Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 202

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

B.C. Seniors Care Providers Day and award recipients

A. Kang

Fraser Canyon Hospital in Hope

J. Tegart

Roshni Clinic services for South Asian community

R. Singh

JoeAnna’s House at Kelowna General Hospital

S. Thomson

Safety Award recipient Erin Terry

J. Routledge

Treatment of adrenal crisis by paramedics

T. Shypitka

Oral Questions

Government spending priorities and economic plan

M. de Jong

Hon. C. James

Carbon tax revenues and CleanBC program

P. Milobar

Hon. C. James

Investigations and convictions in money laundering cases

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Eby

Carbon tax revenues and green initiatives

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

Government spending priorities and housing supply

T. Redies

Hon. C. James

J. Johal

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

T. Redies

A. Weaver

Hon. L. Beare

T. Stone

Hon. K. Chen

D. Clovechok

M. Elmore

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2019

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: Yesterday I was joined by 33 members of the Legislature, and all of

the rest in spirit, at the B.C. Care Awards. Five awards were given out to

outstanding care providers from across British Columbia. I want to introduce

them and their families in the House today.

Agnes Trylinski is an LPN at Care at Home Services in Surrey. She

lives in my colleague from Surrey-Whalley’s constituency. She’s here with

her family — Richard Trylinski, Brianna Keller and Kevin Pinkerton; and her

employer, Rublin Inkstrom. She has been acknowledged as a leader in care

everywhere she goes.

Crystal Clark is here. She’s a therapeutic recreation manager at

Brocklehurst Gemstone Care Centre in Kamloops. She lives in the riding of my

colleague from North Kamloops. She is joined by her husband, Robbie Clark.

Crystal led to the creation of an intergenerational Mother Goose program at

the home. She is remarkable, and we heard all about that last

night.

Marilyn Kirkpatrick has served as an administrator at Heritage House

in Oliver since 2002. I know she works in Oliver, but she lives in the

constituency of my colleague and friend from Penticton. Her commitment was

shown last night in the reflection on her work that everybody who is

involved at Heritage House, in assisted living, feels.

Erin Terry is here, joined by her husband, Trevor Terry. He lives in

my colleague from Surrey-Newton’s constituency. All that’s written down here

— this may describe everybody in Surrey-Newton but especially Erin — is “a

bona fide powerhouse.”

Finally, and I think people were very moved by this last night, KD

Riar is here: 46 years of service at Willingdon Care Centre, her first job

after coming to Canada. She is a leader in health care in her

community.

We are honoured to recognize all five of these individuals, as well as

Aly Devji, the president of the board of directors of the Care Providers;

Daniel Fontaine, the CEO; and Mike Klassen, the vice-president of public

affairs.

I wish the House would make all of these winners welcome.

D. Ashton: I would like to echo the sentiments brought on by the Minister of

Health. I would also like to thank the Care Providers and McKesson for

hosting that function last night. Thank you again for that.

There was one incredibly deserving recipient, and the minister touched

on her name: Marilyn Kirkpatrick from Penticton. She’s in the gallery today.

Marilyn lives in Penticton but works in Oliver at Heritage House in Oliver.

She does an incredible job of providing care and support to those residents.

She always uniquely addresses their challenges.

Having a family member in a care home and knowing the incredible

service that these young ladies and men provide to those residents — they

make such a difference in their lives — it’s an incredible pleasure to be

able today to recognize them and also recognize the five individuals who

were honoured.

However, each and every one of them does such a wonderful job, in this

province, of caring for our elderly and those that need additional care. So

on behalf of myself and my family and, I’m sure, everybody in this chamber,

I would again like to thank them and pass along all our regards for the work

that they do.

J. Thornthwaite: I have some very special guests up there in the gallery today. I don’t

very often have school classes. But kindly, teachers Emily Maxwell and Bryan

Hughes have brought 20 grade 9 students from the performance learning

program at Seycove, which is a secondary school in my riding of North

Vancouver–Seymour.

All of these lovely students are here to get the official tour from

our staff, but they’re also here for the unofficial Jane tour as well. I’ll

take you somewhere very interesting. Could the House please make them very

welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: I, too, would just like to briefly recognize a constituent that’s in

the gallery. KD Riar, as the Minister of Health mentioned, was given the

lifetime service award last night for her 46 years in service to our seniors

and, certainly, I think, brought the room close to tears with her immigrant

success story, the Canadian story. I’d very much like to congratulate her

once again and welcome her to the House this afternoon.

J. Routledge: It’s my pleasure to introduce Stewart McGillivray, who is here on

behalf of the BCIT Student Association, which is located in Burnaby North.

Let’s all give him a warm welcome.

Hon. L. Popham: I’ve got some good news. The doctor is in, and that’s my fiancé, Dr.

Rob Sealey, visiting us today. He’s up in the stands. He’s got two friends

with him, two very special friends: Mary Ann Dyck, who worked with him by

his side in his medical profession for over 25 years, and also Lyn Cranwell,

who has been the office manager at the clinic where they work. They came for

lunch. They’re ready for some entertainment, so let’s not

disappoint.

L. Throness: It’s always great to have relatives visiting. I had lunch today with

John and Margaret Strydhorst, my uncle and auntie visiting from Grande

Prairie, Alberta. Would the House please welcome them.

J. Brar: I have two very special guests today visiting us from Surrey. They are

Dr. Navdeep Riar and Harman Riar. They are visiting us from Surrey. They are

relatively new to this country. They’re here to witness question period. I

will ask the House members to please make them feel welcome.

A. Wilkinson: Of course, the Minister of Agriculture just called for entertainment.

But we, of course, only engage in thoughtful, edifying, constructive

improvement of the legislation presented to us by the government. I’m sure

that the five new interns in the B.C. Liberal opposition caucus will see

that on show today as we have a thoroughly edifying and thoughtful exchange

of ideas.

Their names are Myim Kline, Talia Bleiler, Adam Donaldson, Allison

Gonzalez and Scott Takenaka. We welcome their fresh intellect to the caucus.

We know they’ll have an interesting time here, and we will do our level best

to present a fair and even representation of the members

opposite.

Hon. J. Horgan: I know the member for Kamloops–​North Thompson is here. I am

sure that Kamloops–​South Thompson is on his way. They will be

terrified because the representative from Radio NL is in the gallery for the

first time today.

Shane Woodford, not getting enough news in Kamloops, has decided to

come to the Legislature today to watch the proceedings. I know that I’m just

terrified of seeing him in the hallway, but would the rest of you please

make Shane Woodford, for the first time, welcome in the gallery.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

B.C. SENIORS CARE PROVIDERS DAY

AND AWARD

RECIPIENTS

A. Kang: In recognition of B.C. Seniors Care Providers Day in the province

of British Columbia today, I rise to celebrate the thousands of workers

who have made caring for B.C. seniors their chosen profession and their

life’s work.

Care providers work in home care, assisted-living residences,

residential care homes and community living services. They deliver a

vast continuum of services, and they do so with care, compassion,

professionalism and pride.

Care providers help seniors and their loved ones through some of

the most challenging moments of their lives. They make a difference to

the lives of countless British Columbians each and every day.

Each year the B.C. Care Providers Association presents their B.C.

Care Awards to individuals as recognized and nominated by their peers in

their field of excellence. These are people whose compassion, kindness,

patience and warmth have benefited so many seniors over so many

years.

It is a pleasure to welcome the 2019 winners, who are with us at

the Legislature today: Agnes Trylinski; Crystal Clark; Marilyn

Kirkpatrick; Erin Terry; and KD Riar, to whom I must give exceptional

acknowledgment and thanks for her 46 years of services to seniors and

the residents of Willingdon Care Centre in my constituency of

Burnaby–Deer Lake.

[1:45 p.m.]

Agnes, Crystal, Marilyn, Erin and KD’s commitment and dedication

to providing outstanding care for seniors are an inspiration to us all.

Today let’s make the time to recognize the accomplishments of all B.C.

care providers and the important part that they play in our lives. Thank

you, all, for everything that you do.

FRASER CANYON HOSPITAL IN HOPE

J. Tegart: Some call it the best little hospital in all of British Columbia,

and I’m proud to say that Hope’s Fraser Canyon Hospital is in my riding

of Fraser-Nicola. I’m thrilled to share with you that it recently marked

its 60th year of service to the community. When it was first opened in

January 1959, it was intended to serve as a stabilizing point in the

region, following a devastating plane crash near Chilliwack that killed

62 people.

The hospital’s location in Hope today is significant because Hope

is a major corridor for the motoring public heading into the Interior on

three major highway routes. The Fraser Canyon Hospital has an eight-bed

emergency department staffed 24-7 as well as eight medical beds plus two

hospice beds to provide end-of-life care. That’s pretty big, compared to

what the hospital looked like in 1959.

In 1959, Mary Lou Jacobs was hired as the director of nurses at

the facility before construction was even completed. She recently shared

her memories with the Hope Standard newspaper, noting that

there was only one emergency bed and one room at the time, and just two

ambulances, which were really station wagons driven by the

doctors.

Indeed, the Fraser Canyon Hospital has come a long way in 60

years, but it hasn’t changed the way the staff is committed to providing

the best possible care to every patient who comes through its doors.

Congratulations to the Fraser Canyon Hospital on this wonderful

milestone. We appreciate your incredible work.

ROSHNI CLINIC SERVICES

FOR SOUTH ASIAN

COMMUNITY

R. Singh: In 2017, Fraser Health Authority opened a new clinic to support

people in the South Asian community who are struggling with substance

use. Earlier this month I was pleased to join my colleagues as we

announced the expansion of Roshni Clinic in my riding of Surrey–Green

Timbers.

bringing light,” offers services that are culturally tailored to the

community. The expansion of the Roshni Clinic, with the partnerships of

Fraser Health and DIVERSEcity Community Resources Society, has allowed

for a doubling in its hours of operation and expanded the service it

provides. They are now able to support an additional 75 to 100 active

clients and to reduce wait-lists for new referrals. The expansion allows

even more people in our community who are living with mental health and

addictions to access culturally appropriate and language-specific

services.

Having worked as an alcohol and drug counsellor myself, I

personally know about the barriers and stigma that keep people with

mental health and substance use challenges in the South Asian community

from reaching out for help. That is why it is crucial to embed South

Asian languages and practices into mental health and substance use

services. I know that treatment and recovery services are not

one-size-fits-all and that each person needs to find their own pathway

to healing when they are ready. That’s why Roshni Clinic is so

important. It is offering people in the South Asian community an

opportunity to find the right treatment and recovery services that will

work for them.

I would really like to thank everyone working at the Roshni Clinic

for the tremendous work they do and the difference they make in the

lives of South Asian families in our community.

JOEANNA’S HOUSE

AT KELOWNA GENERAL

HOSPITAL

S. Thomson: Every year many families from across the Interior have to travel

to Kelowna to receive specialist life-saving care at Kelowna General

Hospital. For many, the need for short-term accommodation for the loved

ones of a patient is a critical need, as the presence and support of

family is so important to care and recovery. At any given time, one out

of every four beds at Kelowna General Hospital is occupied by a patient

from outside the Central Okanagan.

[1:50 p.m.]

Now, thanks to the leadership of the Kelowna General Hospital

Foundation and the community, the community is committed to building

JoeAnna’s House, a home away from home for families when they need it

most. The foundation has committed to raising $8 million to build and

support the house, and construction is well underway on a site

immediately adjacent to the hospital. Ground was broken in October, and

the home, which can house up to 20 families, is anticipated to be

complete by December 2019.

I want to recognize the leadership of CEO Doug Rankmore and the

team at the foundation for all their work and vision in this project and

also recognize the many citizens in our community who have come forward

and made significant and important donations to the “Better together”

campaign — people like Joe and Anna Huber and their family, as JoeAnna’s

House is the culmination of their vision and the intention of their

family. Joe and Anna developed a very successful hotel business in the

Interior, Prestige inns, but ultimately, they are best known for their

legacy of kindness and caring.

People like the late Joe Iafrancesco, a leader in our Kelowna

Canadian-Italian community, and his wife Bianca made a very significant

contribution before his passing — and so many more. The campaign has

raised more than the $8 million already and is continuing to work to

provide ongoing support for the house and for the families for years to

come.

Kelowna is a community that cares, and legacy projects like

JoeAnna’s House are a testament to our citizens working together and

providing essential supports to those in need at a time when they need

it most.

SAFETY AWARD RECIPIENT

ERIN TERRY

J. Routledge: Last night the B.C. Care Providers Association held its annual

award ceremony. One of its honourees was Erin Terry. Erin works in

Burnaby North at the Strive Living Society, a non-profit agency that

designs and delivers community living services to children, youth and

adults with varying degrees of ability and individualized

needs.

Erin won the Safety Champion award for her work supporting the

safety of her co-workers and the individuals who utilize their programs.

In the words of one of her co-workers and her nominator: “For an

organization like ours, it can be a challenge to educate staff and

maintain correct protocols, policies and procedures, with our diverse

clients and variety of services. Erin does it with passion, enthusiasm

and a smile.”

Erin writes a regular safety column in the internal newsletter,

runs fire and earthquake drills, holds monthly safety committee meetings

and produces useful reports. Erin is the go-to on everything safety in

her workplace. She is known for her willingness to answer questions and

provide assistance. She is always up to date on best practices and keeps

the team informed about new developments.

Each year Erin runs a safety open house. It includes hands-on

activities and interactive displays. She even created an

identify-the-hazard display in a kitchen that was creative and

encouraged participation. Last year over 75 people attended her open

house and shared what they learned with other organizations. Erin is a

recognized powerhouse. Her commitment to the safety of clients with

developmental or physical disabilities, as well as the front-line and

administrative staff who support them, is truly remarkable.

Congratulations, Erin, on being named this year’s Safety

Champion.

TREATMENT OF ADRENAL CRISIS

PARAMEDICS

T. Shypitka: Imagine for a moment that a three-year-old girl and her parents

are driving down the highway when, out of the oncoming lane, a car

crosses the centre line and strikes the family vehicle. The accident

results in the father rendered unconscious and the mother incapacitated

by her injuries. The small child has been severely injured and is

traumatized.

The girl also has Addison’s disease, and her adrenal gland doesn’t

provide her with the proper amount of cortisol to help her in this

situation. At this time, she needs an injection of a drug called

Solu-Cortef. If not administered in the next 30 minutes, the helpless

three-year-old girl will die.

The adrenal glands are responsible for releasing hormones to the

body to appropriately manage a physiological response to stress. Without

adequate supply of these hormones, patients with adrenal insufficiencies

can go into adrenal crisis when ill or experiencing trauma. Adrenal

crisis can be critical and sometimes a fatal event if not rapidly

managed.

Currently the legislation in B.C. prevents paramedics from

administering medications beyond their licensed scope, and this needs to

change. Last September Newfoundland and Labrador became the first

province now able to administer hydrocortisone, such as Solu-Cortef,

prior to patient transport, which will have life-saving implications. I

challenge this government to be the second province to do so.

[1:55 p.m.]

The BCEHS clinical and professional practice team are working with

the paramedic regulator in B.C. to increase the scope of practice for

paramedics, which will include the ability to administer a wider variety

of medication and to support patients with their own prescription

medications.

I look forward to working with all parties, including the Canadian

Addison Society, to increase the scope of practice, to give some relief

to those families affected and to avoid a senseless death.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT SPENDING PRIORITIES

AND ECONOMIC

PLAN

M. de Jong: Yesterday the Finance Minister delivered her second budget — a

notable achievement, it occurred to me, especially for an NDP minister,

where two in a row might be something of a record. I listened carefully,

and the minister spent the first half of her speech disparaging the work

of the previous government…

Interjections.

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

M. de Jong: …and then the second half of her speech spending the proceeds of

that work — the strongest economy, triple-A endorsements, lowest

unemployment — as if all of those achievements were the exclusive

product of the NDP fiscal brilliance.

On the strength of that largely inherited foundation, the minister

has committed the province to an overall rate of spending growth that we

haven’t seen, well, since the last time the NDP was in government, and

we all know how that ended — B.C. a have-not province and the NDP

reduced to two seats.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: No, it was two seats.

To the minister….

Interjections.

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

M. de Jong: To the British Columbians who are going to have to pay for the

minister’s spending spree with increased carbon taxes, new payroll taxes

and phony speculation taxes, where exactly in the budget is the plan,

the strategy that will encourage people to invest in British Columbia

and maintain and build the strong economy that we’re going to need to

pay for all her additional spending?

Hon. C. James: Well, it’s a bit rich to hear the other side talking about the

pressures that families face. When we take a look at their record — more

than doubled MSP premiums, hiked hydro rates by 70 percent, tuition

doubled, left a legacy of out-of-control housing crisis and ignored

child care, ignored education, fought the teachers instead of investing

in education…. So are we taking a different approach? You bet. We’re

putting people first.

It’s very clear that we have a difference of opinion when it comes

to investing in people. On this side, we are going to invest in people

to grow a strong economy, sustainably, in British Columbia.

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

M. de Jong: Well, one thing we do know is that the government’s and the

minister’s plan calls for significantly fewer new homes to be built by

the private sector — significantly fewer new homes to be

built.

[2:00 p.m.]

How does that help a working family in Surrey or Chilliwack or the

Okanagan Valley that wants to fulfil the dream of home ownership? How

does a plan that significantly reduces the number of housing starts in

British Columbia help the construction workers who are going to be put

out of work as a result? How does a reduced supply of new homes help a

working family that doesn’t qualify for or require, happily, supportive

housing?

Doesn’t the minister see that the reduced amount of investment,

the reduced amount of housing construction and, ultimately, the reduced

employment that will flow from all that over the life of this budget

will spell disaster for the very B.C. families she claims to want to

help?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for those four questions.

Hon. C. James: I think of those families who have talked to us over the last 16

years, who I know tried to talk to the other side about the housing

pressures they faced and weren’t listened to, the seniors who have come

into our constituency offices who don’t have housing and the families

who can’t even dream of being able to live in the community that they

work in. That’s the legacy that the other side left — a housing crisis

that we are working to fix right now.

The member talked about housing starts. Let’s take a look at

housing starts. In Vancouver, the number of housing starts remains 21.3

percent above the ten-year average. In 2018, building permits increased

22.3 percent. In greater Victoria, housing starts are up 10 percent

compared to last year. In fact, the value of residential building

permits and the number of housing starts are up in northern

B.C.

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

supplemental.

M. de Jong: Look, over my time here and in my conversations with the minister,

I don’t think I’ve ever questioned the sincerity of her motives. But I

am endeavouring to make the point here today that paying for all of the

things that the minister and her colleagues seek to fund requires a

strong economy. A strong economy is dependent upon our ability to move

people….

Interjections.

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

M. de Jong: A strong economy is dependent upon our ability to move people and

goods. Yet the minister’s budget completely ignores major problems with

our transportation infrastructure.

Highway 1 is not just a regional highway. It is our national

connector, Canada’s national highway. Most days, between Chilliwack,

Abbotsford and Langley, it’s our national parking lot. It is in

desperate need of lane expansion.

Will the minister agree that diverting money away from a project

that was funded under the previous government is choking off the ability

of people to move to communities where housing is more affordable,

choking off the movement of goods within our country and, ultimately,

choking off the very economic activity and economic growth that we are

going to require in British Columbia to pay for all of the additional

spending contained within the minister’s budget?

Hon. C. James: I’m surprised coming from this member, but I’m not surprised

coming from the other side, that they would seem to confuse press

releases and announcements with actual funding for projects. Over $20

billion in capital spending to actually keep British Columbia moving, to

keep our economy going.

[2:05 p.m.]

The member mentioned the economy. I think we should remind them of

a few facts. B.C.’s economy is the strongest in Canada and predicted to

stay that way for the next two years. In the past year, B.C. has added

61,900 jobs — in the past year alone. The lowest unemployment rate in

Canada in the last 17 months in a row.

I could keep going. Please keep asking, so I can

answer.

CARBON TAX REVENUES

AND CLEANBC

PROGRAM

P. Milobar: It’s always astounding. When the government does not want to take

credit for something, they’ve only been in government for 18 months.

When it’s the economy, somehow they’ve magically turned it around in 18

months.

However, when the carbon tax was first introduced, the NDP

strongly opposed it. After all, who could forget “Scrap the

tax”?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, Kamloops–North Thompson has the floor. Please

listen to the question.

P. Milobar: As an obvious non-member of the NDP formerly, I didn’t have the

same indoctrination as they did, so I thank you for the correction. It

was Axe the Tax.

Obviously, the Finance Minister probably still remembers that

catchy slogan. But not only have they made the carbon tax now simply a

tax grab that is jacking up the cost of heat, groceries and gas every

year, but the increase has been used to dupe the Greens into thinking

that the increased carbon tax is for CleanBC. In fact, it’s not for

CleanBC.

Why is CleanBC only funded with a small percentage of the carbon

tax increase and the lion’s share of the increase going to general

revenue?

Hon. C. James: A “small” amount of money, $900 million, going into climate

action? Only the government that didn’t do anything around climate

action — that didn’t, in fact, want to put a plan in place — would call

$900 million a small amount of money that’s going into

action.

I’m very proud of the work that we’re doing on climate action, the

historic plan that we have put together in partnership with our Green

colleagues and the caucus. We are going to continue our work to make

sure we do our part for this generation and future generations in

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: Mr. Speaker, $900 million is not a small sum of money. However,

when you look at the existing programs that are just continuing on under

the guise of new, when you look at the amount of carbon tax that will

actually be generated with the $5 lift, it actually is a very small

percentage of money. It’s unfortunate the Finance Minister hasn’t read

the budget in that much detail, because British Columbians do not

support a plan to hammer consumers and families with higher carbon taxes

that simply go into general revenue.

This is the NDP making everything more expensive for everyone.

This tax grab is going to reach into everyone’s pocket, and it isn’t

even going towards what the government led the public and led the Greens

to believe it was for, which was CleanBC.

Again, why is the government not using the vast majority of the

increased carbon tax to actually reduce GHG emissions, to innovate?

Instead, they are dumping it into general revenue.

Hon. C. James: I think it’s important to take a look at the credits that families

are getting, because we recognize that there’s an equality issue when it

comes to changing behaviour for communities. We, in fact, are increasing

the carbon credit to $400 for a family of four. By 2021, the carbon

credit is going to be 70 percent higher than it was when that government

put the carbon credit in place.

[2:10 p.m.]

There will be a full reporting out on all of the resources coming

in as we increase the carbon credit. That will occur each year. But I

think it’s a bit rich coming from the government that used to pretend

that they were revenue-neutral when it came to the carbon tax. I

remember those comments from the government on the other side, the

previous government, saying we were revenue-neutral. “Don’t

worry.”

In fact, even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation didn’t believe

that. Even they said that, in fact, the carbon tax hasn’t been

revenue-neutral for several years. The Fraser Institute reported that

the then Liberal government used the pre-existing tax credits to try and

pretend that they were revenue-neutral.

We’re using it for green initiatives. We’re using it to ensure

we’re doing our part to address climate action.

INVESTIGATIONS AND CONVICTIONS

IN MONEY LAUNDERING

CASES

A. Olsen: To continue the member for Abbotsford West’s line of questioning

around inheritances: about three-quarters of people accused of money

laundering in Canada go free. That’s three-quarters. In B.C. between

2002 and 2018, only 50 money-laundering cases were heard, and only ten

people were found guilty.

Thanks to the work of our Attorney General, there is evidence that

money laundering in B.C. is in the billions of dollars. Yet we’ve only

been able to convict ten people of that crime in almost two decades.

It’s unbelievable.

To add to this, a multi-year, billion-dollar prosecution on money

laundering — a case the Attorney General has said could be the largest

money-laundering case in Canadian history — fell apart in

November.

My question to the Attorney General. I know he’s frustrated by the

lack of prosecutions, and I share his disappointment with the collapse

of the Silver International prosecution. He was calling for answers on

this in November. Does he have any answers to this deeply troubling

situation?

Hon. D. Eby: This is an incredibly concerning issue for British Columbians, the

fact that it appears we can’t get convictions on money-laundering

offences in the province. But not just that; it appears as though

money-laundering investigations aren’t taking place to the degree that

they should.

British Columbians are reading in the paper of people like Cal

Chrustie, who was the lead investigator, or one of the lead

investigators, on the Silver International file, saying that it’s the

practice of investigators to refer material to the United States to get

prosecutions because they can’t get prosecutions here. That’s a serious

issue, I would say.

Even more serious than that is when you look at cases like PacNet.

PacNet is a firm that was alleged to be involved in laundering the

proceeds of lottery schemes in the United States — cheques from seniors

written out to various scams and sent up, actually, to Vancouver,

allegedly, to be processed. It’s listed as one of the top five

transnational criminal organizations in the world by the Obama

administration. They were actually getting tax credits from Advantage

B.C.

When I look at these kinds of scenarios, I obviously feel that

this is a very serious issue, but I’m not alone. I know that’s shared by

many British Columbians. That’s why I asked Peter German, on behalf of

the government, to look at specific cases — including PacNet, including

Silver International and others — and to provide findings to us about

exactly why it is that we can’t get these investigations done and why it

seems like other jurisdictions know so much more about what’s happening

in British Columbia than we do.

Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

A. Olsen: I wonder if there’s going to be an intense line of questioning

over the next couple of weeks on that inheritance. Canada’s Financial

Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre is our federal watchdog against

money laundering. It’s called FINTRAC. It rarely imposes fines. Former

employees have highlighted that the system is broken, even calling it

scandalous — to the point that the Attorney General was

calling.

B.C. police forces are hampered in dealing with money laundering

because they cannot lay criminal charges without the approval of B.C.

prosecutors. What this is doing is it’s leading to a general reluctance

from our police forces to address more complex money-laundering issues.

In fact, when I met with the local police in my riding, they had similar

challenges with this situation.

I know that the Attorney General has called on his federal

counterpart for more resources and to improve information-sharing

between our governments. In his response yesterday, he mentioned how

this issue is bigger than in B.C. and that he’s working with FINTRAC.

Indeed, he talked about it earlier today. I know he’s looking into

whether there are provincial charges applicable for the Silver

International case, but this goes beyond any one case. Clearly, major

systemic reforms are needed.

My question is to the Attorney General. What is he working on with

his federal counterparts to ensure that our police forces can feel free

to do their work with the confidence that their cases will be

prosecuted?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Obviously, there are a number of issues here that overlap with

federal jurisdiction. That’s why we’ve been working very closely with

the federal government on this issue.

I think it’s a problem when the United States lists Canada as a

problem jurisdiction for money laundering. I think that’s a problem that

we need to deal with, and that is a federal government problem that we

need support on. I think it’s a problem when the federal government goes

to the international watchdog for anti-money-laundering agencies and

reports that we have an operation in B.C. that laundered $1

billion.

When you look at these kinds of things together, we need good

federal cooperation and support. I’ve really seen a shift in the federal

government on this. They’re very interested in partnering with us on

this.

We are going to be sharing the findings of the Finance Minister’s

review, as they relate to the federal government, and of Dr. German’s

review, as they relate to the federal government, and we are certainly

counting on action. That’s why we’re doing this work — to make sure that

we get action and get prosecutions out of these matters.

CARBON TAX REVENUES

AND GREEN

INITIATIVES

S. Bond: Yesterday the budget confirmed that this government will collect

$6 billion in carbon tax revenue over the next three years — ironically,

a tax that they campaigned against. And guess what we, as well as

British Columbians, learned. A very small percentage of that is actually

going to green initiatives.

Well, let’s look at what this Finance Minister had to say in

September of 2017, when she was on the radio talking about carbon tax

revenue. Here’s what she told British Columbians: “We’ve been hearing

clearly from the public that they don’t mind paying the resources. They

don’t mind paying the carbon tax if they know it’s going to go to green

initiatives and climate action.” Well, I can imagine that British

Columbians were surprised yesterday when they discovered a small

percentage of that $6 billion was actually doing that.

In light of the minister’s comments, maybe she’d like to get up

today and explain to British Columbians why only a small percentage of

the carbon tax revenues are going to green initiatives.

Hon. C. James: I’m pleased the member is finally excited to actually see carbon

tax revenue going into green initiatives. It’s about time. It’s about

time we saw that from the other side, instead of using it for tax breaks

for the top 2 percent. To actually spend it on green initiatives is

exactly what this government is going to do. The member will see all of

that out when we talk about where the revenue and the incremental

increases in the carbon tax are going.

I think if the member takes a look at $1 billion in housing

retrofits, if the member takes a look at over $2 billion in transit….

You are looking at initiatives that more than cover the kind of revenue

that’s coming in on carbon tax. We are going to spend it to make a

difference in British Columbia, not to give a break for the top 2

percent.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, we should look at what else the minister went on to say. You

know, it actually isn’t a laughing matter, because this minister stood

up and she told British Columbians — she in fact promised them — that

there were going to be certain initiatives with $6 billion of revenue.

In fact, yesterday we found out: oops, not so.

Let’s hear what she said. She said: “We’ll use the money for green

initiatives so people actually have the options to be able to change

their behaviour. More transit, retrofits in homes — that’s what the

public wants.” But we should be clear….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Prince George–​Valemount has the

floor.

S. Bond: The minister can clap all she wants. She told British Columbians

that they were going to use carbon tax revenue for green initiatives.

Not a small percentage of carbon tax revenue, not money to flow into

general revenue to balance her budget on paper.

It’s time for the minister to stand up and explain to British

Columbians why she broke the promise she was so happy to make in

September of 2017.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: A bit rich coming from a government that actually put their own

Climate Action Team together and then ignored every one of their

recommendations — completely ignored them.

I’m very proud of the work we’re doing. I’m very proud of our

climate action plan. I’m very proud of CleanBC. I am very proud that we

are spending it on green initiatives to help families and businesses and

First Nations and governments across this province to be able to make a

difference when it comes to climate action.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING PRIORITIES

AND HOUSING

SUPPLY

T. Redies: I’d like to pursue a matter that my colleague from Abbotsford West

raised a bit earlier. This budget confirms that under the NDP’s economic

mismanagement, housing starts are going to fall by almost one-third.

Reducing the number of homes built by almost 30 percent means the loss

of untold numbers of jobs and economic activity.

Can the minister explain how a 30 percent drop in housing starts

will address housing affordability?

Hon. C. James: Well, I think it’s about time we talked about a few statistics

over the last 16 years when it comes to housing. Let’s take a look.

Rents under the previous government — a 45 percent increase in ten years

in Metro Vancouver. People left behind as the housing crisis took off.

We have seen prices skyrocket under the previous government.

Are we looking at making sure that housing is more affordable for

families in British Columbia, workers in British Columbia? Yes, we are.

We are getting going on that work.

Mr. Speaker: Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Redies: Well, based on that answer, either the minister doesn’t want to

answer the question, or she’s never taken an economics course. Demand

and supply.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, Surrey–White Rock has the floor. It will be good

to listen to the question.

T. Redies: A 30 percent drop in housing starts means 50,000 fewer housing

units will get built. Housing starts are plummeting under this

government, which means housing affordability is set to get

worse.

Can the minister explain how 50,000 fewer housing units are

supposed to help housing affordability?

Hon. C. James: I will go through the statistics again, because I think it’s

important that we deal with facts here. In Vancouver, the number of

housing starts remains 21.3 percent above the ten-year

average.

What kinds of investments are we making in housing? We’re making

the largest investment in affordable housing in B.C.’s history, $7

billion over ten years for 114,000 units. Just in the 18 months that

we’ve been in government, we’ve already moved in to close to 17,000 new

homes, affordable homes for people in British Columbia. This includes

4,900 mixed-income homes for people in 42 communities across the

province.

We are getting to work to fix the mess left to us by the other

government, because it’s important that people in British Columbia can

rely on housing so that we can keep our economy growing in British

Columbia.

J. Johal: Now, never mind the government’s broken promise to build 114,000

new housing units by the end of the NDP’s fiscal plan. As my colleague

has said, housing starts are projected to drop by 30 percent. Those

aren’t our numbers. Those are in the budget. They’re the Finance

Minister’s numbers. This is the opposite of addressing housing

affordability and means layoffs for workers tied to new construction

projects.

Why does the minister’s plan drive away housing

construction?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: The member should take a look at the unemployment numbers in

British Columbia, the best in the country when it comes to

employment.

Let’s take a look at the kind of housing that is actually being

constructed. Last fall there was a record 8,100 rental units under

construction in Metro Vancouver. The rate of rental construction

happening in Metro Vancouver is at a 50-year high. The other side

might’ve been happy to build housing for speculation. We’re building

housing for people in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: I will allow the question.

Richmond-Queensborough.

J. Johal: Once again, I want to remind the Finance Minister: a 30 percent

drop in housing starts. Those are your numbers, your budget.

According to Anne McMullin from the Urban Development Institute….

She says: “We had asked for incentives to bring more housing options for

British Columbians, and instead, it looks like we’re going to see a

really dramatic collapse in housing starts.”

How is a 30 percent drop in housing starts supposed to help

housing affordability?

Hon. C. James: What we are going to see instead in British Columbia is, finally,

affordable housing for people to live in and work in the communities

that they live in. What we’re finally going to see is rental housing

being built and affordable housing being built, unlike speculators and

housing that the other side was building. We face a housing crisis in

this province because of the old government, and we’re getting to work

to fix it.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

[2:30 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

T. Redies: As the designated speaker for the official opposition, I’m picking up

from my initial comments yesterday. As I noted earlier, my co-critic, the

hon. member for Prince George–Valemount, will be making her comments a

little later in the debate. Although we’ve had the benefit of looking over

the budget overnight, we have indeed learned from this process last year

that the devil is always in the details, especially with this

government.

I note that the Finance Minister’s speech yesterday contained quite a

few references to the previous government, and certainly, none of them in a

particularly flattering way. That’s okay. We’ve developed a thick skin over

these past few years. Besides, it’s kind of a compliment that the current

Finance Minister lifts all her fiscal policies from the B.C. Liberal

playbook. Sounds incredible, I know, but it’s a matter of record that the

former Finance Minister, the hon. member for Abbotsford West, previously

delivered precisely all of the so-called income tax cuts contained in Budget

For example, this is what the former Minister of Finance said in his

speech in 2017: “As a first step, starting this fiscal year, on January 1,

2018, we’re going to roll back most premiums” to about the levels that were

set in 1993. That will be done by cutting MSP premiums in half “for families

and individuals with family net income of up to $120,000 per year. For a

family paying full premiums, this represents a saving of $900 per year.” For

a family earning an equivalent amount, “it doubles to a maximum of $1,800

per year.”

Now let’s fast forward to February 19, 2019, and have a listen to what

the current Minister of Finance had to say about MSP premiums only just

yesterday. She said: “In Budget 2019, our government is moving ahead with

the full elimination of MSP premiums,” saving individuals $900 in taxes and

families $1,800 in taxes a year. “At $2.7 billion, this is one of the

largest tax cuts for people in B.C.’s history.”

Well, they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and

this government has done its best to take credit for everything the former

B.C. Liberal government achieved in 16 years. I’m reminded of a famous quote

by the legendary Warren Buffet, who said: “Someone is

sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time

ago.”

Now, the election result of 2017 did not permit the previous

government to follow through on its promise to completely eliminate MSP —

that is, completely wipe it off the books as a clean tax cut, with no

replacement tax ever contemplated.

As we all know, the NDP has never met a tax it didn’t like. This

minister’s plan is to continue charging MSP premiums and charge the new

employer health tax at the same time. With the introduction of the EHT, this

minister is raising $500 more in tax off the business sector. Her so-called

elimination is really just a shell game, moving the tax from individuals to

businesses and pretending she has eliminated the MSP in the

process.

Let’s continue our journey through memory lane and see what else the

current Finance Minister copied from her B.C. Liberal predecessor. This is

what the member for Abbotsford West, the former Finance Minister, had to say

about the reduction of small business tax, again, two years ago: “Finally,

Budget 2017 will forgo $213 million in revenue over three years to reduce

the small business tax rate from 2.5 percent to 2 percent, effective April

1, 2017.”

Let’s fast-forward again and see what the current Finance Minister had

to say about the small business tax rate. “Our government is working to set

the stage for B.C.’s future economy. To this end, we’re…helping small

businesses and entrepreneurs get ahead. We have cut the small

business​…​income tax from 2.5 percent to 2 percent.” Well,

isn’t that interesting. What are the odds that the current NDP Finance

Minister would say almost precisely the same thing that her B.C. Liberal

predecessor said exactly two years ago?

Let’s now turn to PST on electricity for businesses. In the 2017

budget speech, the former B.C. Liberal Finance Minister made the following

announcement. He said: “We are going to phase out the PST on electricity,

starting with a reduction of 3½ percent on the purchase price and moving to

full exemption on April 1, 2019. Government will forgo more than $160

million in revenue — money that will be available…for reinvestment,

expansion and job creation.”

[2:35 p.m.]

Guess what. The current Finance Minister said this in her budget

speech only yesterday: “As of April 1 this year, we’re fully eliminating the

PST on non-residential electricity.” Well, I wonder if the Premier is woke

to all of this. He must be completely lit by the B.C. NDP copying all of the

fiscal policies of the past government as well as taking credit for bringing

in LNG Canada.

Seriously, I can assure you that there are plenty more examples of the

current government taking credit for all the accomplishments of the B.C.

Liberals over the course of 16 years — things like five balanced budgets in

a row, triple-A credit rating and significant budget surpluses to assure

business investors that B.C. is the best place to do business. Or at least

it was.

Sadly, that’s where the story of the tax cuts ends. It has now been

almost two years since the NDP took control of the public purse,

representing two budgets and one budget update. And, no surprise, there have

been no other tax cuts, other than the ones previously announced by the

former government — only a planned increase of $13 billion in government

spending, which they have announced in 1¾ years. Let’s stop for a minute —

$13 billion announced in less than two years. That’s a 26 percent increase

in government spending since the NDP took office. It has been fuelled by a

robust economy left to them by the previous government, and almost $6

billion in new taxes.

This government has certainly shown no trepidation in raising taxes on

individuals, property owners, businesses and even municipalities. They have

gleefully raided the taxpayers’ piggy bank with little or no restraint.

Property taxes, fuel taxes, heating taxes, taxes on businesses are all going

up under this government.

I’ll digress a moment, because it reminds me of a conversation I had

in January with a French gentleman. My husband and I were on a tour, as part

of our 30th wedding anniversary, when I met this gentleman and his wife.

believe it or not, we managed to have a conversation about taxes. Now, if

you remember, late last year the yellow vests movement in France was

demonstrating in the streets of Paris over planned government hikes to fuel

taxes. This demonstration involved tens of thousands of people, and it went

on for several days, until the French president rolled back the

increases.

In turn, I explained that property taxes in some parts of Vancouver

were going up, on average, 33 percent, thousands and thousands of dollars,

because of this government’s housing policy, for the most part hitting

British Columbians, not the foreigners this government likes to demonize. My

new French friend responded to this with a raised eyebrow, saying, “ État

de voleur ,” which means “thief state.” While that may sound harsh,

when this government raises taxes by almost $6 billion, largely on the backs

of the only 2.5 million taxpayers in this province, the shoe fits, as they

say.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could we have order, please.

T. Redies: Look, I’m not saying that some of the spending initiatives of the NDP

government were not needed. Disability payments needed to rise. More money

needed to be spent on caring for our seniors, and we needed to address

shortages of student housing on our university campuses. These are just

three examples, initiatives that I actually agree with this current

government on, but I think it’s the pace and scale of the increase in

spending that has me concerned.

Think of it. How do you increase government spending by more than a

quarter after less than two years in office? While they didn’t really

announce much in the way of new spending with this budget, what spending

that is new is pushed off until late 2020. But what I think might have been

missed is that the NDP have blown through an additional $2 billion in

spending in fiscal year 2018-19.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order.

T. Redies: As I was saying, what I think might have been missed is that the NDP

have blown through an additional $2 billion in spending in this fiscal year,

2018-19, from what was originally planned for this year in Budget

[2:40 p.m.]

The government’s original Budget 2018 document said they would spend

$53.7 billion in fiscal 2018-19. Instead, they will have spent $55.7 billion

as of the end of fiscal 2018-19 — $2 billion in additional unplanned

spending.

That’s why the Finance Minister had to table legislation yesterday.

It’s because nine of the government’s ministries have overspent their

planned budget by almost $2 billion, ministries like Advanced Education,

Education, Health, Citizens’ Services, and Tourism, Arts and Culture, among

others. Nine very large ministries have not kept within their stated

spending plans for the citizens of B.C. Does anyone over there know how to

budget?

Without the windfall of the one-time $1.6 billion federal transfer —

because of a very hot 2017 economy under the B.C. Liberals — this government

would be in a seriously difficult predicament. No, the balanced budget in

fiscal 2018-19 was not due to careful planning; it was due to blind luck.

None of this, of course, was mentioned in the Finance Minister’s speech

yesterday. But if I were her, I would be looking for a lot more control on

the spending that is going on over there, because her budget going forward

doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room now for mistakes.

The government has reduced its forecast allowances for the next two

fiscal years by $200 million and $300 million respectively, and its

surpluses remain relatively small to the major increase in spending from the

Budget 2018 plan, which has increased about $1.4 billion since February

2018. And its surpluses are highly dependent on an increase in the planned

GDP growth rates from last year, which may or may not be realized as the

global economy is slowing.

I know that this is a lot of numbers, but tough as to say, we are

going into a period of slower global growth, and this government continues

to bake in spending that will be very difficult to unwind in the event of an

economic downturn.

For example, for fighting fires, which have cost the government almost

$1 billion over the last two years, there’s only a budgeted amount of $117

million. I find this rather surprising, given the comments made by Premier

Horgan at the height of the wildfire season last year. He said the

following: “Clearly, the traditional means of budgeting for fire season is

laughable. It’s not something that just developed in the last 13 months;

it’s been going on for 30 years. Choose an arbitrary number, put it in the

books, and hope for the best.”

If the Premier was truly serious about the past two record fire

seasons, would he not work with his Finance Minister to address this

concern? Apparently not. With razor-thin budget surpluses in the forecast,

an unpredictable event like a wildfire could burn up this projected surplus

like a matchstick and quickly return B.C. back to deficit

spending.

Remember the old adage: save for a rainy day? Well, this Finance

Minister and her government are essentially spending everything they can,

and that’s potentially a significant problem. We’ve had seven years of

significant GDP growth, and for all intents and purposes, global growth is

slowing as the U.S. tax incentives wane, China’s economy slows, Japan

teeters on the edge of recession and the U.K. faces the economic disruption

of Brexit.

B.C. is a small trading economy, and while our economic growth has

been spectacular — a testament to the hard-working British Columbians and

businesses who make up our economy — this party will not go on forever. As

Jock Finlayson of the B.C. Business Council said yesterday: “The budget does

not pay sufficient attention to the headwinds facing the economy due to

slower global growth and rising tax and regulatory costs here at home. We

wonder where future economic growth will come from to support the spending

measures outlined in this budget over time.”

Instead of having a rainy-day fund that should have been built up

while the economic growth was strong, this government is baking in $13

billion in spending that will be difficult to unwind. When that downturn

happens, and it will, the province will likely be in a structural deficit.

That’s what happens when you overshoot government spending versus what the

economy can sustain over the longer term.

Further, this government has done nothing to stimulate the private

sector. Most of their so-called economic growth is about public or

government spending, paid for by the taxes on individuals and businesses.

Instead of charting a path to stimulate the private sector, we have a

government that has been completely been silent on the viability of our

resources sector, whose revenues are expected to fall by over 30 percent in

this plan. The same applies to the real estate construction sector, which is

expected to see housing starts decline by almost 27 percent.

[2:45 p.m.]

As I said yesterday, this government appears stalled in a mid-life

crisis, with no plan to create higher-paying jobs which are needed to

address affordability, no plan to stimulate business investment in our

province, a growing and punishing tax burden on employers in B.C. and no

incentives to make this province a more competitive place to do business in

global markets.

Their own throne speech highlighted that too many British Columbians

are having to work two jobs to make ends meet, and today the CEO of the

Vancouver bank has indicated food bank usage has gone up 25 percent in one

year.

Affordability isn’t just about costs; it’s about wages. I would argue

that we have the wages of Omaha, Nebraska here in B.C., with the costs of

New York. There are only two ways to get out of that: stimulate domestic and

foreign investment, with the aim of capturing high-paying private sector

jobs here in British Columbia; and dramatically increase training,

especially at the post-secondary level, so we have the workers everyone

wants. But there’s nothing about either of those in this budget.

Given all the additional taxes and regulations that this government

has layered on the business sector, I don’t see any improvement on the

horizon. B.C. has one of the lower foreign direct investment per capita

rates in the developed world, and that is unlikely to change under this

government. In fact, it will likely only get worse.

As we’ve seen, companies like TransCanada are heading for the hills,

forcing the federal government to invest billions in what should have been a

private sector pipeline. One could only conclude that the investment

reputation of this province — and, indeed, Canada — as a place to do

business has literally tanked. Budget 2019 contains nothing to address that

situation either.

The Conference Board of Canada noted that B.C. was the 14th worst

performing district based on the effective marginal corporate tax rate —

another damning conclusion.

These things matter to business investors, and I find it extremely

curious that the other side of the House doesn’t seem to get that business

can invest their capital virtually anywhere in the world. If B.C. is not

competitive, we won’t see a dime of investment. Worse still is the risk of

losing existing investment, whether it’s TransCanada or a technology firm I

spoke with yesterday. They all remember the 1990s.

The technology firm I’m referring to made an investment decision to

locate a new logistic centre in the U.K., along with 100 well-paying and

rewarding jobs, when the NDP came to power this time. Worse still, the firm

is looking to move the last 50 jobs out of B.C. to Ontario, simply because

the province has made doing business in B.C. unaffordable.

It might interest you to know, too, that the last quarter was the

first time in 21 quarters where there was a net outflow of people from this

province. I fear this could be a start of another issue we saw in the 1990s

under the NDP, an outflow of people leaving the province looking for better

opportunities.

This is what Val Litwin of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce had to say. He

said: “A new employer health tax, an increasing carbon tax, a rising minimum

wage, climbing corporate tax rates — these costs are weighing down the

backbone of B.C.’s economy. Beyond a number of limited tax enhancements, we

didn’t see anything today that will materially help B.C.’s small and

medium-sized enterprises compete in the years ahead, and our data shows

there are storm clouds looming.”

You simply can’t increase spending without a plan to grow the private

sector economy. There are only so many times you can keep drawing from the

same well of taxpayers, and the 2½ million taxpayers in this province are

already taxed to the hilt.

As a direct result of this government piling on taxes, as of 2019,

B.C. had the ninth-highest personal income tax rate in 61 American states

and Canadian provinces, according to a report released by the Fraser

Institute recently. The report indicates: “The B.C. government has recently

made worse the province’s long-standing tax competitiveness problem with

recent hikes to personal and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, carbon

taxes, vehicle taxes and property taxes, all of which make it harder to

attract potential skilled workers, investors and businesses.”

Contrary to what the NDP think, economic growth does not come about by

unfettered expansion to the public sector, yet this seems only what this

government has up its sleeve.

Finally, I want to say something on housing. As someone who has spent

a lot of my life helping finance developments and helping people get into

their homes, the government’s housing strategy has left me completely

baffled.

[2:50 p.m.]

How do you solve a housing crisis when housing starts have dropped 6.4

percent in 2018 and are projected to drop another 16.7 percent this year and

another 10 percent in 2020 and beyond? The NDP’s housing policies are

contributing to this because with their plethora of real estate taxes,

they’re making it increasingly uneconomic for developers to build both

affordable housing units for sale or rental properties. In fact, a major

report revealed last year that taxes, fees and levies at all levels of

government cost a whopping 26 percent or more of end housing costs in the

Lower Mainland, and that’s before the new surtax on properties valued above

$3 million and the EHT are factored in.

Governments are truly the major culprit in the lack of affordable

housing. Why is it so hard for this government to understand that? Don’t

they understand that every time they increase a tax, raise a fee or delay a

permit, that cost gets passed on to end buyers or factored into rental

rates? If you think the margins on developments can absorb additional taxes

levied by this government without passing it on to end buyers or renters,

think again.

Just think how housing affordability could be improved if governments

at the provincial and municipal levels were just a little bit more

reasonable with housing taxation. It is possible. We have a driver in our

hands to reduce property taxation by 20 percent or 30 percent, but instead,

this government continues to increase property taxation.

As a reporter for the CBC described it, with these taxes and

surcharges, “government is one of the largest contributors to the lack of

affordability in our housing market.”

Jordan Bateman, with the Independent Contractors and Businesses

Association, has this to say: “Slowing housing starts means fewer jobs in

construction, less PTT revenue and one-third less supply to meet the demand

for new homes. Instead of cutting red tape and trying to turbocharge housing

starts to drive down costs, the NDP is quietly choking out the

market.”

Affordable housing policies that don’t address the supply side are

doomed to fail. The so-called speculation and vacancy tax certainly has

nothing to do with increasing the supply of affordable housing. It has

everything to do with casting a wide net of suspicion across 1.6 million

homeowners in the province, who are now forced to prove they are not

speculators in the eyes of government.

Just as the new school tax levy has nothing to do with schools,

taxpayers are now seeing their property taxes jacked up as a direct result

of the employer health tax imposed on municipalities. While some public

sector employers were subsequently exempted from the EHT after the bungled

rollout of this tax, the Finance Minister continues to insist that local

governments should fall back on their main source of revenue — property

taxes.

Forget about filling potholes or replacing your kids’ local skating

rink. This Finance Minister wants a piece of the action from local

governments through a forced increase in property taxes.

Perhaps even more disturbing to me, especially in the wake of all the

concerns about people not registering properly for their exemption: the

government no longer has a separate line item upfront for the revenues that

it’s generating from the speculation tax. It’s buried in a table in the back

of the budget.

Remember, this is the government that said British Columbians wouldn’t

be affected by the speculation tax — that 99 percent of British Columbians

wouldn’t pay it. But then, of course, we found out that of the people who

were paying the spec tax, over 67 percent were British Columbians. Then we

found out that every homeowner in the designated areas, 1.6 million homes,

had to file for the exemption or get hit with a very nasty tax

bill.

Why are they now hiding both the spec tax and, for that matter, the

increased school tax for homes above $3 million? I suspect this is a

deceptive tactic to hide just how much money they’re taking from British

Columbians.

Curiously enough, in what has become a very depressed housing sales

market in many areas, this government is still predicting its property tax

revenues to be flat over the coming years, helped, no doubt, by the two

taxes I mentioned.

The devil is always in the detail, and my co-critic and I look forward

to being able to test the Minister of Finance in estimates on that detail.

Undoubtedly, it will take time to bring these things to light, just as it

did last year, but we will get to the bottom of it.

A. Weaver: I will be the designated speaker on this particular topic. It gives me

great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Budget 2019.

[2:55 p.m.]

Before I begin, I’d like to thank my staff down in the B.C. Green

caucus office, who spent an enormous amount of time over the last few months

putting together our priorities, as well as the staff in the civil service

and within the CASA secretariat through which we often convey information on

which we sometimes, more often than not, get timely responses and feedback

on suggestions. So thanks to the staff.

We wouldn’t be able to do the good work that we do in this place were

it not for the dedicated staff who put in countless hours, including the

staff who last night didn’t go home till very late because, as you know, we

are small but mighty, in the B.C. Green caucus, and I was up second here

today. I thank them again for all their hard work.

I’d like to start with a bit of a personal narrative, if I may, moving

into this budget speech, to give a sense of the way I got into politics and

where we are now. It’s important because it gives us a general sense as to

why I’m quite pleased — no, very pleased — with the direction that this

budget has taken. I will come to address some of the comments from the

critic, the B.C. Liberal critic, that were just made.

Frankly, I believe that they need to be addressed, as some of their

comments were quite outrageous. I question whether the member for

Surrey-Whalley has actually spent the good time necessary to get into some

of the details of this budget, because some of the statements were simply

wrong. And that’s not good enough.

An Hon. Member: Surrey–White Rock.

A. Weaver: Surrey–White Rock. What did I…? I do apologize. Surrey–White

Rock.

Coming to the personal narrative. As anyone would know, my background

was a climate scientist at the University of Victoria. I arrived there in

I came to Victoria because of the quality of life we could offer here

in British Columbia. We had many possibilities of going to other

jurisdictions. Ultimately, I’m from Victoria, my wife is from Victoria, and

we wanted to have children and a family grow up next to our grandparents,

who are both alive today, both still living in the houses that we were born

and grew up in, here in this area. That was the critical, important issue

for us. We wanted a family. We wanted to grow up in a place that we could

call home and in a beautiful place. That is British Columbia.

I’ll come to that again because that is one of our strategic

strengths. One of our strategic strengths in British Columbia is that we’re

able to attract and retain people from around the world because of the

stable democracy that we have — you’d never know it based on question period

— but also because of the quality of life we offer and the economic

opportunities that are present for people who come here.

We came here in 1992, and I worked as a climate scientist at UVic,

working on the second, third, fourth, fifth scientific assessments of the

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — 1995, 2001, 2007

and 2013. Even when I was sitting here as an MLA…. I had to resign as a lead

author once the writ was dropped. But even in the lead-up to that, I was

working on these international assessments.

We know that over the last 150 years, the earth has made a transition

from a past when climate used to affect the evolution and dispersal of

humans to a present when, in fact, humans are affecting the evolution and

change of the climate and the weather that we experience on a daily basis.

What we are at risk of losing on this planet — frankly, what we’re already

in the process of losing now — is staggering.

When scientists…. These are not activists. These are scientists who

feel far more comfortable sitting at the lab bench tinkering with their

chemicals or their test-tubes. When they’re talking about between 60 and 80

percent of all the world’s species committed to extinction by the end of

this century, that should get people to wake up — 60 to 80 percent of the

world’s species committed to extinction because of climate change this

century. That’s something we need to wake up to.

It’s something that points fundamentally to the issue of

intergenerational equity. The question which climate change can be framed

into is: do we, the present generation, owe anything to future generations

in terms of the quality of environment that we leave behind?

Now, I would suggest most of us believe that we do. We have children.

We save for the future. We might have a little nest egg for them. We put

money aside in a registered education savings plan for them. We put them in

education systems to train them for the future. We care about the future of

our children in many aspects of our life.

The question I ask the members here is: do we, the present generation,

actually believe we owe anything in terms of the quality of environment we

leave behind? Action now is what is fundamentally required if the answer to

that is yes.

We know, through a direct analogy…. Here it is. Put a pot of water on

a stove, and turn the element up to eight. The analogy is direct. The water

and the pot are the oceans of the world.

[3:00 p.m.]

The element going up to eight is increased levels of greenhouse gases.

Well, we know that when we put the element up to 8, the water in the pot

doesn’t boil right away. We might think that it’s all nice. We have an

element of 8. The water is not boiling, and we sit and wait and wait and

wait. Then all of a sudden, we go: “Oh no. It’s too hot. It’s boiling. I

have to turn the heat down.” I turn the element down. But guess what. It’s

too late. It’s too late because the water has already warmed up and it

doesn’t cool right away.

That is something known as thermal inertia, and it’s the direct

consequence of the fact that the heat capacity of water is five times

greater than it is of sand, for example. It takes a long time for the oceans

to equilibrate, particularly as they’re moving, with the incoming radiation

imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.

We see things like El Niños and La Niñas. We get Trump tweeting out

about winter in Chicago meaning global warming is ending. But we expect that

as that heat stored in the ocean shiffles around in the ocean and changes

weather patterns on any given week, month, season or even year to

year.

What we also know is the oceans are warming. As they warm, they store

heat. That heat is around for a very, very long time — in fact, centuries

and millennia. So we know that even if we do no more than keep existing

levels of greenhouse gases the same as they are today, do nothing more,

we’ll warm to somewhere between 1.8 and 1.9 degrees as a direct consequence

of a permafrost carbon feedback and the fact that we have an equilibration

to come to that temperature equilibrium with the knob on the dial set to 8,

for example.

We also know that if we suddenly say, “Oh no, we have to reduce

greenhouse gases,” we may reduce the gases, but the heat in the ocean

doesn’t go away right away. It takes time. That is the reason why, if we

fundamentally believe in intergenerational equity — and we believe that we

owe it to future generations to leave behind an environment that, frankly,

is habitable like the one we have — we have to act today, because waiting

for tomorrow is too late.

When I see a budget recognize that…. You know that to me, this is a

culminating effort as to one of the reasons why I got into politics. I got

here for this to happen. The fact that CleanBC was announced on December 5,

a date that I will never forget…. We have $902 million dedicated in this

budget, a number I will never forget, not even counting the myriad other

measures which have been also announced that don’t actually reflect in that

$902 million. You know I’m pleased, because finally we have a government

that is actually putting this back on the table as a priority.

I think, frankly, that not only today’s generation but future

generations will turn around and thank this government, this minority

government — and, frankly, the B.C. Greens as well — for the work that we

collectively did to get this here.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Thank you to my friend from Vancouver–​West End.

One of the things I wanted to mention is…. If we go to Sir David

Attenborough, what he recently said in December at the UN was this: “If we

don’t take action, the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of

much of the natural world is on the horizon.” Some people would say this is

alarming.

What I say to people who suggest that is: what other issue in any

other aspect of our society do you see that the experts in the field are the

loudest and most outspoken people? No other issue that I know of, other than

climate science. It is the climate scientists who are the ones screaming

from the rafters about the importance of dealing with greenhouse gas

emissions.

Sure, there are some other NGOs out there doing that as well, and good

work that they do. But if you go to many of the issues in our society, it is

not the experts in the field who are invariably shouting out. In this, each

and every climate scientist I know who’s practising and publishing worldwide

is concerned.

I have never seen an issue in any aspect of science where there is so

much unanimity in support of a direction that needs to happen and so much

collective bewilderment as to why our political leaders are unable to grasp

the challenge ahead, unable to recognize that this challenge is actually the

greatest opportunity for economic innovation and growth that we have ever

seen.

We have that being recognized here in B.C., because CleanBC is not a

climate plan. It is an economic vision for this province, one that clearly….

Clearly, the member for Surrey–White Rock…. It went over her head, because

she clearly doesn’t understand that the age of neoliberal economics is

gone.

[3:05 p.m.]

What people are looking for today is not for government to pick

winners with their big corporate fans, who are donating — but not anymore in

B.C., thanks to this minority government. What they’re looking for is for

governments to send a signal to the broader market but also to ensure that

people have the skills and tools and abilities to participate in this new

economy, because it is people that matter. It is people that fundamentally

are the ones that drive economic growth.

It is not the multi-billion-dollar generational sellout embodied in

our tax credit system for the oil and gas sector. That is not what builds

prosperity. What builds prosperity is innovation, education and focusing on

people, which is why I’m very pleased with this budget.

In 2007, I had the honour of being on the climate action team under

the then leader, Gordon Campbell, another leader who understood not only the

challenge but the opportunity that greenhouse gas reduction was affording

British Columbia. It was during that time that B.C. became the first

jurisdiction to put a price on carbon, an issue that, frankly, I don’t think

the member for Surrey–White Rock yet fully understands — what was done, why

it was done, what’s being done and the difference.

It’s actually quite embarrassing to hear the words coming from the

critic on topics that, clearly, she has not spent some time looking into.

You know, B.C. stood as an example then. It’s true that initially it was

revenue-neutral. It’s true that we had legislation in place to force revenue

neutrality. But let’s be clear. Revenue-neutral was an afterthought in terms

of accounting than it was in terms of actual policy drivers. So it is false

to claim that somehow there was a magic revenue neutrality that was

occurring because of deliberate choices.

Initially corporate and income taxes were reduced, but after a while,

it became difficult. What was happening is we were getting weird tax

credits. The hockey stick tax credit — my favourite — the $12 tax credit

that people didn’t even know they could claim. Each and every parent could

claim a $12 tax credit for a hockey stick if your kid bought a hockey stick.

Really? That is B.C. Liberal progressive policies? I don’t think

so.

I watched, though, initially as…. When I was on that climate action

team — and the leadership by the then government — I watched emissions drop

in British Columbia. They dropped as the carbon price began to take place.

But then what happens, and so often happens, is people forget why they’re

leaders. They lose track as to the reason why they were doing what they’re

doing. They get distracted by other issues.

Or, in the case of Mr. Campbell, the HST defeat and subsequent change

in leadership led to a complete ripping apart, tearing down and dismantling

of any climate legacy he had. Let’s be clear, to the members opposite.

Virtually every policy measure brought in by the Campbell government was

either disbanded or not increasing anymore. Virtually every one.

There is no moral high ground, not even a moral low ground, for the

members opposite to stand on, on the climate file. So I won’t for one second

listen to any of the rhetoric coming from any member opposite on any aspect

of greenhouse gas reductions in light of the fact that under their

government, they literally dismantled every single policy measure that was

brought in by the Campbell government in the space of only a couple of

years. So no, there’s no moral high ground, which is, again, why we’re so

pleased to actually stand and support this budget here today.

What we do know is…. Let me quote from the Vancouver Province

yesterday. This quote is really important in light of today’s shocking

revelation. “More than $1 billion a year laundered through a B.C.

underground bank servicing Mexican cartels, Asian gangs and Middle Eastern

crime groups.” Let me say that again. This is from a Paris-based

international organization. This isn’t from the Fraser Institute or

IntegrityBC or some local…. This is an international Paris-based

organization reporting out that more than $1 billion a year was laundered

through a B.C. underground bank servicing Mexican cartels, Asian gangs and

Middle Eastern crime groups.

Guess what we find out today. We find out that the B.C. Liberals were

giving them tax credits to launder money in B.C. Can you believe

this?

[3:10 p.m.]

In British Columbia — it could only happen here — the B.C. Liberal

government, through Advantage B.C., gave tax credits to money launderers

setting up shop here in B.C. For any B.C. Liberal member, let alone a

Finance critic, to have the gall to stand up here in this Legislature and

suggest that members on this side of the House somehow don’t understand the

affordability issue or somehow don’t understand what’s going on with the

economics of this province…. It’s just mind-boggling.

If ever I have seen a lack of economic oversight or wisdom, it has

been in the last four years I was sitting in this Legislature with a

government that clearly was out of ideas and had lost touch with the people

who elected it. Clearly, the members opposite still don’t realize that they

didn’t win the last election. They’re sitting there for at least two years,

and based on their performance in the last few question periods and months

ahead, they’ll be there for another four years after that because they still

lack a vision. They’re angry. They’re bitter. They’re cynical. They’re just

all…. Everything everyone else does is wrong, and they don’t offer

solutions. That’s not good enough.

As a critic, you have a duty and a responsibility, sure, to criticize.

But that’s not good enough. If you don’t like what’s being done, you’ve got

to propose what you’d do instead. And I heard absolutely none of that, not a

single proposal, not a single thing that the B.C. Liberals would have liked

to have seen. Not a single thing that they would have liked to have done.

Not a single thing that they think should be done in order to make B.C.

prosperous. Why? They had their chance. They had nothing. And now they still

have nothing, so they continue to harp on the same tired narrative that if

the NDP do something, it must be bad because the NDP did it.

Well, that’s the problem with politics in B.C. That is why the people

have lost confidence in a lot of what’s going on here. They’re cynical about

the inability of politicians to actually say: “You know what? That’s okay.

You did a good job here. We wouldn’t have done it that way, but we did a

good job.”

That’s what you are hearing from the B.C. Greens. We wouldn’t have

done everything in this budget, but we think the Finance Minister has done a

good job. In fact, today in question period, I was very impressed with how

well she defended her actions, so impressed that I would suggest that she

has solidified her commanding role as leader of the financial governings of

this party.

The budget provides clear evidence to me that our participation in

this landmark minority government has been a success. If ever there was a

day that we thought we made a wrong decision back in May of 2017, never

more. Without any doubt, the three of us, with the weighty responsibility we

had, had to make a choice. We chose, ultimately, to support a B.C. NDP

government because there were more things of shared value. But

fundamentally, it was because they had agreed that dealing with climate

change is an important issue, and they agreed that dealing with it should

not be viewed as a stick. It’s a carrot. It’s an economic

opportunity.

While the members opposite quibble about a carbon tax increase, they

fail to mention that…. Okay, the carbon tax is going on. But right now, if

you want to go home and convert your natural gas heat or your oil burner to

a heat pump, there’s now money in the budget to assist this transition.

That’s good for innovation.

The cottage industry that was created in British Columbia when the

B.C. Liberals used to have a vision…. It was created through the…. What was

the program called? The small renovate B.C. program that allowed you to….

I’m sorry. I’ve forgotten the name. This happens when you turn over the age

of 50. Some of these names don’t stick. It was a small retrofit program that

created a cottage industry, a small industry of small builders putting in

niche markets, retrofitting your energy uptake, putting on solar panels.

That’s what happened. That was very innovative by the B.C. Liberals. It’s

gone, of course, coming back here through a creation of policies that will

incentivize this.

This is what does create jobs. It’s not government picking, say,

Steelhead LNG and saying: “You’re the winner. We’re going to give you this

because you’ve donated to us, so you’re the winning technology.” It doesn’t

do that. It says we’re sending a signal to the market that this is the

direction we want to head in. Let the market propose the solutions. That’s

good economic policy. It seems to have gone over the head of the

critic.

Interjection.

[3:15 p.m.]

A. Weaver: Power Smart. Thank you to the member for Richmond-Queensborough. Power

Smart was the program. I do appreciate that. There’s room for you over on

this side of the House, sir. If you remember that name, clearly, you’re

under the age of 50 and you have hope for the…. Too bad most of your caucus

members have been here for 20 years and nothing has changed in your party.

Maybe you could help rejuvenate some of them as well.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: A good fraction of them are. I look around this room, and I see people

who’ve been here a very long time.

I’m just going to pause for a second, hon. Speaker, if I might, to

give my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant a few minutes to make an

introduction, if you so give me leave.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Mark: In the precinct is a very good friend. We battled together. We ran in

a by-election together. He is a city councillor for Vancouver. He’s

representing us fiercely and passionately. He’s been a family friend. He’s a

resident in Strathcona. I admire his leadership so much. Thank you for

everything that you do, Pete Fry, Green Party city councillor for Vancouver.

Would the House please join me in welcoming my good friend.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: Had I known that my good friend Pete Fry was also sitting up there, I,

too, would’ve introduced him. I thank the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant for the introduction. I didn’t see Pete up there. I hope to see you

later this afternoon if you’ve got some time.

Back to the budget. We’ve had a number of successes in this budget,

advancing some of our key values as B.C. Greens and some of our key policy

priorities. I’ll try to go into some detail as I get through this. Some of

the topics — for example, CleanBC…. Education was a major priority for us in

the last provincial election.

Professional reliance is something that my colleague, the MLA for

Cowichan Valley, has very personal experiences dealing with and has spent a

good deal of time working with the Minister of Environment

revising.

We’ve got increasing affordability for students, something that we

actually pushed, as well as government — to bring this in, in a timely

fashion. I’ll come to each of these separately, but that is a really

significant advance.

We’ve got investments in youth mental health. The Foundry

organizations across B.C. What a successful model they are, and I’m glad to

see funding in that regard.

We’ve got other policies in the confidence and supply agreement,

which, you know, has been unique in its ups-and-downs challenges. But as per

the CASA and what we agreed to do, we were consulted on government’s

approach to the budget. We were able to put in our submission.

We were not given, of course, any information as to what’s in the

budget, but like other stakeholders, we made a submission to government

about what were B.C. Green priorities. Honestly, we valued that opportunity

to submit, and we’ve worked quite collaboratively in this regard for quite

some time. Frankly, I think it behooves all of us in this room to perhaps do

a little more of that.

I get that people are opposition or not, but it doesn’t mean that you

can’t actually support good ideas or try to give others credit for some good

ideas. It just seems like it’s not possible with the members opposite. Maybe

if they learned a little humility, a little humility to recognize that it’s

okay to praise somebody on the other side, it’d go a long way to rebuilding

public support for their particular party.

Let me come into these in some more detail. Obviously and personally,

CleanBC was of particular interest to me. It’s not, of course, something

that falls squarely in the purview of the Minister of Environment. It’s not

just one ministry. It’s a governmentwide approach, CleanBC is. It’s not a

climate plan, per se. It’s an economic plan. When people realize it’s an

economic plan, they’ll recognize how exciting it is.

We have, in British Columbia, some key strategic opportunities that

will allow us to seize upon the opportunities afforded in a low-carbon

economy. As I mentioned earlier, when I came here to British Columbia, it

was for the lifestyle. I came to Victoria, the University of Victoria, known

for paying the lowest university salaries in the country.

Why? Because they could. People would go to UVic, and they knew they

could attract people at a lower wage because people got to live in Victoria.

Who wouldn’t want to live in Victoria? I guess some of the MLAs who live in

other areas, but for most, what a great place to have a family and what a

great place to have kids grow up and go to school.

[3:20 p.m.]

We know that that’s a key strategic advantage of British Columbia —

that we are a destination of choice. Because of that, we can attract and

retain the best and brightest from all around the world, in highly mobile

sectors, because of the quality of life. We should never forget that. If you

want to retain that strategic advantage, you have to protect that which

created the strategic advantage — that is, our environment, our access to

beautiful outdoors and our lifestyle. That is what we have to

protect.

The B.C. Liberal approach has been to have a free-for-all in rural

B.C., in terms of economic building here and there, with no overall

oversight ensuring the cumulative effects or the longer-term consequences.

So we’re struggling with ungulate declines. We’re struggling with natural

habitat loss. We’re struggling with salmon species that are going extinct.

We’re struggling with orca populations. We’re struggling with the very

things, the very values we had that create the strategic advantage of us

over everyone else in the world. You can go anywhere in the world in most

professions these days, but we have that strategic strength. We must protect

it.

We also have access to boundless renewable energy here in B.C., like

no other jurisdiction in the world. I challenge anyone in this place here to

find any other jurisdiction that has geothermal, tidal, solar, wind,

biomass, small-scale hydro, has every possible source of renewable energy

that we could want here. And we have one of the best education systems in

the world, if not the best.

You don’t have to believe me. Just go to the PISA international

assessments, and you’ll see that, every two years, B.C. ranks right at the

top in terms of reading, writing and math, if not the top, in Canada. In

fact, people often tout the Finnish school system. In fact, ironically,

members opposite, when I first got elected, so little did they trust their

own B.C. public education sector….

This was before the member for Peace River South was minister, so I’m

not going to throw him under the bus here. My good friend there is nodding

and thanking me for that, I can see.

One of the first things they did was — guess what — send off some

young student to Finland to study the Finnish education system to bring back

lessons for B.C. Well, the only studying she should have done was gone to

the latest PISA assessments and recognized that B.C. beat Finland in all of

the metrics and that this was an outrageous policy.

If the B.C. Liberals had recognized that we have quality education,

they wouldn’t have spent so many years going after teachers, cutting the

system and then, down the road, wondering why we’re dealing with some of the

social problems we’re dealing with — with naloxone and drug and alcohol

addictions and things like that.

When you cut the services that children need at their critical years

of development…. Those are the early K-to-12 years. You cut — and they were

the first go — the child psychologists, the speech pathologists, the

in-class help, the class size. The teachers were unable to manage with

multiple different classifications of kids. The number of individual

education plans a teacher might have — upwards of five, six, at some times.

Then you wonder why, when we don’t give the children of today — it was

actually yesterday — the head start they need to function, to actually take

advantage of the opportunity society holds, we end up with a problem down

the road.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I can tell you why. It was mean-spirited, and it was shortsighted.

While the member for Abbotsford West likes to pretend that somehow he had a

magical hand on the budget, I say this to him: what Minister of Finance

would let more than $1 billion go surplus in an election year? I’ll tell you

what. It’s a Minister of Finance who has no idea of what’s going on in his

Finance Ministry. That’s who will do it. Because clearly, that was an

outrageous budget surplus, and I’m pleased that government here today has

stepped in.

In the context of CleanBC, this is not just an investment for today,

but this is an investment for the future as well. It’s going to go a long

way, but not all the way, to reaching our 40 percent greenhouse gas

reductions by 2030, based on 2007 levels. When I say not all the way, it’s

because only three-quarters, 75 percent, has been done. Of the $902 million,

a significant fraction has been set aside for the promised policy measures

that will be developed over the next year or so. We look forward for more

announcements in the next budget in 2020.

CleanBC will reduce B.C.’s carbon emissions by 18.9 megatonnes by the

year 2030. That’s significant. That’s very significant. Of the $902 million

investment, $354 million is in operating funds, and $299 million — that’s

almost $300 million — is a contingency for programs currently in

development. These are for the next 25 percent released.

[3:25 p.m.]

And $26 million is in capital investments to help people and

businesses reduce their emissions — Power Smart B.C. And $223 million will

increase the climate action tax credit in 2019, 2020 and 2021. This is

critical, because this goes back to a slightly different notion. Again, this

is more along the lines of a fee-and-dividend approach than it is in terms

of revenue neutrality in terms of a tax reduction.

What the government has chosen to do…. Of course, we supported this as

it’s written straight into the CASA. We recognized that for those who are at

the lower income, the small increase in carbon tax can actually place a

burden on otherwise affordability measures. So the carbon tax refund, which

matches with the GST refund that we get, will go up by upwards of $400 for a

family of four.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Yeah, so we were just having a lecture earlier on about when you

give…. The first responses to budget speeches, hon. Speaker, have a rich

tradition of not heckling the person giving the first response, as you know.

Then the Liberals berated the B.C. NDP for doing that, and then, of course,

as I give the first response as a B.C. Green, I get heckled by the B.C.

Liberals. It shows you the hypocrisy out there. “Do as I say, not as I do”

is the motto that we seem to see here, emanating from members

opposite.

Back to the CleanBC. There are specific measures in there: $107

million is for zero-emission vehicle standards — $107 million. That’s a

non-trivial amount of money. That’s for point-of-sale electric vehicle

incentives, new charging stations, training and research and active

transportation initiatives. That should be added to the notion that we were

going to have 100 percent emission-free vehicles by 2040 and 40 percent

ZEV-standard by 2030. This is world leading. This is exciting, and industry

is responding.

We know that the average British Columbian can save $6,000 for an

electric vehicle. Not only are you saving six thousand bucks for an electric

vehicle, you’re avoiding the carbon tax forever. As someone who’s had an EV

for quite a number of years now, I can tell you that the second you drive

off that lot, that is the last time that you will ever think twice about

ever owning another gas-powered vehicle.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: To the member for Vancouver-Langara, I salute you, because you have a

Chevy Bolt. Actually, it’s probably either that or the Hyundai Kona that

will be the next car that we get as well, because it gets a slightly longer

range. So kudos to the member for Vancouver-Langara for stepping up with a

Chevy Bolt. The Bolt wasn’t around; it was just the Volt when I got my first

EV. Terry Lake, who’s no longer here, a member from Kamloops South or North

Thompson, had a Chevy Volt. It’s a plug-in hybrid. It’s kind of cheating but

showing leadership, nonetheless. But the member for Vancouver-Langara has

clearly stepped it up, as has the Minister of Environment, who has…. I

forget what his is. He has an EV.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: No, I have the LEAF; Adam has a LEAF. I forget what he has. It doesn’t

matter. He’s got one, which is what’s important. Why it’s important is it’s

showing leadership. It truly is showing leadership. The member for

Vancouver-Langara showed leadership. Too bad his leader isn’t showing the

same leadership that he showed, but that’s another story for another time

and another day.

The CleanBC has $58 million in additional capital funding to make

buildings more fuel-efficient, more energy-efficient. It can provide $14,000

for homeowners to switch to high-efficiency heating equipment and to make

building envelope improvements. Think about that. Think about the

opportunity people have to switch from an oil furnace, bypassing the gas and

going straight to a heat exchanger. If you’ve got the duct work in your

house, you’re set for a heat exchanger, because the oil furnace and the gas

furnace are pumping the air through the same direction and the same places

that the heat exchanger will. This is an incentive that people will respond

to.

There’s upwards of $2,000 to replace a fossil fuel — oil, propane or

natural gas — heating system with an electric air-source pump, as I

mentioned. A thousand bucks to upgrade windows and doors to be better

insulated. This is an interesting one too, because we seem to think it’s a

standard to put double-pane in. Why are we putting double-pane in? Let’s put

triple-pane. Why would we do double-pane when triple-pane exists? And you

save money. It’s a little more expensive, sure. But the payback is

sure.

[3:30 p.m.]

And $18 million will be here to work with Indigenous and remote

communities to move to cleaner energy sources. This is for moving off diesel

and so forth. And $168 million over three years to assist large industry in

reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to make their operations cleaner.

There’s $3 million for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy for implementation and monitoring.

That was the money in the budget. What about greenhouse gases? The

zero-emission vehicle standard will reduce emissions by about 2030, while

signalling to North America that B.C. is the place for innovation. B.C. is

the place for innovation in the transportation sector.

We already have amazing companies, like a Richmond-based company

building batteries for ferries. We already have amazing advances here in

B.C., but we’re one of the last to adopt the innovation that our innovators

actually develop. This CleanBC is saying: “No more. Let’s get back on

track.”

We know that the additional electric vehicle incentives and subsidies

will cut another 0.3 megatonnes. Low-carbon fuel standard will count for a

reduction of about 4.4 megatonnes.

Here’s an interesting fact that people may not know, if they’re

riveted to their TV screen. Under the ZAP EV program in B.C. — it’s a

program that’s funded by oil companies, clearly — you can actually get a

free electric charger in your house. For free. It costs zero dollars. Why?

Because clearly, as you switch to an electric car, what’s happening here is

your usage is being tracked, and that counts as a credit against a

low-carbon fuel standard. It’s actually beneficial for companies selling gas

in B.C. to give you a free EV charger at your home to actually help you move

off gas. I love subsidies like that — polluter pay. Polluter pay, and

onwards we go.

The building code improvements will cut half a megatonne; building

efficiency energy policies, 1½ megatonnes. Policies for remote and rural

communities to switch off diesel and support large industry will reduce 2½

megatonnes.

Methane regulations, coming into play largely with the federal

government but some provincial, 0.9 megatonnes. Industrial electrification,

3½ megatonnes. Carbon capture and storage, and I’m a little leery about this

one, 2.6 megatonnes. Renewable gas regulations for industry, 0.9 megatonnes.

Waste reduction, 0.7 megatonnes. Carbon pricing — five bucks a year, going

up next year as well, 1.8 megatonnes.

Altogether, the incremental reductions are about 18.9 megatonnes. Even

with that, as I mentioned, we’re only going to get to 75 percent of our 2030

target. Again, it would clearly be a lot easier if we didn’t have to worry

about that LNG Canada monkey on our back. Nevertheless, it’s a solid start

and provides us with momentum to take us the rest of the way

there.

I’ve committed and my colleagues Saanich North and the Islands and

Cowichan Valley have committed to work closely with government on the

CleanBC plan. We expect further answers in the coming year to see how we’re

going to get to 100 percent.

The announcement made in the budget about CleanBC funding is by no

means the end. It is but the beginning. It’s the beginning of a transition

that will start in British Columbia. It’s the beginning of an exciting

market about the direction it wants our economy to head.

There’s one thing you can count on in British Columbia: the innate

potential of British Columbians to innovate and to respond to challenges,

because British Columbians like to be leaders. They don’t like to be

followers. They want to follow leaders, and they want be to leaders in the

new economy. This budget is setting them up for success in that

regard.

Coming to the CASA…. Many people often ask us: “What’s CASA all about?

What’s in CASA? Why are you doing this or that?” CASA, in this, was a

foundational document that framed the kinds of conditions by which the

minority government is supported by the B.C. Greens.

One of the key priorities — I would suggest the fundamental priority

for us in terms of us signing on with the CASA — was that it specifically

stated that we would implement climate action strategy to meet our targets.

I can safely say that that box is checked three-quarters of the way, 75

percent of the way — still got 25 to do.

In the CASA we talked about there, it specifically mentions that the

carbon price will increase by $5 a year. Again, what’s the signal? The

signal was leadership.

Mr. Trudeau, federally, is now in a big fight with Ontario,

Saskatchewan and Alberta, with New Brunswick kind of mumbling in the

background, about carbon pricing.

[3:35 p.m.]

British Columbia has said: “You know what? Let’s get on with meeting

Trudeau’s target, but let’s do it in a manner that creates certainty for

business and sends a price signal that’s certain.” So business has known for

the last two years that it will go up another $5 next year, and it’ll go up

another $5 after that.

Business has certainty, and British Columbians got leadership. This

was a B.C. Green position that we took into our negotiations. We got that

leadership. We got that certainty. Government has delivered. Business is

responding.

Honestly, the members opposite, desperate to find anything about

anything, are now trying to dredge up carbon tax. Really? Overwhelming

support by British Columbians, but what they want is to know that they have

the tools available to them to help them reduce the amount of carbon tax

they’re paying. And that is what this budget has delivered through the

incentives for transportation and home retrofits.

We also in our CASA talk about the delivery of rebate cheques for

British Columbians to ensure they’re better off than under the current

carbon tax formula. The rebate cheques — again, you can check that box off —

are coming through in this budget. That is a form of dividend. It’s a

lower-income amount. It comes in the form of a dividend to low-income

British Columbians.

Finally, under CASA, we talk about putting a fugitive price on

emissions and, of course, on slash burning. While this is not really within

the budget here, there are certainly ongoing discussions about the

regulatory framework that Ottawa is bringing into play and how that relates

to B.C.

In the question of slash burning, when I come to talk about forest

fires, this is one of the things that we need to get our hands on. We’re

still not there yet in terms of our discussions with government, but that

fuel is wasted fuel. It’s also fuel for forest fires. At the same time,

we’re dealing with certain mills that are struggling for access to fibre. So

there is a bit of a triple win here: fewer forest fires, more fibre and

getting the stuff out of the forests as well.

As I mentioned, we made a submission. Well, many people made

submissions to government. We asked government to show a commitment to

CleanBC, and in our submission, we asked specifically that CleanBC be fully

funded. We asked for comprehensive and ongoing funding for a clean growth

strategy for buildings, transportation and industry. We asked for investment

in electric vehicle infrastructure and increased incentives for British

Columbians to switch to EVs and other zero-emission vehicles.

We asked for a focus on the modernization of B.C. Hydro to support

innovation. I’ll come to that in a second — innovation not just in terms of

how we produce electricity but also how we invest in the future, how we

transport and actually use electricity too. I’m pleased to say that the

first two of those were actually delivered on. We still have some work to do

to convince government, with the phase 2 B.C. Hydro review — we’ve got phase

1 — that it needs to relook at the mandate of British Columbia

Hydro.

I remain troubled by the cancelling of the standing offer program,

which has led to a rather large liability that government is incurring in

terms of people who’ve invested millions upon millions of dollars to enter

or be part of the standing offer program now being told that that program is

a wash. There are certainly liabilities that the government has exposed

itself to as people seek damages for that.

There’s also liability — less fiscal, but goodwill liability — with

many Indigenous communities in British Columbia who have formed partnerships

with private industry to develop independent power projects in their

territory that would actually benefit their community, provide stable

long-term jobs that are well-paying. Those, too, are being put on hold and

cancelled.

We have some work to do in this regard. My colleagues and I are

committed to do that work — to bring the information to government to ensure

that they see the wiseness of continuing to move down the path of

independent power projects, but doing so in a manner that reflects the

current market value of energy. There is no way you would put out a call for

power at 35 cents a kilowatt hour in today’s market. However, a call for

eight cents a kilowatt hour or even seven cents would be met and delivered

into by a number of clean projects, whether it be wind, solar or

others.

We know that in Alberta, we’re getting wind power coming in at three

and a bit cents a kilowatt hour. We know that in places in the U.S., solar

is coming in below that. We know that with our slightly complex terrain, we

can deliver at below eight cents, but maybe not quite as low as 3½ cents.

But we can deliver much cheaper than Site C would come. Not only that, it is

not your money, not my money, not anybody’s money here that’s put at risk

with these projects. It is investor money.

[3:40 p.m.]

One of the saddest things that happened — this happened under the

former government — was that on Vancouver Island, TimberWest and EDP

Renewables, a major multinational wind company, as well as a number of First

Nations on Vancouver Island, wanted to build a $700 million wind farm

capacity here on private land, in partnership with Indigenous communities,

funded by private venture cap.

Guess what. That fell through because there was nobody they were

allowed to sell power to other than B.C. Hydro, and the previous government

made a commitment to build Site C to deliver power that we don’t actually

need for sometime in the future. That’s sad. Hopefully there will come a

point when we can bring back the Canadian Wind Energy Association to British

Columbia, after they summarily packed up their bags and left a number of

years ago.

Let’s come back to the support for family caregivers in Budget ’19.

One of the things mentioned in the budget is that it raises financial

support for Indigenous extended family caregivers, such as grandparents or

aunties, to be equal to the amount received by foster parents.

This is good public policy. This is really important public policy.

It’s consistent with our CASA commitment. CASA, for those listening, is the

confidence and supply agreement, which stated the following: “Enhance and

improve child protection services to ensure that all children grow up in

safe and nurturing environments.” The minister’s mandate letter actually

said this: “To provide better supports to keep Aboriginal children at home

and out of care. Make reducing the number of Aboriginal children entering

our care system a priority.”

My colleague from Cowichan Valley has a very large Indigenous

community in her riding. One of the things she reports back is that we

sometimes look with disdain upon the 1960s and ’70s and the so-called

Sixties Scoop that occurred when children were taken and put in residential

schools in a number of jurisdictions.

What we fail to recognize is that a scoop far bigger than actually

happened in the ’60s is ongoing in British Columbia as MCFD social workers

apprehend child after child in Indigenous communities. It’s got so bad that

in some communities, what has happened…. As a means and ways of getting back

at someone you’re having an argument with, one of the tactics is to phone up

an MCFD operator and report some child abuse in that person’s home so that

MCFD come and scoop up the child. This has got to stop.

We’re very pleased with the direction the government is taking in

terms of recognizing that Indigenous communities are the best to serve the

needs of their children, and government is providing support in that regard.

In our submission to government, we pushed for a funding shift towards

initiatives that support families and keep children and their families in

their communities together. We argued for increasing funding for Indigenous

extended-family caregivers, and we also supported increasing funding to

community Indigenous-led programs. We’re pleased, again, that government, in

this regard, certainly responded.

In terms of PharmaCare funding, Budget 2019 states that roughly

240,000 B.C. families’ prescription medication will become more affordable

this January because of the $105 million added into the Fair PharmaCare

program. Under CASA, the commitment that we agreed, we agreed to develop a

proposal to implement an essential drugs program designed to reduce the cost

of prescription drugs and ensure that the cost of drugs is not a barrier to

health management.

After discussing the opportunity to develop a universal

essential-drugs program with the Ministry of Health, we agreed that targeted

funding for low-income British Columbians who could not afford their

prescriptions was actually a positive short-term policy that advanced the

overall goal of our CASA commitment. If the federal government showed a

willingness to engage in the essential-drugs program discussion over the

next year, we’d be keen to revisit our CASA commitment.

In the short-term, we’re pleased, and we’ve put a tick box again.

Thank you, government, for the actions in this very important area. In our

B.C. Green 2017 platform, we specifically stated that we would develop an

essential-drugs program to reduce the cost of prescription drugs.

Let’s go to education. For us, this was our single biggest priority in

the 2017 education platform. We recognized that if a society wants to lead

in the 21st century, education must be its number one priority. We must

equip the next generation of youth-cum-adults in our society with the tools

and skills that they have to excel as innovators in the new

economy.

[3:45 p.m.]

We’re pleased, again, with what Budget 2019 does: a $550 million

investment over three years for public education, which includes $58 million

for a classroom enhancement fund — mandated, of course, by the Supreme Court

of Canada’s decision — and there’s $31 million for independent schools. But

a total of $423 million is now allocated annually. That’s over 4,000

teachers, 700 special ed teachers, 160 teacher-psychologists and counsellors

that will be hired since 2017.

This is exactly what needs to be done. We need to ensure that children

in their development years, the key years of development, have the tools,

skills and services available to them to actually allow them to succeed. We

should no longer have a society where the lottery of birth determines your

future direction in that society.

I’ve heard tell that many people want independent school funding to be

cut and argue to put that into public schools. But I like government’s

approach here. This is something that we advocate for. You don’t improve

public education by going to war with the independent schools. You improve

public education by making it the envy of one and all so that there’s no

need for independent schools to actually be there to attract people outside

of the public education system. This is how many jurisdictions operate. Many

northern European jurisdictions, many European jurisdictions, have a system

that puts in place a priority of education as their number one

priority.

It makes me distraught when I see society as a whole, fed by the anger

and the rhetoric of the previous B.C. Liberal administration, turn against

teachers and believe that somehow teachers are a problem. No, teachers go

into teaching, by and large, because they want to serve the next generation.

They want to inspire youth, and they take satisfaction from actually seeing

people learn. They take satisfaction by seeing a child, struggling when

coming into their class and leaving their class a little bit better equipped

to deal with the challenges they face ahead.

The best thing that can happen to any teacher is to have that child

return to you ten, 15 years later and say: “You know what? I remember that

class. You may not remember me, but that has improved my life.” That is why

teachers go into teaching. They don’t go into teaching to become millionaire

stockbrokers. They go in because they value the importance of education.

When we start to turn public attitude against teachers, we’re at the very

base of our society.

There’s a reason why one of the most esteemed professions in most

northern European countries is the teacher. The people recognize, as part of

who they are, that education is the foundation of any successful

society.

Why is it that the happiness index across the world invariably puts

the top nations as the northern European nations? It’s because citizens get

the services they need when they need it. They graduate, there’s a more

equitable society, and it’s not one designed solely for the 1 percent, who

would thrive no matter what. In many cases, they’re in the 1 percent only

because mommy or daddy left them some money, and they were born that way —

the so-called lottery of birth.

In our CASA commitment, we agreed to fast-track enhancement to K-to-12

education, funding to restore faith in public schools after a decade and a

half of governments that shortchanged a generation of students.

We talked about our priorities for funding, which include early

intervention in health start programs, as well as reviewing the funding

model for the K-to-12 system, with a view to ensuring equitable access for

students. While we wouldn’t have done everything the way the B.C. NDP have

done it, we recognize that that’s their prerogative. They’re government;

we’re not. We’re a minority part of this minority government. We are there

supporting their general direction, providing input when we can on various

things.

We support the government’s approach to increasing funding for public

education. It’s not as much as we would have done. We had committed over $4

billion over four years of new funding for public education. It’s a question

of priorities. That, for us, was our top priority. As outlined in our

platform, we would have invested more money, sure, but we’ll continue to

push this as a priority for government, because we need to do all we can to

support the children and youth as they prepare themselves for the future. We

look forward to working with government to deliver more education funding in

the 2½ years ahead.

Coming to the elimination of student loans. Now, both the B.C. NDP and

the B.C. Greens campaigned on eliminating interest on student loans. As of

February 19, interest will no longer accrue for students with loans.

Previously the interest was charged on prime rates.

[3:50 p.m.]

The cost of this program is $31 million each fiscal year, with a

one-time write-down of $225 million in this year, but let’s put this in

context. The average undergraduate in B.C. borrows about $11,200. That’s not

really fair, because there are a lot of students who borrow nothing, some of

whom win the lottery of birth, and there are a lot who borrow an awful lot

more. When you graduate with a $50,000 debt from your undergraduate degree,

initially you’re stepping out into society hampered with this ball and chain

on your foot for decades as you try to pay that back.

Again, what sort of civil society are w