley. And I think many families throughout the province will be

grateful and appreciative of those steps taken in the budget.

The other measure, certainly, that was taken, in fulfilment of a

campaign promise, was to remove the tolls from the Golden Ears and the Port

Mann bridges. That measure was supported by the B.C. Liberals in their

second throne speech — or the one before the one that we were debating

yesterday — in which, contrary to what they said in the campaign, they said

that that effort could be accommodated within the fiscal framework that they

were talking about, at least at that time.

[3:20 p.m.]

I know the author of that report, the former Premier Christy Clark,

has left. She didn’t feel that she could come here, apparently, and defend

that position here in person, but it is significant, I think, that that

particular measure was supported by the B.C. Liberals not so long ago, only

months ago. Those are some of the steps, I think, for families in terms of

making life more affordable.

One of the other blights on our social landscape and on our society is

the degree to which, despite the wealth of the province…. Again, it’s not

shared equally. We have a minister now responsible for poverty reduction who

is going to introduce a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy.

This is not something that is unique to this government. In fact,

governments across the country, whether it was former Premier Danny

Williams, who is a Tory, in Newfoundland or whether the Liberal government

in Ontario or the government in Quebec…. Many provincial governments have

seen fit as an appropriate social policy to implement a poverty reduction

strategy. Indeed, that would seem to be, in their view, one of the important

purposes of government — to make life better, not just for the people at the

top but for everyone. That’s another mechanism that we will be exploring and

introducing here to make life better for many, many more people in British

Columbia.

I certainly welcome that initiative, that part of our government, and

I hope the members opposite will consider supporting that plan when the time

comes, although based on their record of 16 years, it seems unlikely. But

one never knows. There may be a conversion as we go along, through the sheer

persuasive power of a very effective minister in charge of that particular

file.

Some of the other items…. This was very effectively addressed by the

Minister of Education in his speech this morning, talking about a new tone,

a new atmosphere and new objectives in the public education system. For too

long, the B.C. Liberals viewed this sector as a sector which was appropriate

to be rife with litigation, with confrontation with the teachers union. That

really detracted from the best possible learning outcomes and the kind of

commitment to public education that a modern, progressive society requires.

Indeed, it’s absolutely essential.

The compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada…. Of course, the B.C.

Liberals took the case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In an

unprecedented decision, the court really didn’t even reserve after hearing

both sides. Usually in a case like that, a momentous case, at the Supreme

Court of Canada, the nine judges go away, have a conference, consider their

opinion and sometimes will issue a written decision. It could be months,

sometimes half a year later.

What they did in this case — because apparently for them,

notwithstanding the effort of the lawyers on behalf of the government to

convince the court otherwise — is they decided in less than half an hour

that the B.C. government case, advanced by the B.C. Liberals, had so little

merit that they dismissed it out of hand — within 25 minutes.

That’s the decision that’s now being implemented. Obviously, it’s a

challenging decision to implement on such short notice, but certainly the

Minister of Education and his officials have implemented that.

I know in my district, in Surrey, which is the biggest public school

district in the province, they are hiring teachers. They’ve hired an

unprecedented number of new teachers, and they’re still looking for a few

more. The classrooms are full. There’s a very positive atmosphere. Trustees

are happy, parent groups are happy.

[3:25 p.m.]

There is indeed a new tone in education. That is something that we on

this side of the House are very proud of, and this budget certainly supports

that effort and will continue to support that effort as we go

forward.

So the minister — the member opposite…. One does fall back on earlier

rhetorical habits, I’m afraid. The member opposite, in her address, talked

about a rather dark picture. It seems to be a very pessimistic view of

British Columbia’s future. Maybe that reflects the shift, from that side of

the House, over to that side of the House.

In fact, what is going on in the economy are some very, very strong

and very powerful things, some very good news. Let me relay a little bit of

that good news.

Yesterday a company in Burnaby called Fortinet…. They are a global

leader in high-performance cybersecurity. They have an operation in Burnaby

where they employ 700 people. They started in Burnaby 17 years ago. They

expanded to the United States. They have offices in Europe. They specialize

in cybersecurity, because, obviously, cybersecurity threats are much more

than denial of service. It’s a growth industry in terms of cybersecurity.

They have their global research facility in Burnaby, and they made a

decision to expand.

Federal Minister of Innovation Navdeep Bains and I met there a couple

weeks ago. They were asked by one of the officials that was with us: “What

was the decision that made you decide to expand in British Columbia?” And

the decision wasn’t a financial one in the way that we’ve heard from the

member opposite. What they said is the reason that they wanted to expand in

Burnaby — and in British Columbia and indeed in Canada, rather than in the

United States or anywhere else in the world — is what they call “culture.”

What they mean by culture is the talent that is available to them to do the

kind of work they do and that they’re very good at.

They announced yesterday that they’ve made a commitment, an

investment, and they’ll be hiring 1,000 more people in Burnaby. The release

went out yesterday. The member opposite has talked a little bit of a bleak

future. Fortinet, this company, made an announcement of another 1,000 jobs

in Burnaby just yesterday.

There are in the technology sector…. The member opposite was somewhat

dismissive of the innovation commission, somewhat dismissive of the emerging

economy task force. These are important projects that — together with our

legislative partners, the Green Party — we are pursuing. We believe, and

this side of the House believes, that the future economy requires innovation

and is, indeed, essential to economic success in the future.

Indeed, the federal government has made innovation a centrepiece of

its economic strategy. They’ve set up a major initiative, including the

supercluster strategy, which many companies in B.C. have participated in.

It’s a $950 million project. And B.C. companies, led by…. There are a number

of applications. There’s a huge clean-tech sector. They’ve made an important

application.

Telus and Microsoft have headed up another proposal, and these are

major proposals by major employers which will have a huge impact on the

British Columbia economy. To hear the members opposite that it’s a dark and

negative time…. I just don’t understand that approach, and it seems to be

belied by the evidence of what’s actually going on in the

economy.

[3:30 p.m.]

Certainly, there are other enterprises, major enterprises. I, together

with the parliamentary secretary, the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam,

travelled with officials to the global headquarters of Microsoft, where we

met with the president, who’s the person in charge of Microsoft. They’re

very bullish on British Columbia. They want to invest more. They have an

agreement — to give them credit — made with the previous government. They

want to continue. They want to expand in British Columbia.

We also went to the headquarters, in Seattle, of Amazon. They’re on a

supergrowth trajectory. They own 30 buildings in Seattle, most of which are

occupied by their employees. They have an operation on West Georgia in

Vancouver, where they’ve employed 1,000 people. And they’ve made an

announcement that they’re looking for a new global headquarters. They are

interested in British Columbia.

There are many other companies who are interested in British Columbia.

That’s not just in the Lower Mainland. That’s in Kelowna. There’s a tech

sector. There are tech companies in Prince George that are associated with

the university, which I think the member opposite is probably very familiar

with, which will assist and want to participate in that kind of growth.

There’s a tech sector here on the Island.

Indeed, the tech sector works with modern, effective resource

industries, because many of the solutions offered by technology are

applicable to resource industries who can optimize processes. Modern mining

requires a huge dose of technology to optimize drilling, optimize finding

and locating the ore or whatever is to be extracted in a cost-effective

way.

So to draw this dismissive approach that we heard opposite, of the

innovation commission, of the emerging economy task force, is really…. I’m a

bit surprised by it. Perhaps the critic will want to correct his colleague

about the potential. But for resource industries, working with the

technology industries…. Indeed, modern resource industries are inconceivable

without technological advance. That’s just some of what’s going on in the

technology sector.

In addition, I want to say that, in terms of trade and industries that

promote trade internationally, I was recently up in Prince Rupert at the

expansion of the Fairview Container Terminal. For those who are maybe not

familiar with the terminal, it was opened in 2007. This is an expansion, a

fully 80 percent increase in the capacity of the Fairview Container

Terminal. It’s funded by a company called DP World, who are a company based

out of Dubai, owned by a sovereign wealth fund.

They see Prince Rupert and the association of their container port

with CN Rail as likely to become the most dynamic port in North America.

Why? Because the ship-to-rail connection is very seamless. CN Rail. The

president, Luc Jobin, was there at the opening. They are very proud of their

association with the container port. It’s obviously connected to trade

routes in British Columbia and the five-day rail journey to

Chicago.

But the port itself is positioned…. Because it’s a deep-water port, an

ice-free, deep-water port, it is uniquely positioned on the west coast to

berth the new large category of ships, the Malacca-class ships, that will

not be able to come to some of the other ports on the west coast.

DP World has a future expansion plan in another two years which they

are actively considering, because their view of British Columbia, of the

potential of the economic and the trading opportunities in the Port of

Prince Rupert…. They’re very bullish on British Columbia.

So again, it’s disappointing to hear the negative and bleak view of

the future prospects of British Columbia that the members opposite seem to

want to take. Maybe they feel that advances their political cause. I don’t

think so. But that’s their decision. That’s not my decision.

[3:35 p.m.]

The mayor of Prince Rupert, Lee Brain, was there. The mayor of

Smithers, Taylor Bachrach, was there. They view the success of the container

terminal and the expansion, the jobs it creates…. It will create — and this

was an announcement made two weeks ago — 400 to 600 new jobs in Prince

Rupert, and 40 percent of the workforce is Indigenous.

We’ve heard some representations from the Leader of the Opposition

about, again, a very bleak and negative view. People I talk to in the

longshore industry there, the Longshore Union Local 505, were very upbeat

about the future prospects of this port and the jobs and the trade that it

will bring to British Columbia, to Prince Rupert and to the Canadian

economy.

Again, I think what this budget does is set into motion some of the

supports for a shared prosperity that we should all be inspired to

support.

There are other aspects of the budget that I do want to address,

speaking as an MLA who represents a Surrey riding. We have a very capable

and energetic minister who is going to deal with the new Ministry of Mental

Health and Addictions, along with the very capable Minister of Health. He’s

sitting beside me, so I feel obliged to mention his name.

There is no doubt that the fentanyl crisis, the opioid crisis, has

been a human tragedy and catastrophe — mostly in the Lower Mainland, but

it’s spread throughout the province. While the solutions are not easy, what

the new ministry will do will be to focus accountability, to focus the

programs and, I think, begin on the path to tackling what is a very tough

problem and tragic in its consequences, in view of the number of needless

deaths that have resulted here in British Columbia. And we’re not alone.

This is something that has expanded or is present in cities in the United

States and elsewhere in Canada. But this approach, I think, will begin to

reduce the number of deaths in the long run.

In my riding, there’s an area where it’s particularly evident that

people are living on the street who are using fentanyl — although many of

the recent deaths have come from people who are dying at home in private

residences and are not necessarily on the street, so I want to be a little

bit cautious about characterizing who the users are and who the people

are.

Deaths. Not so long ago, back as we were campaigning, on my way early

one morning to the campaign office, I saw emergency health services putting

a tarp over a body 100 metres from my campaign office, which was a very

graphic and emotionally draining reminder of the impact that this crisis has

had on human life in our community. Again, there’s support in this budget

for that ministry and for its potential solutions, so I’m very proud of that

aspect of this particular budget.

I was instructed by my House Leader to speak briefly to this matter,

to the budget, so I want to say that I’m very proud of this budget. It’s a

first step, a budget update. We will be working on solutions, hoping to

bring and aspiring to bring prosperity to all British Columbians.

S. Thomson: I’m very pleased to be able to rise and provide a response to Budget

Update 2017. Before I start addressing some of the budget specifically, I

did just want to take this bit of an opportunity to give my quick thanks to

the volunteers and supporters and voters of Kelowna-Mission who provided

their confidence in electing me to this position.

[3:40 p.m.]

I didn’t get the chance to do that earlier in some of the other

discussion because of my short tenure in the Speaker’s chair. I didn’t have

the opportunity to participate in those debates earlier. I just wanted to

take this opportunity to do that and, also, to thank my ever-patient family:

my wife, Brenda, and all the kids. As we’ve all said in this House before,

we don’t get to do this work if we don’t have their continued

support.

I really appreciate that and the ongoing dedication and commitment and

work in our community and in our constituency of my constituency assistants,

Nan and Janice, who are the front lines in our offices, in the community,

and do such a great job.

I also want to take this quick opportunity to acknowledge our

community and all of the work that they did, the support they provided, in

response to both the spring flood situation we had in the Okanagan and the

summer fires. First responders, emergency services, local government,

Salvation Army, the Red Cross, volunteers and the B.C. Wildfire Service all

came together to support our local citizens, to support those residents and

citizens from the Cariboo and the Interior and Ashcroft and Cache Creek and,

most recently, those in our community who were evacuated as a result of the

Philpott fire in Joe Rich.

Unfortunately, in our community, we’ve had a lot of practice, given

many of the incidents. But what you do see when all of this happens is the

best in our communities and the best in people. That was certainly evident

over the summer, and I really want to acknowledge all of the citizens of our

community who contributed so much during that very, very stressful time for

so many people.

I also want to take a quick time to voice my support and recognition

for the B.C. Wildfire Service and first responders in all of our communities

who risked their lives, their well-being, in the service of the province,

fighting to protect countless families and businesses. I know that without

their tireless efforts, the damage caused by this unprecedented season would

have been far greater.

Unfortunately for our Interior communities, life does not return to

normal once the flames are out. This situation is going to continue for a

while. Recovery services are needed and going to be needed, and there needs

to be a plan for the economic recovery for the businesses and families in

the Interior. This needs to be put into action now, and I did not see this

in this budget.

Businesses from small to large — tourism, small business, farmers,

ranchers — are all hurting in B.C.’s interior. They will continue to suffer

in the future if we don’t see that strong economic recovery plan in place. I

hope over the weeks and months ahead that we’ll see that plan develop and

the resources there in order to provide that support and economic recovery

that is going to be so much needed in those areas.

Budget 2017 is interesting to respond to. I want to congratulate the

Minister of Finance, as others have, in her appointment. The responsibility

she takes on with this position — I know that she takes it very, very

seriously and, as has been commented, has inherited a fiscal situation in

the province that is and was the envy of the country.

The budget update provides for an increase in spending of $3 billion

and increased taxes over $1 billion. But what is most telling in all of this

is the assumptions that it was built on, and we need to make sure that we

understand that context. Directly in the budget documents, it says that the

outlook for 2017 is higher than projected in Budget 2017 — the update was

higher than expected in Budget 2017— due to stronger-than-anticipated

consumer spending and export activity that has provided for an upward

revision of GDP. Then, in 2017, key indicators such as employment, retail

sales, housing starts and exports have exceeded expectations.

[3:45 p.m.]

But most importantly, and very clearly, the budget update documents

note key downside risks: uncertainty in U.S. fiscal and trade policy;

potential slowdown in the domestic Canadian economy; faltering of economic

recovery in Europe; slower economic activity in Asia, particularly in China;

and the potential for monetary policy tightening, which will dampen economic

momentum.

With all of that, and with all of those risks clearly identified and

noted in the budget documents, this government has built, and cemented in,

in their budget update, significant spending increases, increased taxes and

a scenario that creates very, very significant risks and possibilities for

future tax increases to support all of the increased spending that has been

cemented into the budget update.

That’s without even recognizing that there are many of the election

campaign promises that were communicated during the campaign that aren’t

included in this budget update. Those have been noted by the member for

Prince George–Valemount. This is going to require one of two things. It

either has to require additional revenue to support all of that increased

spending and those spending plans, or tax increases.

Most importantly, this budget does not contain an economic plan that

will sustain jobs and growth in our economy. In fact, all of the early

actions by this government do exactly the opposite. Creating uncertainty in

the investment climate by the review process. Creating risk and uncertainty

for the 2,400 workers at Site C through that process that sets up a

possibility of cancellation of the project, essentially saying no to 10,000

jobs that will be created during the construction, a total of 33,000 jobs

throughout all of the stages and the economic activity that that will

bring.

Also, joining the legal challenge of the Kinder Morgan project,

creating more uncertainty about investment in this province. Cancelling the

Massey Tunnel replacement project, impacting over 9,000 jobs. It is very

clear and evident in this budget update that this is a cancellation — not a

consultation, as they have tried to portray it, but a cancellation of that

project, impacting all of those jobs.

All of this in the early days has sent a chill to the investment

community. It creates a great risk to the budget plan in meeting the

assumptions that the update is built on. Instead, it relies on tax increases

of almost $1 billion in taxes over the next three years, significant

increases in business and personal taxes, removing the revenue neutrality

for the carbon tax and the elimination of children’s art and fitness tax

credits and others.

I agree with the comments from the member for Prince George–Valemount,

and I think it is important to state this. We did hear a message. Most

members would agree British Columbians sent us a message that they wanted to

see additional investments in some priority areas, and I agree it is

important to consider those. This budget contains some of those, and these

are going to be important investments. But what concerns us, and what is

missing in this budget update plan, is the plan to sustain the economy and

grow jobs and a plan that addresses the risks that are clearly noted in

their own budget documents.

Our ridings in the Central Okanagan have seen the benefit of this

strong economic growth and the solid fiscal management of the B.C. Liberal

government, delivering the five consecutive balanced budgets, our sustained

credit upgrades, the triple-A credit rating and the jobs plan that has

created over 200,000 jobs. In the Central Okanagan, the labour market

continues to gain strength, with a 5.5 percent increase from January 2017 to

June 2017 compared to the same period in 2016. Housing starts are up 87

percent. Multifamily units continue to lead that increase. Building permit

values are up 40 percent, reaching an all-time high of $528

million.

Business licences are up 15.4 percent, reflecting strong confidence,

particularly in the small business sector. Our leading airport in Kelowna

saw an increase of 13 percent passenger traffic compared to the already

record-breaking numbers of passenger traffic that we had in 2016.

[3:50 p.m.]

Our wine, tourism and craft beer sectors continue to grow and provide

significant economic opportunity for the region. Wine in the Okanagan is a

$200 million industry — 240 vineyards, 500,000 wine tourists each year and

10,000 wine-related jobs that go with that. We’ve seen our tree fruit sector

continue to grow, particularly with the success that the industry is having

in the export market in cherries and those opportunities that continued

investment in trade and those relationships have provided for our

region.

The Kelowna area boasts one of the top tech and start-up hubs in

Canada. It’s a $1.3 billion economic impact. That has increased 30 percent

over the last two years, with over 7,600 people in the local tech workforce

and 633 technology companies with over $500 million in exits and

acquisitions in the last two years.

The provincial government investment, which we were proud to be able

to make, in the Okanagan Innovation Centre is paying tremendous dividends

and has created that centre of excellence, that collision of ideas, the

talent, the mentorship. The investment continues to grow, partnered with our

strong post-secondary educational institutions. UBC Okanagan and Okanagan

College — both experiencing record growth in enrolments this year — show

confidence that was built on B.C.’s economic record and our

opportunities.

Let’s be clear. While the Central Okanagan has built a diversified

economy, there are many businesses involved and invested in opportunities

that Site C would provide and that the Kinder Morgan project would provide.

Those businesses employ people and invest in our community, and the actions

of this government are putting all of that at risk — increased spending that

is not supported by an economic plan to sustain growth and compounded by the

very real risks that the budget update acknowledges and the risk to our

credit rating with the transfer of construction costs to taxpayer-supported

debt with the removal of tolls on the Port Mann Bridge.

As noted in the member for Prince George–Valemount’s comments, that

action immediately captured the attention of Moody’s Investors Service,

noting “the government’s plan is credit negative, as it will increase

taxpayer-supported debt and remove a dedicated line of revenue for debt

repayment.” They go on to say: “We assume this action will be taken in

addition to other actions in the September budget update. Any ratings impact

would therefore need to take into account other possible measures that would

be announced at that time.”

The decision to cancel the Massey Tunnel replacement and account for

all those costs expended to date will surely be one of those. A credit

downgrade, which is a real possibility, will mean the government has to find

another $199 million or $200 million in interest costs. How are they going

to do that without a plan to grow the economy and grow jobs in British

Columbia? That will be done by increasing taxes.

The tax increases in this budget mean we will lose our competitive

advantage. The government says this puts us on an equivalent with

Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Well, I don’t think, as others have commented,

that we want to be equivalent, that we want to be measured somewhere in the

middle against those other jurisdictions. We want to be leaders, and this

budget update does not keep us in that position. Business confidence has

already dropped from the top to near the bottom.

This budget does not even address, as I’ve pointed out earlier, the

many promises that were made by this government. The much-vaunted child care

plan. Who is going to pay for that? How much will it cost? How will it be

implemented? Very clearly, a very, very significant investment is going to

be required in order to meet the objectives. Again, a spending commitment is

going to need to be funded. A budget update plan that does not provide for

the revenue and the jobs plan and the economic growth that will fund that

kind of investment.

[3:55 p.m.]

The $400 renters rebate, the commitments for building affordable

housing, parks and conservation officers, capital spending and the education

plan — all of those commitments, which aren’t accounted for in this budget

update, are going to put those pressures and stress on the budget plan in

2018. Without a plan for that economic growth, and with the steps that have

been taken already — which do, as I said, exactly the opposite in terms of

job creation and growth — it sends exactly the wrong signal to the

investment community, to those people who are willing to come and invest in

our province.

Even their announcement of the funding that was in the budget for

wildfire management, the $140 million…. It’s very important work that needs

to be done, but it should be noted that this is not a new investment. That

funding is already there. It’s in the Forest Enhancement Society. It was

provided when we made the commitments to the Forest Enhancement Society —

$235 million. The spending plan talks about $140 million in activities from

that. But this is not a new and additional investment. I think it’s

important to recognize, just as has been said before, that many of the

measures that are in the budget update are ones that were already planned

for and committed for in Budget 2017.

What’s missing? What’s missing are the plans to generate revenue to

continue to build our export markets in the key trading destinations. I’ve

had the opportunity and experience to travel into those markets and

understand the importance of ensuring that we have an investment climate

that supports our businesses and supports investment in the province. This

budget does not do that. This update and the early actions of this

government do exactly the opposite.

We see the very real possibility of the beginning of the dismantling

of the strong fiscal framework that this province has been built on over the

last number of years and the one that has attracted investment and job

growth in the province.

This budget update makes it clear that we’re on track for increased

spending without a jobs plan to sustain economic growth, with identified

risks and early actions that result in lost jobs and lost economic

opportunity. We’re only on track for increased taxation and the beginning of

the spiral that this government, the government opposite, is so noted for —

increased taxation, increased spending, dampening of investment confidence,

dampening of small business confidence in the province and significant

potential risks to increase taxes and potential great risks to the

investment that we’ve seen in this province.

On this side of the House, we’ll hold the government to account. They

have inherited a fiscal situation that was the envy of the country. I know

on behalf of the constituents of Kelowna-Mission who put their confidence in

electing me to represent their interests, to continue to help grow the

economic prosperity of the province, to make sure that we continue to bring

important investments and benefits to our region and to the province…. I

know that on behalf of all those constituents in Kelowna-Mission, we’ll work

constructively to ensure that we continue to provide the opportunities for

our children and for our grandchildren.

I look forward to continuing that very, very important work as we

address the budget update and as we continue to address the plans through

the budget estimates process. It’s very, very important work on the specific

details.

I would like to thank all of those constituents. Thank you for the

opportunity to comment on the budget update, and I look forward to the

continued debate.

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s a pleasure to rise for my first speech of this session. I’d like

to take the opportunity to begin by acknowledging the staff in both my

riding of Vancouver-Fairview and in my ministry office who assist me so ably

and who do such a great job for the people of British Columbia.

In my constituency office, my constituency assistants are Lisa Dekleer

and Sean Phipps. They are keeping things going in Vancouver-Fairview,

responding to the needs of constituents, the issues that are raised by

constituents while I am here in session and often when I’m doing ministry

business in Vancouver or Victoria.

[4:00 p.m.]

My former constituency assistant and now my executive assistant,

Reamick Lo, is filling a very important role, ensuring that things run

smoothly in Vancouver, that constituents get what they need and that the

office has the oversight that it requires when I’m not present.

Here in Victoria — in addition to the many, many employees of the

Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, my deputies, Mark

Zacharias, Bobbi Plecas and Kevin Jardine — I’m also assisted on a daily

basis by ministerial assistant Caelie Frampton and my most recent

ministerial assistant, who just started this week, Eveline Xia, and

administrative assistant Corinne Brosz, as well as a new administrative

coordinator, Kirstin Nilson. My profound thanks to them.

There are many other people who have made this work possible for me

and, indeed, helped me to be both elected and re-elected to this position.

They are too lengthy to name. To my family, to my close friends who are a

sounding board for me, who give me advice, who help me stay calm when events

might often lead me to be excitable, I extend my profound appreciation and

love.

Let me begin in addressing this budget speech by responding slightly

to the end statements of the member for Kelowna-Mission. What the member for

Kelowna-Mission failed to mention is the reason that the opposition is on

the opposition side of the House and that parties representing 58 percent of

B.C. voters are on this side of the House, bringing forward a very different

program — despite the fact that the opposition party briefly tried to

emulate it in its final throne speech. They emulated many of the programs,

in fact, that they now say we cannot bring in for British Columbians and we

cannot afford.

During the campaign, during the four years I was an MLA, I heard

repeatedly from British Columbians in every corner of the province, and

particularly in Vancouver-Fairview, that we have a social deficit, that the

single-minded focus of the previous government on taking measures to cut

taxes for the wealthiest British Columbians, to cut taxes for corporations,

ended up transferring responsibility for balancing the budget onto the backs

of working families — whether it was B.C. Hydro rates, ICBC rates, MSP

premiums, rising student debt, rising tuition fees, the extremely

ill-advised and, frankly, reprehensible decision to charge tuition fees for

condemn new Canadians, and many people who were trying to upgrade their

skills, to not have the opportunity to reach their full potential and to

help build B.C.’s economy and help build our tax base.

That’s the legacy of the B.C. Liberal government.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

That’s why we’re on this side of the House. That’s why we’re trying to

bring forward a throne speech, a program of legislation and a budget that

focuses, first and foremost, on British Columbians, on the people of British

Columbia, at the centre of our decision-making, at the centre of our

policies, at the centre of our budget-making, trying to deal with issues of

affordability for British Columbians — affordability.

People want access to child care. Women want access to child care so

they can go out and get a job and be part of the workforce.

Students need the best possible opportunity to learn. They will

finally get it because of this budget, which responds to the Supreme Court

decision and goes further to ensure that students have access to teachers’

time and attention, that students have space and that the next generation of

British Columbians students won’t face the conditions that Christy Clark,

when she was Minister of Education, forced on an entire generation of

students going through K to 12 over a 16-year period.

[4:05 p.m.]

We’re intent on making life more affordable for British Columbians in

any number of ways. We’re intent on providing British Columbians with the

services that they expect from their government, that they deserve from

their government, that the economy and the government of British Columbia

need to support. Whether it’s seniors who need home care, whether it’s young

parents who need child care, whether it’s young people who need education,

whether it’s post-secondary students in every corner of British Columbia who

want to ensure that they can afford post-secondary education without

graduating with a $30,000 debt, these are just some of the ways that we

intend to support British Columbians with the services they expect and the

services they deserve.

We also intend to focus on building an economy that’s diversified,

that’s modern, that isn’t boom and bust, that doesn’t focus jobs in only one

corner of the province, but that creates good, sustainable, diversified

economic development in every corner of British Columbia. Yes, that includes

responsible resource development, developed under an environmental

assessment process that British Columbians can trust, in which they can have

faith, in which First Nations find themselves a partner, not a litigate in

protests in court case after court case.

Industry deserves to know what the rules are — that the rules are

consistent, that there is an efficient process, in which the public and

First Nations have trust, in which they know what the conditions they will

have to meet will be and where they can see a pathway to approval instead of

a road map to social conflict and First Nations litigation.

A modern economy in British Columbia depends on not putting all of our

eggs in one basket and waiting for them to hatch for over four years, but

ensuring that we seize the opportunities of a low-carbon economy, of the

tech sector in British Columbia, of adding value to resources instead of

simply exporting them virtually untouched and of applying tremendous

opportunities of clean techn