Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 216

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Donaldson

Bill M203 — Equal Pay Reporting Act

S. Cadieux

Bill M204 —

Interpretation (Uniform Pacific Time Zone) Act, 2019

L. Larson

Bill M205 — Name Amendment Act, 2019

M. Polak

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Equal Voice and women in politics

M. Dean

Women’s participation and leadership

E. Ross

Lymphedema

N. Simons

Vancouver International Auto Show

E. Foster

B.C. Tech Summit

R. Glumac

Steveston Karate Club tournament

J. Yap

Oral Questions

Speculation and vacancy tax

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

T. Redies

Panel report and government policies on natural gas fracking

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Mungall

Community benefits agreement and workers

S. Cadieux

Hon. C. Trevena

T. Wat

Forest industry tenures

C. Oakes

Hon. D. Donaldson

Government handling of issues

M. Polak

Hon. J. Horgan

Petitions

S. Furstenau

Tabling Documents

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report

19-01 , lobbyist: Utilia Amaral, January 24, 2019

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report

19-02 , lobbyist: Iuliana Calin, January 24, 2019

Motions Without Notice

Membership changes to Finance Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Supply Act, 2018–2019 (Supplementary Estimates)

Hon. C. James

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Supply Act, 2018–2019 (Supplementary Estimates)

Hon. C. James

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Supply Act, 2018–2019 (Supplementary Estimates)

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2019

Hon. C. James

T. Redies

Hon. C. James

Bill 5 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2019

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

Hon. G. Heyman

T. Redies

A. Weaver

N. Simons

D. Routley

Hon. C. James

Bill 9 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

B. D’Eith

D. Routley

Hon. D. Eby

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 2 — Protection of Public Participation Act (continued)

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

Hon. K. Conroy

D. Clovechok

I. Paton

L. Throness

Hon. K. Chen

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2019

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

M. Polak: Joining us today in the gallery are Mayor Jack Froese from the

township of Langley and Coun. Brent Asmundson from Coquitlam. Would the

House please make them very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I have some very special guests today. First of all, Nirmala Raniga —

she’s the founder of the Chopra Addiction and Wellness Center. She got a

2008 nomination for the YWCA Women of Distinction Awards; she was nominated

for the 2008 Celebration of Business Excellence Awards; and she is a

certified master educator of primordial sound meditation, the seven

spiritual laws of yoga and perfect health Ayurvedic lifestyle.

She’s got five out-patient clinics, one in the Lower Mainland. I

visited one in Squamish. And she co-founded all of these clinics with Deepak

Chopra. She has her colleagues here with her today, and I wish that the

House would make them welcome: Nirmala herself, Shalina Kajani, Dr. Mario

Baff, Helen Chen, Inderpal Sahans, Subhaq Sami and Michelle Ibaraki, all

from Chopra Wellness. Could the House please make them welcome.

R. Kahlon: I have a good friend visiting today from Delta, Mark Gordienko. He’s

the former president of the ILWU, and he’s come all the way over to watch

the proceedings today. I hope the House can please make Mark

welcome.

T. Redies: I think my colleague is going to make an introduction as well, but I

just wanted to acknowledge my constituent. Scott Ellis with Guide Outfitters

Association is here in the House with some of his colleagues.

Lovely to see you, Scott.

I hope the House will make all the people from the Guide Outfitters

very welcome today.

D. Davies: Just to follow on my colleague’s tails, I just want to introduce a

couple of members that are here with the Guide Outfitters of B.C. We have

Doug McMann, Michael Schneider and Scott Ellis, as just mentioned; and all

the way down from the thriving metropolis of Baldonnel, Sean Olmstead.

Please make them feel welcome.

M. Dean: Today it’s my great pleasure to welcome members of Equal Voice B.C.:

Thoren Hudyma, Hannah Waldaez, Karen Aitken, Astraland Phillips and Nicole

Johnson. Would the House please make them very welcome.

S. Malcolmson: As we recognize International Women’s Day, I encourage members of the

House to make welcome my friend and Nanaimo businesswomen Ashwa Siri, who

was a founder of what we called Women in Politics in Nanaimo, now formed as

an Equal Voice

chapter for central Vancouver Island.

Also in the gallery, friends that I met initially in Ottawa’s

parliament from the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee, Rachael

Segal and Jaime Reich — women that I met along with our colleague Robyn

Fishbein in Ottawa. Very glad to have you here, also, representing the need

to have more women in politics.

Hon. M. Mungall: As you can see, Zavier insisted on joining me to make this

introduction, because the people I’m introducing are very important to him.

They are his godparents. Jeff and Lisel Forst are in the gallery today

joining us all the way from Nelson. Can the House please make them very

welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

M. Lee: I’d like to rise to introduce my young friend, Jonathan Ling, who’s

here from Vancouver visiting for the day. We all have many young supporters

who support us in our efforts, and Jonathan was a great volunteer for me in

my 2017 local election campaign. He’s a Langara student who’s finished his

couple of years and off to SFU university through the great transfer program

that Langara College has. Will the House please join me in welcoming

Jonathan.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Today I’d like to introduce ministry staff, joining us in the gallery,

who worked hard on amended legislation that I’ll be introducing this

afternoon: Jillian Rousselle, director of the archaeology branch; Leanne

Davies, manager of the archaeology branch; Richard Linzey, director of the

heritage branch. They’re joined by staff from the archaeology branch. I

think there are more than 20 of them here today. I won’t name all of them,

but will the House please make them welcome.

P. Milobar: Today in the precinct we have students from the ASCEND school based

out of Kamloops. I would ask the House to make them feel welcome.

S. Furstenau: I’d like to introduce Mary Gallagher, who’s here in the precinct today

with a group of her students from ASCEND Online school. I look forward to

meeting with them later this afternoon. Would the House please make them

welcome.

D. Barnett: I, too, would like to ask the House to welcome Doug McMann, a

guide-outfitter from the Cariboo-Chilco­tin, and welcome him here

today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — HERITAGE CONSERVATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Heritage Conservation Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

Today I introduce changes to the Heritage Conservation Act to

enhance the protection of areas with heritage and archaeological values

in the province. The Heritage Conservation Act, whose purpose is to

encourage and facilitate the protection and conservation of heritage

property, has not been substantially amended in over 20

years.

The heritage of our province is vitally important because it

connects us all to the rich cultural history of B.C., and especially to

that of B.C.’s Indigenous peoples. These changes act, in part, on our

commitment to implement the United Nations declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples.

Changes will allow government to take more decisive action to

preserve heritage and archaeological sites and objects. For example,

people will be legally required to report discoveries of specified sites

of objects with potential heritage value. As well, a person may be

required to obtain and pay for a heritage inspection or investigation as

a precondition of alteration of a site, and compliance and enforcement

tools will be improved.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M203 — EQUAL PAY

REPORTING

ACT

S. Cadieux presented a bill intituled Equal Pay Reporting

Act.

S. Cadieux: I move that the bill intituled Equal Pay Reporting Act, of which

noticed has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and

read a first time now.

As I look around this chamber at the 33 other women who have taken

up the reins of elected public service and the three women who sit here

at the Clerk’s table, I’m enormously grateful to be living in this time.

I am grateful to have been raised by parents who never, ever placed

limits on my potential, my worth or my opportunity. The B.C. Legislature

is fortunate to have strong, determined male and female leaders in all

caucuses. My wish is that we would work together, because there are

still, in 2019, inequalities that need to be addressed.

[1:45 p.m.]

Women make up 60 percent of the workforce. However, we are still

affected by the reality of the gender gap. The gender pay gap is still

31 percent in Canada — 31 cents on every dollar that could be used for

better accommodation, more savings, a route out of poverty or

investments in education. It’s 31 percent of your wage every day that

just vanished because of your gender. This money isn’t taken up by taxes

or other deductions, just by the invisible hand of inequality. It only

gets worse for low-income, racialized and Indigenous women. It’s the

reality, still, of our modern world.

What do we do to make important and lasting change in B.C. and set

the tone for other provinces to follow? First, we admit the gap exists.

We admit that we have work to do, and we act on solutions. We here have

the power to prescribe transformational measures to compel employers to

do what’s right and what is best for British Columbians.

This bill intends to bring pay inequality into the light by

requiring any employer in B.C. with 50 or more employees to publicly

post an annual breakdown of gender wages in their business. The

information will include wage and bonus pay for male and female

employees and will be available on a company website or by other easily

accessible means. The aim of the bill is to drive change, facilitate

conversation and allow both employers and the public to see where there

is still work to be done.

It’s time to move past passively acknowledging that there’s a

problem. Yes, there’ll be lots of conversations that it will spark, lots

of theories and lots of excuses, but really, the only question I ask of

this House is: would you be okay with it if I were to pay your daughter

less than your son?

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

Motion approved.

S. Cadieux: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M203, Equal Pay Reporting Act, introduced, read a first time and

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

sitting of the House after today.

BILL M204 —

INTERPRETATION

(UNIFORM PACIFIC TIME

ZONE) ACT, 2019

L. Larson presented a bill intituled

Interpretation (Uniform Pacific

Time Zone) Act, 2019.

L. Larson: I move that the bill intituled the

Interpretation (Uniform Pacific

Time Zone) Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order

paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

In 2017 and in 2018, the city of Grand Forks put a resolution on

the floor of the UBCM asking for support to end time-shifting and to

keep daylight savings time as our permanent time in British Columbia.

On-line surveys show that nearly 85 percent of British Columbians were

in support of ending time-shifting, and there continues to be growing

public support in B.C. to stop this 101-year-old practice.

Also in other parts of the world, there is a rising debate on this

issue. The European Parliament is currently reviewing the practice of

time-shifting. More notably for British Columbia, Washington state and

California are currently debating bills to maintain Pacific Daylight

Time as the new Pacific Standard Time. It would be prudent that we

maintain our good economic relationship with these west coast states and

follow suit.

If this act should come into effect, it will allow the

Lieutenant-Governor, by order-in-council, to establish a uniform time

zone, as outlined in the

Interpretation Act.

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

Motion approved.

L. Larson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M204,

Interpretation (Uniform Pacific Time Zone) Act, 2019,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M205 — NAME

AMENDMENT ACT,

M. Polak presented a bill intituled Name Amendment Act,

M. Polak: I move that the bill intituled Name Amendment Act, 2019, of which

notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and

read a first time now.

Many people in British Columbia choose to adopt a hyphenated or

combined surname when they marry. Unfortunately, the act as it is

currently worded does not afford those individuals the ability to do so

without a formal name change.

[1:50 p.m.]

While this does affect men, the impact is disproportionately felt

by women, who must either struggle through difficulties with their

identity documents or face the expense of a formal name change. This

amendment will mean that those who choose a hyphenated or combined

surname will be treated in the same manner as those who adopt the

surname of their spouse.

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

Motion approved.

M. Polak: I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M205, Name Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time

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

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

EQUAL VOICE AND WOMEN IN POLITICS

M. Dean: Today it’s my honour to recognize and thank Equal Voice for all

their work and for being here today to help us all celebrate

International Women’s Day and women in leadership.

Working with women, men and gender-diverse people across political

parties and from all parts of the country, Equal Voice is a

multipartisan organization that has been advocating for the equal

representation of women in Canada’s governments since 2001. The work of

Equal Voice includes celebrating women in politics as well as outreach

to inspire women to engage in politics, and encouraging women to run for

office at all levels.

The work that Equal Voice is doing to support more women being

elected to all levels of government is so important, because having

women represented at the centre of decision-making is how we move the

dial on gender equality. We can all agree that our governments should

represent our communities, and I’m very proud that women make up half of

our government’s cabinet for the first time in B.C.’s

history.

Seeing more women in leadership positions not only ensures that

our lived experiences are represented; it also shows young women and

girls what they are capable of and what they can achieve. Events like

today’s Equal Voice gathering at the Legislature help to raise awareness

about the impact of women’s underrepresentation, and it impels us to

keep improving the representation of women in governments, on boards and

in leadership positions. Our actions today will lay the foundation for

the future our children will inherit.

WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION

AND

LEADERSHIP

E. Ross: March 8 marks International Women’s Day, and as a father of two

girls, I gave my daughters the lessons my father gave to me: be strong,

stand up for yourself, and don’t let anybody put you down.

As a coach of a girls’ 17-and-under basketball team and later as a

coach of a 17-and-over women’s team, I tried to deliver the same

message, because I wanted to break the idea of women being treated as

wallflowers and show them that they could succeed at anything they want

to. It’s the same message I give to Aboriginals in all walks of life no

matter what their gender identity. That’s the theme of this year’s

International Women’s Day: “Balance for better.”

However, 14 years ago, I was made painfully aware of the issues

women face in leadership roles. I was at a conference in Montreal where

academics were presenting reports on issues from all over the world. One

woman who was advocating for female empowerment asked me about the role

of Haisla women in our Haisla council structure. I proudly pointed out

how over a third of our council was female, and the amount of women in

our staff was overrepresented. She then asked me if I noticed that these

women had influence at our table or if they were often overlooked or

overpowered by more outspoken men.

It was the first time I’d been asked this question, and in

self-reflection, I had to admit that in many cases this was true. I then

started to look at how leaders are treated based on their gender, from

Christy Clark to my own chief councillors, including the current chief

councillor, and saw the unfairness, even in terms of pay

equity.

There are no real differences between a male or female leader in

terms of their abilities or skill sets. The difference is how we view

and treat women. Sometimes even women treat female leaders differently,

as it’s a habit that society has ingrained into far too many of us.

Women have made tremendous strides in terms of their roles in society.

Now we have to ensure that everyone catches up and recognizes the

equality and respect of female strength and leadership.

LYMPHEDEMA

N. Simons: Today, March 6, is World Lymphedema Day. If you’re wondering what

lymphedema is, that’s why there is a lymphedema day, and I’m pleased to

tell you about it.

[1:55 p.m.]

It was new to me until a constituent and the president of the B.C.

Lymphedema Association, Christine Chandler, approached my office to tell

me about it. It’s a condition that can be hereditary, but it’s most

commonly caused by the removal of or damage to one’s lymph nodes — as

part of cancer treatment, for example.

It results from a blockage in the lymphatic system, a part of the

immune system. The blockage prevents lymph fluids from draining, and the

fluid buildup leads to swelling. The swelling caused by lymphedema

ranges from mild, hardly noticeable changes in the size of your arm or

leg to extreme changes that make the limb hard to use.

It’s estimated that around one million Canadians are living with

lymphedema or lymphatic diseases. While there is no cure for lymphedema,

it can be managed to varying degrees of success with early diagnosis and

diligent care.

The condition has a serious impact on its sufferers. People who

have lymphedema have to adjust their life significantly. They have to

ensure they’re doing all the things they need to do to reduce the

swelling, and they often have to use specialized compression clothing.

They have to be very careful about their skin care. There is no cure.

Surgery is in its infancy.

The purpose of raising awareness is to accomplish a few things.

First, to be aware that there are individuals in our communities who are

suffering silently in pain and discomfort, and we should be aware of

that. Too many who suffer feel alone. Also, too many go without the care

they need.

The other benefit of raising awareness is to inform policy-makers

and to ensure there are adequate resources allocated to diagnosis,

treatment and care options and, of course, research.

As advocates like Christine say, it all starts with

awareness.

VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AUTO SHOW

E. Foster: The annual international auto show is the best-attended consumer

show in western Canada. It’s a gathering place where car and truck

lovers are dazzled by the latest vehicles, classics, modified supercars

and speciality one-off creations.

It’s all happening between March 19 and 24 at the Vancouver

Convention Centre. More than 400 vehicles will be on display from the

world’s leading auto manufacturers, who will feature their latest

products, including those not yet in the dealer showrooms.

An increasingly important component of the show is the expanded

Electric Vehicle Discovery Centre that will provide an opportunity for

visitors to test-drive and learn more about clean energy vehicles. In

total, the test-driving

section of 36 hybrid and electric vehicles is

the largest ever, and many of the top-selling brands will be

available.

Of course, the auto show is about much more than what’s new or

what’s next on the electric vehicle front. The event will include a

number of features that will be sure to turn heads: the 1965 Notchback

Mustang, otherwise known as the Hoonicorn Mustang — there’s like ten of

those in the whole world right now; the Canadian-made and designed

Felino supercar; the new McLaren Senna; the first new Toyota Supra; and

one of eight VW Bugs used in the Transformers movie

Bumblebee .

This is just the tip of the iceberg. This year’s offerings will

include a who’s who of the luxury and exotic classes and an ode to the

past, with some of the finest original and restored vintage automobiles

you won’t see anywhere, under one roof, in the world.

There will truly be something for everyone, and I hope the members

of the House will take some time out of their

schedule to enjoy the 99th

annual Vancouver auto show.

B.C. TECH SUMMIT

R. Glumac: Technology is all around us, and it’s a major driver of B.C.’s

economy. Next week the province is proud to once again host the B.C.

Tech Summit, western Canada’s largest annual innovation

convention.

It will be held from March 11 to 13 at the Vancouver Convention

Centre. The B.C. Tech Summit showcases B.C.’s vibrant tech industry. It

connects entrepreneurs, start-ups and tech leaders with accelerators,

investors, senior executives, government and media. All attendees will

have a great opportunity to explore the latest innovations driving

B.C.’s economy and the global economy.

This year’s summit has an impressive lineup, including world-class

speakers from global and local companies and organizations. This

includes presentations from the CEOs of all five of Canada’s digital

innovation superclusters, including B.C.’s digital innovation

superclusters; also, Dr. Alan Winter, B.C.’s innovation commissioner,

will be there to discuss precision health technology; and other leading

B.C. innovators.

[2:00 p.m.]

In total, there will be over 120 speakers exploring a range of

topics from clean tech to quantum computing.

The B.C. Tech Summit is a platform to network, educate and

inspire. As B.C.’s Parliamentary Secretary for Technology, I’m very

excited that our government is hosting this conference. We know that

there is a very bright future for the tech sector here in

B.C.

Come out next week, and you, too, can see what the future

holds.

STEVESTON KARATE CLUB TOURNAMENT

J. Yap: On February 23, the Steveston Karate Club hosted the 46th

international invitational tournament at the Steveston indoor tennis

court. It attracted over 440 athletes from Canada, the United States and

Japan, and more than 1,500 attendees. I personally had the pleasure of

handing out the John Yap MLA Cup to last year’s Junior Pan American

championship gold medallist, Stephanie Hillyer.

The history of the Steveston Karate Club dates back to 1973, when

Mayor Shozo Ujita of Wakayama, Richmond’s sister city in Japan, visited

Canada and the first and only martial arts building outside of Japan,

opened by the Steveston Community Society. Himself a grand master, Mayor

Ujita was surprised that there was no karate training offered, so he

sent one of his own students, Sensei Takeshi Uchiage, to begin

a club in Steveston.

Since its founding, this club has grown from teaching karate

lessons in a backyard to hosting a tournament which attracts skilled

athletes from all over the world. Each year this tournament serves as a

chance for the karate athletes to not only learn from each other and

show off their skills but also to make new friends and reconnect with

old ones. It also provides business opportunities for Steveston, as the

athletes explore the village, eat at our restaurants and check out the

historic sites and museums in our community.

I ask that this House please join me in congratulating the

Steveston Karate Club for another great tournament.

Oral Questions

SPECULATION AND VACANCY TAX

S. Bond: The phony speculation tax is targeting the family cabins of B.C.’s

seniors, many of whom are on fixed incomes. Frankly, it’s a broken

promise by this Premier. In fact, here is what the Premier said: “If you

pay tax in B.C., you are not speculating from outside B.C. A summer home

would not fall in with the out-of-province speculation tax.”

Well, imagine the surprise of 1.6 million British Columbians when

they received an NDP tax notice saying they had to prove they were not

speculators. The Premier promised British Columbians that they would not

be captured, when, in fact, two-thirds of the people paying the tax are

British Columbia residents. The Premier broke his promise.

To the Premier, what happened?

Hon. C. James: I think it’s pretty clear from the other side that they’re

continuing their view that there is no problem in the housing market.

It’s the kind of problem that they had for 16 years. They left our

province with unaffordable housing, a zero vacancy rate, and families

and seniors struggling to be able to live and work in the same

community. That’s because of the neglect on the other side when it came

to housing.

We saw that in full force with the Leader of the Opposition

talking about renting being a wacky time of life. Once again, you’d

think he would have learned something about the struggles that people

are facing.

We’re listening to British Columbians, we’re acting on our

30-point plan, and we are addressing the housing crisis.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

[2:05 p.m.]

S. Bond: Well, what British Columbians have learned is that this is a

Premier that routinely makes promises and then breaks them. Here is what

this Premier said.

Interjections.

S. Bond: The members that are laughing might want to hear what their

Premier said to promise British Columbians. He said, on March 22 in

2018: “There was no intention at any time that I was aware of, and I

think the Finance Minister would agree with me, to penalize people who

have the good fortune of having a cottage.” So according to the Premier,

there was never any intention of penalizing British Columbians who had,

in his words, a cottage.

Well, the Premier broke that promise, and now his member for Port

Moody–Coquitlam is doubling down on targeting the cabins of seniors he

is supposed to represent. Mayors are stepping up to raise the legitimate

concerns of their residents, and what are they being met with? Threats

from the NDP. The Premier needs to show some leadership, to stand up. He

made a promise; he broke it.

Will he stand up today and at least apologize for this

unacceptable bullying?

Hon. C. James: The member knows full well — we’ve canvassed this often — that 99

percent of British Columbians do not pay the speculation tax.

British Columbians who own second homes, who are fortunate enough

to be able to own second homes — because many British Columbians, as we

know, don’t have a home at all, never mind a second or a third or a

fourth home — receive a $400,000 credit that goes towards not having to

pay on the first $400,000, because we’ve ensured that the exemptions are

there for families.

Again, I think it is so typical of what we see on the other side —

of ignoring this housing crisis. In fact, even the government’s previous

Finance Minister knew that there was a problem. This was Kevin Falcon,

who said — and people might remember him on the other side: “I realized

that after the B.C. Liberals’ second-to-last budget right away they

didn’t know they were in trouble. They had no significant investment in

the things that people were concerned about, like housing. They had a

‘don’t worry; be happy’ attitude. They totally missed it 100

percent.”

It’s one of those rare times I would say I agree with Kevin Falcon

on this issue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Prince George–Valemount on a second

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, the Finance Minister’s continued words about 99 percent are

cold comfort to the two-thirds…. Two-thirds of the people who will pay

this tax are British Columbians, despite the promise of the Premier

that’s sitting right to her left.

No matter how you look at it, this is an NDP cabin tax. The

Premier broke his word, and B.C. seniors are now paying the price.

Instead of owning up to that promise, the NDP…. What did they do? They

started using strong-arm tactics against locally elected mayors who

disagree with them. Mayor Young and Mayor Belenkie have been

crystal-clear. The NDP threatened them — not my words, their

words.

To the Premier, is he prepared to stand up today and admit that

he’s calling these mayors liars?

Hon. C. James: You know, the previous government left us with some of the most

unaffordable housing in the country, right here in British Columbia.

That impacts families, that impacts seniors, that impacts young people

wanting to get into the workforce, and it impacts our economy, because

if businesses aren’t able to recruit and retain employees, we won’t see

the kind of economic growth that we see.

That is true across Metro Vancouver, including Belcarra. Between

2016 and 2017 alone, we saw property values increase by over 40 percent

in Belcarra. That impacts the families living in Belcarra. That impacts

the workers living in Belcarra That impacts people, when houses are left

vacant, because the community is hollowed out. Belcarra, along with

other British Columbians, wants to make sure that neighbourhoods and

homes are there for living in, and that’s what we’re working

at.

[2:10 p.m.]

T. Redies: The Premier claimed a year ago that British Columbians wouldn’t

have to pay the phony speculation tax, but he broke that promise. He

then claimed the family cabins of British Columbians wouldn’t be taxed.

Again, he broke that promise. Mayors are speaking out because the

Premier’s tax is hurting seniors who aren’t speculators and who can’t

afford to pay the tax.

To the Premier, why have the Premier and this government resorted

to bullying local officials who are elected to speak up for their

communities?

Hon. C. James: I know the members will find every opportunity to completely

ignore the housing crisis and talk about anything except the challenges

British Columbians are facing. These are critical issues for the people

of this province. That’s why you see poll after poll that, in fact, the

speculation and vacancy tax is supported by British Columbians. They

expect their government to address affordable housing, and that’s

exactly what we’re going to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Redies: This government seems to be very uncaring with respect to the

people who own these cabins. Gordon Wrightman has had a family cabin in

Crescent Beach for 70 years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the questioner should not have to shout over

non-stop noise.

T. Redies: Gordon Wrightman says: “It’s not insulated. It doesn’t have

breakers for electricity. It’s not rentable, but they’re not exempting

it. It’s a money grab.”

The Premier has been caught out breaking his word with this cabins

tax. How does the NDP respond to criticism? By threatening multiple

mayors.

Is the Premier resorting to bullying mayors because he’s so

embarrassed over these broken promises?

Hon. C. James: I discussed these topics with the mayor of Belcarra last Friday.

We’ve continued having conversations with the mayors. I will look

forward to meeting with all the mayors again as we get closer to the

summer and we have the information that has come forward. We are going

to continue to listen to the people of British Columbia, including the

mayors, including the communities. They will have a chance to put their

information forward.

But we are not going to stray from our focus on affordable housing

in this province. It is critical that we address affordable housing for

the families and the people who live in British Columbia and for the

strong economy that we want to continue into the future.

PANEL REPORT AND GOVERNMENT

POLICIES ON NATURAL GAS

FRACKING

S. Furstenau: Yesterday an

article in the Vancouver Sun stated that

B.C. doesn’t know what it needs to know about the environmental, seismic

and other risks of fracking. This revelation comes from a draft copy of

a 200-page technical report that was leaked to the Times

Colonist last week.

The independent panel shed light on some very troubling facts. It

detailed a lack of compliance by the industry around earthen dams,

regulations ignored and permits given retroactively. It highlighted the

lack of public trust in this industry. Basic information about surface

and groundwater, in both the quality and the quantity in the region, is

“sorely lacking.” We have no idea how much groundwater is being used and

how much private landowners are selling to the industry.

The conclusion of this panel was almost as troubling as its other

findings. It was created to assess risk, but it could not do so because

there is too little data to assess. The panel even emphasized this point

by saying: “They could not assess risks with any confidence.”

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. Eighty-five percent of B.C.’s natural gas production now

comes from unconventional sources. Given the complete lack of data and

the troubling information raised in this report, should we not adopt the

precautionary principle and halt a further expansion of fracking in our

province?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you very much to the member for the question. It gives me an

opportunity, first, to publicly thank our panellists — Diana Allen, Erik

Eberhardt and Amanda Bustin. They did a tremendous amount of work, with

the help of Nalaine Morin, who provided advice to the panel on

traditional Indigenous knowledge in the region.

They together organized 50 sessions and met with over 60 experts —

researchers, industry, First Nations, the regula­tor and

environmental organizations — on this issue. It is an important issue

not just for people in the north, who live with this practice every day,

but it’s important for all British Columbians. Of course, 58 percent of

British Colum­bians heat their homes with natural gas derived from

the north and, mostly, from this practice.

British Columbians are quite concerned, and that’s exactly why we

put together this scientific panel to start putting some analysis to

this practice. It’s very important in terms of the report and what

they’ve delivered, and it’s very technical. I think that with 97

recommendations and over 200 pages, we owe it to British Columbians to

make sure that we do our due diligence in analyzing that report so that

we can deliver good public policy for all of B.C.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: More of what we don’t know, I guess.

The expert panel did spend a year researching and consulting

experts on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing in our province.

Throughout the report, one thing was clear. The data is insufficient. We

simply don’t know enough to be making informed decisions.

But it did emphasize a few things that we do know. For example,

the number of reported seismic events has more than doubled every year

since 2016. This increase in seismic activity, triggered by fracking

operations, is happening in an area with two large hydroelectric dams,

plus the construction of Site C. As the report notes, these types of

ground motions could be “sufficient to misalign spillway gates.” So we

have an almost complete lack of information on the risks and

environmental damages that fracking is causing in our province, and we

are putting major hydroelectric infrastructure at risk by allowing it to

continue.

My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. The expert panel has made it clear that earthquakes from

fracking are a risk to hydroelectric projects. Site C is in an area

surrounded by fracking. How do we know that this $11 billion project is

not at risk?

Hon. M. Mungall: As I said to the member, this is a very technical report with a

substantive number of recommendations, all very technical in nature. We

owe it to all British Columbians, especially to the people who live in

the north, who live with this practice every day in their backyard, to

make sure that we’re delivering good public policy.

We have to let science prevail in this situation. That is exactly

why we’re taking this report very seriously, as we follow on previous

activities that we’ve taken to address some of the neglect from the

previous government, such as…. We created a new process to make sure

that oil and gas dams have the right permits, we have strengthened

compliance for those dams, and we brought in new legislation last spring

to address the orphan wells.

This panel is going to be able to allow us to further move forward

to protect our air, land and water for the benefit of all British

Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I’m a little bit concerned here.

We had an exceptional speech from the member for Skeena and

another exceptional two-minute statement from the member for

Esquimalt-Metchosin respecting how we treat women. All of the speakers

have been women, and I would say that the response to their speeches has

not been respectful.

Next question.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

AND

WORKERS

S. Cadieux: The Premier has given NDP friends and insiders monopoly control

over contracts on public projects worth billions of dollars. Industry

estimates that this will increase the cost of public projects to

taxpayers by an additional 20 to 30 percent.

[2:20 p.m.]

Workers are being bullied into joining one of the NDP’s 19

approved unions with no regard — no regard — for individual choice or

individual rights.

Why is the Premier bullying workers into joining unions they don’t

want to join?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very happy to talk about our government’s plan for community

benefits agreements, which is putting people at the heart of our…. When

we are doing construction, it’s putting B.C. at the heart of our

construction, ensuring that we are dealing with the skills

shortage.

The opposition, when they were in government, did ignore the

skills shortage. We are addressing this. We’re addressing this through

community benefits agreements, ensuring that apprenticeships will be

provided to Indigenous people, to women, to other underrepresented

groups, to those who will benefit. They’ll learn a skilled trade, and we

will get — the end result — better infrastructure, whether it’s bridges,

highways or transit in the Lower Mainland. We’re committed to community

benefits agreements, and we’re proud of them.

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

S. Cadieux: It must be women’s day, because usually we ask the Minister of

Transportation a question, and the Premier gets up. Today I asked the

Premier a question, and he lets the Minister of

Transportation….

On March 19, 2016, the Premier insulted workers from

non-NDP-approved unions. He said: “You don’t build public projects by

going with the turkeys at CLAC. That’s not how I roll. That’s not how we

roll.” The bullying in that statement is wrong. It discriminates against

85 percent of B.C.’s construction workers, and it’s bad news for B.C.

taxpayers.

To the Premier: can you explain how this is anything but a

violation of 85 percent of workers’ rights?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I say, community benefits agreements are investing in the

people of British Columbia when we invest in our projects. It will

increase the participation of women, of Indigenous people. More

apprenticeships, more women — I mean, the member wanted to see more

women — who are going to have equal pay on these projects, which are

union projects.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Hon. C. Trevena: We’ve been very clear that any company can bid on these projects,

and any worker can work on the projects. And it is….

Interjections.

Hon. C. Trevena: They will be union worksites. I don’t know what upsets the

opposition about that. They will be union worksites where there will be

equal pay for equal work. That includes women who are going to get

good….

Interjections.

T. Wat: The Premier’s scheme picks favourites by handing work to a small

group of NDP-friendly unions. This is a cynical backroom deal that

discriminates against the 85 percent of workers who have chosen not to

join an NDP-approved union.

To the Premier, why is the Premier forcing all workers into

joining NDP-approved unions?

Hon. C. Trevena: I just want to remind the member that these are the same unions

that we used in the Allied Hydro projects for the dams. In

projects….

Interjections.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Well, the B.C. Liberals have the audacity to even talk about

construction projects with their record in the 16 years they were

government. When the Leader of the Opposition….

Interjections.

Hon. C. Trevena: They may want to listen to this. Their Leader of the Opposition….

They are opposition now. When he was a public servant, we saw the

Vancouver Convention Centre go $335 million over budget.

I have to say that I think that community benefit agreements are

going to provide a strong workforce with equal pay for equal work for

women, for Indigenous people and train apprentices in a way that has

been sorely lacking in this province for the last 16 years.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond North Centre on a supplemental.

T. Wat: So many local companies can provide plenty of community benefits

without the NDP scheme to funnel work to their friends. Obviously, the

goal here is: do we want NDP friends and insiders?

To the Premier once again, and I hope the Premier will have the

guts to stand up and answer the question. Why would all workers be

required to join only NDP-selected unions in order to work on government

projects?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve got to say that we’ve had this discussion many times in this

House. This side of the House believes in investing in the people of

British Columbia. This side of the House recognizes that there is going

to be a massive skills shortage. We’ve got a lot of infrastructure being

built in this province. We’ve got skills shortages of about 60,000

people. We need to address this, and we need to be addressing this

through the people who live and work in British Columbia.

Community benefits agreements will ensure that local people get

the work, that women and Indigenous people will get training. Yes, yes,

I know it upsets the opposition that any company can apply for these

jobs and that any worker can work on them. And like whether you’re

working in Safeway or in the liquor store, it’s a union worksite, and

yes, you’ll be a member of a union when you’re working on one of these

projects.

FOREST INDUSTRY TENURES

C. Oakes: Communities are under attack over softwood, and this Premier has

neglected hard-working men and women in the forest sector. Now he is

creating uncertainty over tenures by announcing that the same

restrictions imposed on fish farms will be applied to forestry. We know

how that turned out, with intimidation letters resulting in

eviction.

Will the Premier commit today that forest permit holders will not

lose their tenures?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the member started off the question with a premise around

the softwood lumber agreement. I’d like to just discuss that for a

moment.

We’ve devoted significant time, energy and resources to fighting

the unfounded and unfair application of tariffs by the U.S. The

importance of the forest sector for jobs in all areas of the province,

rural areas included, is not lost on this government. However, we need a

little trip down memory lane here.

The old government oversaw the loss of 30,000 forestry jobs. Under

the old government, 100 mills closed, leaving behind rural communities

that depended on good forestry jobs. Under the old government, which

knew that the softwood lumber agreement was expiring, they did nothing —

nothing — for the workers in a year and a half that they had to make

moves on the softwood lumber agreement. Not one trip to Washington in

those 18 months.

The Premier took a trip to Washington to fight for our forestry

workers and our rural communities.

[2:30 p.m.]

GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF ISSUES

M. Polak: For all the protestations on the other side, it actually would

have been easy for the Premier or the Forests Minister to stand up and

say: “Yeah. Actually, I’m committing to make sure these people aren’t

going to lose their licences or their tenures.” But of course, they

can’t do that. They can’t make that commitment.

We’ve seen broken promise after broken promise. We’ve seen a

speculation tax that doesn’t tax speculators. We’ve seen community

benefits agreements — don’t benefit communities. They benefit certain

specific NDP unions. And we’ve seen an employer health tax that has

nothing to do with health.

Then as I listen to the answers yesterday and today, I’m also

forced to conclude that the Premier honestly believes that taxing the

family cabins of seniors in Belcarra is somehow going to increase the

amount of affordable housing in British Columbia. The answers that we’re

receiving to all of these questions are patently ridiculous. They are in

no way connected to the truth.

The real question then becomes: with the mess of the speculation

tax, the mess of the EHT doubling down on employers and double-dipping

and the mess that has become the forest industry file on softwood, when

is the Premier going to stand up and be accountable and clean up the

mess that he has made?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: I never know what to make of the opposition. Two days ago it was,

“Why are you answering all of the questions?” and today it’s: “Why

aren’t you standing up and answering the questions?”

I’m delighted to respond to the Opposition House Leader and her

assertion that the strongest economy in the country is what we are proud

to be doing on this side of the House. Hon, Speaker, 61,000 new jobs

over the past 12 months, and that’s just the beginning, because we’re

going to continue to do more with community benefits agreements to put

people back in the centre of our economy — not like the other

guys.

I heard the member talk about the employers health tax. I guess

they want to bring back medical services premiums for people as

well.

I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition thinks that renting

is just a phase you get through. I appreciate that the Leader of the

Opposition says that we should put more interest on loans for students.

Now I understand that the Leader of the Opposition and his team want to

bring back medical services premiums for the hard-suffering people of

British Columbia.

I know that many in this House would want to hear my answers, but

clearly, the person who asked the question does not. I’ll suffice by

saying to this: the fastest-growing economy in the country, people who

are behind their government because people are the centre of this

government.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

S. Furstenau: I rise to submit a petition today. It has 16,000 names on it calling

to ban fracking in British Columbia.

M. Elmore: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I am very pleased to welcome students from Sir Charles Tupper

Secondary who are here today, grade 11 classes with social studies that are

led by their department head, Auton Lum; and teachers as well — Bonnie

Burnell; also Taylor Micacchi; a student teacher from UBC, Shanna Albrecht;

resource teacher Alana Rentz; and Shauna Mathieson, their resource support

teacher.

[2:35 p.m.]

I’m very proud that the Sir Charles Tupper Tigers are ranked No. 1 in

the senior boys in the provincial championships. We wish them all best.

Also, the Sir Charles Tupper Tigers, the girls’ ice hockey team, in their

first year, have just won the Vancouver city finals. They’re the Vancouver

city champions, their first year.

Please make them welcome.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present Investigation Report 19-01 and

Investigation Report 19-02 from the Office of the Registrar of

Lobbyists of British Columbia.

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP CHANGES TO

FINANCE

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That Rich Coleman , MLA and Doug Clovechok , MLA be

appointed as Members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and

Government Services, replacing Tracy Redies , MLA and Peter

Milobar , MLA.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 6, Supply Act (Supplementary

Estimates).

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate on

the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Upon their completion, we’ll

call the estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and

Training.

[2:40 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — SUPPLY ACT, 2018–2019

(SUPPLEMENTARY

ESTIMATES)

Hon. C. James: Pursuant to the usual practice of this House, we will proceed with

the remaining readings that are left of Bill 6.

With that, I move that Bill 6 be read a second time

now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 6 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration forthwith.

Bill 6, Supply Act, 2018–2019 (Supplementary Estimates), read a

second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — SUPPLY ACT, 2018–2019

(SUPPLEMENTARY

ESTIMATES)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B); J. Isaacs in

the chair.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. C. James: I think we can move through the sections. This is a pretty routine

bill. I think the other side, as well….

[2:45 p.m.]

If the Chair wishes to move through the sections, I think we’re

ready for that.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Schedule approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the committee rise and report Bill 6 complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:46 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — SUPPLY ACT, 2018–2019

(SUPPLEMENTARY

ESTIMATES)

Bill 6, Supply Act, 2018–2019 (Supplementary Estimates), reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1),

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 12, Supply Act (No. 1), 2019, be read a second

time now.

Existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2019. Bill

12 provides interim supply for ministry operations and other

appropriations for approximately the first three months of the 2019-20

fiscal year while the House completes debate of appropriations presented

in the 2019-2020 estimates. Interim supply for ministry operations and

other appropriations is required to ensure continuity and continuation

of government services until the final supply bill comes into

force.

Bill 12 also provides one-third of combined voted amounts in

schedules C and D of the 2019-2020 estimates for disbursements related

to capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing

requirements. The one-third authorization provided for in relation to

these disbursements is higher than that authorized in relation to

ministry operations as disbursements that are in schedules C and D are

not evenly distributed throughout the year. Therefore, the higher level

of interim supply is required to accommodate the payments that will be

made under these schedules.

[2:50 p.m.]

Bill 12 also authorizes the full amount of the disbursements

referred to in

schedule E of the 2019-2020 estimates.

Schedule E of the

2019-2020 estimates outlines the revenue collected on behalf of and

transferred to specific programs or entities. There’s no impact on the

operating results, borrowing or debt resulting from the collection and

transfer of this revenue.

These interim supply appropriations are based on the

accountabilities and allocations outlined in the 2019-2020 estimates.

The final supply bill for the 2019-2020 fiscal year will incorporate

these amounts to ensure that it reflects the sum of all voted

appropriations to be given to the government in that fiscal

year.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

T. Redies: I’m pleased to make a few comments on behalf of the opposition

with respect to Bill 12. As this is second reading in a supply bill

directed at keeping government functioning, I’ll be making only a few

comments, and I will be the only speaker on our side.

As the minister just outlined, Bill 12 allows us to continue to

fund government while we go through the estimates process. Estimates, we

know, are a very important aspect of government, as they allow members

to query ministers about their budgets and policy actions. So Bill 12

essentially allows us to make sure hard-working public servants continue

to get paid as we go through the estimates process.

This estimates period is likely to be long and detailed. We on

this side of the House remain very concerned with respect to the

direction of this government, its voracious appetite for spending and

its lack of significant measures to improve the competitiveness of the

province and, importantly, the businesses within it.

Further, 2019 is the year when this government’s myriad new tax

measures, mostly aimed at businesses, come into effect. The dreaded

employers health tax, which will generate almost $2 billion a year

annually from businesses, is coming into effect this year. Businesses

are, as we know, getting doubly clobbered in 2019 because they’re still

required to pay MSP premiums on top of the EHT. We’re very concerned

about the impact of this tax and other taxes on investment, job creation

and wages in the province and the subsequent ripple effect through the

entire economy.

We’re also concerned that the government continues to put the

pedal to the metal on spending at a time when economic storm clouds are

on the horizon. In fact, this government has astoundingly blown through

$2 billion in extra spending in this last year alone when compared to

its original budget for fiscal 2018-19 that it tabled in February 2018.

So $2 billion. Think about that. This government blew through two

billion extra dollars of taxpayers’ money in one year alone.

It’s very concerning that the government is continuing to spend at

such a pace when it’s clear that the global economy is slowing and the

Canadian economy appears stalled, based on the fourth quarter of 2018

results, whether it’s housing starts, consumer spending or exports. The

Bank of Canada noted this morning that it’s holding its key interest

rates steady and that the downturn in the fourth quarter was “sharper

and more broadly based.”

While the B.C. economy has been robust thanks to a lot of

initiatives started under the previous B.C. Liberal government, we’re

seeing slowing of business investment, worsening business confidence,

plummeting house sales and housing starts and, in the last quarter of

2018, a net outflow of British Columbians to other provinces. It would

seem that the economic party that this government has been dining on is

approaching midnight.

We’re going to have a lot to query the government on in estimates

in the coming weeks. As such, while we’ll have some questions in the

committee stage on this bill, we’ll be supporting it to allow the

government to continue to function in the meantime.

With that, I will end my comments. Again, thank you for the

opportunity to make those remarks.

Hon. C. James: Seeing no further speakers, to close off debate on second

reading.

As the member has said, estimates will provide the opportunity for

individual ministers to be able to talk about their budgets and talk

about the direction being taken by government. I think it’s important to

recognize how critical that is for the accountability of democracy and

the accountability to the public. I certainly look forward to the

debate, and I look forward to agreeing to disagree with the member

across the way and their portraying of the budget and the direction

being taken by this government.

[2:55 p.m.]

The member talks about dollars being spent. I think that really

shows the difference between the other side and ourselves. When we

invest in people, those are resources that are being spent to, in fact,

keep the economy growing. B.C. is expected once again to lead the

country when it comes to economic growth, with prudency built into the

budget to recognize that if there are shifts, that will be critical —

over $2 billion of prudency built in.

The member mentioned housing starts. I think it’s important to

note that in fact, housing starts were lower than we have predicted in

our next two budgets in the previous government’s last two budgets. So

they, in fact, had presumed less housing starts than we have in our

budget. If the member likes to say that’s doom and gloom, it was the

previous government that, in fact, was looking at lower housing starts

than we were.

I look forward to that debate.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 12, Supply Act (No. 1),

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 12 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 12, Supply Act (No. 1), 2019, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. C. James: I will call second reading of Bill 5, Budget Measures

Implementation Act.

BILL 5 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT,

Hon. C. James: It’s Finance early afternoon, I think.

I’m pleased to start second reading on the Budget Measures

Implementation Act, Bill 5. This bill works to implement the critical

aspects of Budget 2019. It will amend 12 statutes.

The most significant amendment creates the new B.C. child

opportunity benefit so that all children have the opportunity to meet

their full potential. This new benefit is going to provide hundreds of

millions of dollars each and every year to families with children. When

it’s in place October 1, 2020…. Just to take a moment to mention that

the reason that this doesn’t take effect until 2020 is the work that has

to happen with the CRA. With the Canadian revenue taxation and our

taxation, it takes a year to be able look at implementation of the

changes to the tax act.

The tax act is amended in this bill to replace the early childhood

tax benefit with the new B.C. child opportunity benefit. The previous

benefit, the early childhood tax benefit, was only available to children

up to the age of six,

whereas the difference is the new benefit will be

available for children up to age 18. That’s going to mean that many more

working families, middle-class families and families living in poverty

are going to receive significantly more support.

Just as an example, families with one child are going to receive

up to $1,600. With two children, they will receive up to $2,600. Again,

this is per year. Those with three children will receive up to $3,400.

Again, anyone who has raised a child knows the significant impact that

that’s going to have in a positive way to be able to support children in

having the opportunities that every child deserves to have.

Once the benefit is in place, a family with one child could

receive as much as $28,800 from the time their child is born until they

turn 18. With two children, they may receive up to $48,000, and with

three children, for example, they could receive $64,400 from the child’s

birth till the child is 18. This will put an additional $400 million

into the pockets of B.C. families so that every child has the

opportunity to reach their full potential. Transformational is the word

I would use.

This bill also amends the Income Tax Act to make the mining

flow-through share tax credit and the mining exploration tax credit

permanent, recommendations that were put forward by the Mining Jobs Task

Force. For years, governments have extended the mining flow-through

share tax credit for one year at a time, which created uncertainty for

the mining industry and for its investors. We certainly recognize, as a

government, the critical importance of B.C.’s mining industry to the

provincial economy, so making these tax credits permanent eliminates

this kind of uncertainty.

The bill also amends the Income Tax Act to extend the farmers food

donation tax credit for one more year, as, again, we look at the

strength of each of those credits. That will take it to the end of 2020.

This extension reaffirms our government’s commitment to support B.C.

agriculture, while looking at this credit to see if it really does what

it’s meant to do, which is provide food to food banks that comes from

farmers, and if this is the strongest way to look at it or whether there

are other opportunities as well.

[3:00 p.m.]

The training tax credits for apprenticeship and employers are also

extended for one year. These credits help support on-the-job training

for tradespeople, while allowing the government time, again, to review

these credits.

We’re also extending the shipbuilding and the ship repair industry

tax credit for three years. This tax credit supports employers in this

important industry, who also provide apprentices with on-the-job

training.

The bill also makes some minor changes to the Income Tax Act to

better align B.C.’s personal income taxes with federal taxes. As I

mentioned earlier, we do a coordination, and when taxes change at the

federal level, you will often see pieces come forward in the budget

implementation bill to coordinate the taxes. This time around, that

includes expanding B.C.’s pension tax credit to allow certain veterans

benefits to qualify towards the credit — a plus, again, for the

coordination.

Bill 5 also enhances the small business venture capital tax credit

through amendments to the Income Tax Act and to the Small Business

Venture Capital Act. This tax credit will provide an incentive for

investors to put their money and expertise to work in new businesses by

providing investors with a tax credit worth up to 30 percent of their

investment. However, the funding assigned for certain segments of this

program was not being used fully, so the program hadn’t been updated in

a decade.

We worked with the business community, as government, to review

the program and look at where we could make improvements, in partnership

with business. As a result, with these changes, individual investors

will now be able to receive tax credits of up to $120,000 per year.

Previously, the limit was $60,000. That hadn’t been adjusted for

inflation. Obviously, there have been changes when it comes to

investment dollars.

Similarly, small businesses will be permitted to raise up to $10

million through the tax credit program, up from $5 million — again,

recognizing that there hadn’t been changes in these programs.

The small business venture capital tax credit is also expanded to

allow for investments to be housed within a tax-free savings account.

We, for a long period of time, had the investments being able to be

housed in an RRSP, but it wasn’t amended because there wasn’t a tax-free

savings account at the time. This makes the change to include tax-free

savings accounts after they were introduced in 2009.

In addition, the tax credit is being expanded to include

convertible equity investments, in addition to share purchases.

Convertible equity is often used to invest in businesses at the very

early stage where they aren’t clear yet on what the company’s valuation

is. Businesses are generally expected to remain in the program for five

years. That’s the general expectation of the tax program.

We also recognize that there are circumstances that require

businesses to exit the tax credit program early. So this change that

comes forward in this bill will provide that businesses that leave the

tax credit program after two years will be eligible for a reduction in

the amount they’re required to reimburse the government, instead of

having to wait three years for this reduction — again, recognizing

success, in fact, in businesses.

Finally, technical amendments are also included in this bill.

There are updates in a reference to a regional district. There are

updates to clarify requirements to file tax credit certificates with an

income tax return.

Then Bill 5 also amends the Provincial Sales Tax Act to streamline

tax collection, reporting and remittance requirements for businesses

that make sales or conduct leasing through an agent. I know we’ll get

into this when we get into committee stage, but when an agent is used to

make a sale or a lease or when a billing agent is used to collect

payments, the principal and the agent will be able to jointly designate

a single party to be responsible for the tax collection, for the

reporting and for the remittance obligation. This partnership isn’t

recognized. These changes will recognize that.

It also confirms that an auctioneer who acts as an agent in making

auction sales on behalf of the principal is responsible for these same

obligations, unless the parties jointly elect to assign them to another

principal. We’ve heard from businesses that they want these types of

legal arrangements to have certainty around the PST obligations — who’s

responsible for ensuring the PST obligations. So these measures are

going to provide that certainty and give the parties involved in very

complex business arrangements a way to simplify how the PST works for

them.

The bill also amends the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the South Coast

British Columbia Transportation Authority Act. The changes will enable

TransLink, in partnership with the Mayors Council, to levy an additional

motor fuel tax on clear gasoline and clear diesel of up to 1.5 cents per

litre. This responds, as members will know, to the request for these

powers from TransLink and the Mayors Council on their regional

transportation plan.

[3:05 p.m.]

It allows the region to raise the revenue it needs to finance its

share of funding for phase 2 of TransLink’s ten-year vision of the

transportation network improvements. All of this additional revenue

raised will go directly to TransLink. Funds raised by an increase in

TransLink dedicated fuel tax will provide support to improve transit in

Metro Vancouver, in the mayors plan, such as the Broadway SkyTrain

extension, the Surrey-Newton-Guilford LRT and the new Sky­Train

cars.

Many of these changes have been talked about in previous

announcements and are now included in this bill.

We also have a number of technical changes to a number of

different acts. They ensure that our tax statutes are up to date and

operate as intended.

For example, the Carbon Tax Act in this legislation is amended to

authorize a penalty if an unauthorized person sells natural

gas.

The Income Tax Act, along with the Property Transfer Tax Act and

the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, are amended to clarify and update

information-sharing provisions — again, an important technical piece in

the bill, for clarity.

The Financial Administration Act is amended to permit a remission

of a forfeiture, a fine or a penalty that has already been paid. Again,

this is consistent with how remissions may be provided for taxes,

royalties, fees and other sums to create that consistency.

The Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act is amended to make three

technical changes. First, there’s a minor typographical error in the

act, which is corrected. Second, we’re ensuring that the exemption for

properties that are uninhabitable because of a natural disaster or other

hazardous condition operates as intended. Again, a clarification to

ensure it operates as intended. And third, to clarify the due date for

taxes for certain types of reassessments.

The Motor Fuel Tax Act is also amended to clarify refunds of

security related to relabelled fuel, allowances for tax collectors and

appeal rates.

Finally, the Provincial Sales Tax Act is amended to provide

several clarifications, including the tax treatment of vehicles brought

into B.C. that are going to be immediately licensed as

multi-jurisdictional vehicles; refunds for motor vehicles that are

returned to their manufacturers; suspensions and cancellations of

collector registrations; conditions for small seller eligibility; the

obligation to pay tax when an exemption is not documented; the timing of

tax payments, for promotional distributors; and procedures regarding

unspent municipal and regional district tax revenues held by dissolving

societies.

S. Bond: Obviously, I’d like to recognize how important it is to be able to

make a few comments about Bill 5 in the Legislature.

As the minister herself has pointed out, this is an incredibly

technical bill. She has outlined a long list of acts and changes and

amendments. I think it’s important for British Columbians to recognize

that this is really the technical bill that breathes life into the

budget that the government has tabled.

As the minister pointed out, and read through the long list of

amendments, there are multiple acts, including the Income Tax Act, the

Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Community Charter. There are bills that are

being amended. But this is really the practical application that is

necessary to make the adjustments that are required to implement the

2019 budget.

Now, as you can imagine, this is a very necessary piece of

legislation, and we will make a few comments at this stage and second

reading. But the minister knows and is well advised to the fact that we

don’t support many of the initiatives that are included in the

budget.

We are going to ask questions about the technical implementation

pieces, but frankly, as the minister herself pointed out, we are going

to agree to disagree. That is a very accurate statement. And not with

every item in the budget. There are some that we’ve stood up — my

colleagues have stood in this place — and actually given the government

credit for. It’s important. Budgets do have items that have merit from

everyone’s perspective. But we are very concerned about the

sustainability, the nature of this budget — what’s in it and what isn’t

in it.

[3:10 p.m.]

We’re going to talk about some of the technical pieces, but make

no mistake about it, my co-critic and I have made a number of references

to our concerns throughout the discussion about the budget more

generally. We are, obviously, going to ask questions when we get to

committee stage. But I think it’s fair to say that we have both

indicated, as have my colleagues on this side of the House, that we’re

extremely concerned about the sustainability of this minister’s budget,

particularly in the context of growing economic uncertainty.

In fact, since we last had a chance and an opportunity to discuss

the budget, we’ve actually had further indications of a troubled

economy, exactly the issue that we have been raising relentlessly with

this minister.

Today the governor of the Bank of Canada issued the following

statement: “Recent data suggests that the slowdown in the global economy

has been more pronounced and widespread than the bank had forecast in

its January monetary policy report. While the sources of moderation

appear to be multiple, trade tensions and uncertainty are weighing

heavily on confidence and economic activity.”

The report goes on to say: “The bank had forecast weak exports and

investment in the energy sector and a decline in household spending in

oil-producing provinces. However, the slowdown in the fourth quarter was

sharper and more broadly based.” The bank had forecast weak exports and

investments in the energy sector. However, the fourth quarter was much

sharper and more broadly based.

The latest fourth quarter results from Statistics Canada indicate

that the country’s economy quite literally ground to a halt, with a

growth rate of just 0.1 percent. This represents the worst quarterly

performance in 2½ years. The slowdown is already affecting the retail

sector.

Only five days ago, clothing retailer The Gap announced it will be

closing 230 retail outlets in North America. At the present time, we’re

not yet clear how many outlets will be closed in Canada. This retailer

joins Payless Shoes. It was announced on February 19, just one week

after the provincial budget was delivered, that it will be closing all

of its 248 outlets in Canada. On February 22, Hudson’s Bay is shuttering

all 37 Home Outfitters outlets in Canada.

It’s not just Canadian economic growth that has underperformed.

B.C. retail sales were also revised down in 2018. This appears to be

having an effect on PST earnings, bringing in $110 million less in

revenue.

On a provincial level, residential housing sales have also

plummeted 24 percent in 2018. In greater Vancouver, it’s even worse. The

latest data for housing sales show they are down 42.5 percent in greater

Vancouver, which is below the ten-year average and the lowest level

since 2008. We are, therefore, compelled to question whether there will

be another miss on these projections going forward.

This begs a fundamental question: what is the consequential risk,

and how will weakening economic indicators pose challenges to this

budget? Storm clouds, as I said in my budget remarks, are gathering on

the economic horizon. Yet what do we see? This bill is about to

implement a budget where this minister and government continue to

spend.

The minister characterizes that as investing in people. There is a

significant issue with that statement. Economic trends are

deteriorating. What we do not see in this budget is any attempt to

actually grow the economy in British Columbia. This is about increasing

debt, making sure that we are spending everything we can spend and, in

fact, expensive promises.

The Finance Minister referred to one of the expensive promises,

which is contained, and the implementation is outlined, in this Budget

Measures Act. But perhaps, thankfully, it isn’t being implemented until

2020. The minister suggests it’s because we had to do the work with the

CRA. If this was such an important promise by this government, why on

earth didn’t the work start earlier?

[3:15 p.m.]

Now British Columbians are being given the shiny bauble that says

we’re going to have a brand-new billions-of-dollars program. We are not

even sure British Columbia will be in a position to pay for it, yet we

have it all outlined in the Budget Measures Implementation

Act.

The economy is deteriorating. All of the experts around the world

are suggesting it’s time to be prudent and to be cautious. And what do

we see in British Columbia? Well, we continue to see pedal to the metal.

Let’s just keep spending. Let’s grow the debt, and let’s make expensive

promises.

According to Statistics Canada, the economy has been doing

relatively well. In fact, the minister today — both in question period

and here in her opening remarks — commented on the strong economy that

British Columbia has.

Well, I would like to clarify the record. The strong economy that

British Columbia has today was not created in the last 18 months by this

government. It took years and years of a relentless focus on growing the

economy, creating new jobs in British Columbia. And when this transition

took place, when our government moved to the opposition benches, this

government inherited the number one performing economy in the country —

the number one performing economy.

So to stand in this House and suggest that somehow this government

is responsible for that is simply not accurate. Anyone who takes even

five minutes to think about that knows that you can’t take an economy

that, the last time this government was in power, was the worst in the

country and move it to the first in the country in 18 months. That

simply is not possible.

We are very concerned about today’s announcement by the Bank of

Canada. In fact, the Bank of Canada confirms the concerns we have been

expressing. We noted that B.C. has performed well in the past, but we

are not an island.

Let’s look at competitiveness. Let’s look at south of the border.

Federal tax cuts are now coming into effect and making British Columbia

less competitive. What is the number one thing that business leaders in

British Columbia are talking about today? The loss of competitiveness.

It’s essential that we remain competitive.

It’s not just from our neighbours to the south. We’ve already

heard that if there is a change of government in Alberta when the

provincial election is held next May, we can expect the corporate tax

rate to be cut as much as 4 percent lower than British Columbia’s. So

what does that mean? We’re an island all right. We’re an island

surrounded by other jurisdictions who recognize the importance of being

competitive. This budget does absolutely nothing. In fact, it actually

undermines the competitiveness of British Columbia. Yet what do we see?

Spending, more debt and expensive promises.

It should also be noted that our competitors — a pretty critical

word when we’re talking about the economy — to the south, to the east

and to the north are not subject to the minister’s newly implemented

employer health tax. So not only are we not considering the economic

circumstances that are happening both in Canada and around the world;

we’re also layering on additional taxes to the very people that create

jobs and grow the economy — small businesses in this province. This puts

British Columbia at a compet­itive disadvantage.

The minister knows this, and I’m certain that people on that side

of the House know this. In the event of an economic downturn, our

province could experience an outflow of talent and capital. And where

will they go? To more competitive jurisdictions. We’ve also pointed out

that Budget 2019 lacks any new incentives to attract investment, and

there’s no jobs plan either.

As the member for Surrey–White Rock and I have both observed, the

increase of program spending by more than 26 percent…. So here we have a

minister who wants to stand up and take credit for the number one

economy in Canada, which, by the way, she inherited 18 months ago. What

she should probably stand up and take credit for is an increase in

program spending by 26 percent in just 18 months.

From our perspective, that puts British Columbia in jeopardy. The

prospect of a structural deficit is quite real if economic growth

indicators fail to match the rapid escalation of program spending. If

you don’t have the growth, and you keep spending and spending and

spending, ultimately, British Columbians will face exactly what they

faced the last time this government was in power. And that was a

structural deficit that took us literally years to claw our way back out

of. We are headed in exactly the same direction.

[3:20 p.m.]

The minister will have also noted our comments with regard to the

rollout of the EHT and the spec tax. In our view, and the best way that

we can think of to describe it, it is tax policy on the fly. And what

has it caused? Uncertainty.

One of the most troubling aspects of the speculation tax…. I note

that the minister noted that there are several adjustments to the

speculation tax regarding homes that are uninhabitable because of

natural disasters. Well, this whole tax is a natural

disaster.

We should be clear. This minister announced it, and from day one,

we have been trying to fix it, to tweak it. Communities were in; they’re

out. Belcarra is in; it wants to be out. My goodness. And when you look

at who’s now out, you wonder how they were actually taken out of the

tax. It is tax policy on the fly, and it’s been a disaster.

There’s another more troubling aspect. The members on the other

side of the House may want to diminish this, but people are concerned

about the privacy of their personal information. British Columbians want

to make sure that there is integrity in their personal information and

to make sure that they are protected against identity theft.

People have a right to know what information the government is

gathering and, more importantly, how it’s going to be used and who is

going to have access to it. Our offices, including this building’s

office, have been flooded with calls and emails from people — seniors in

particular — who are saying: “I don’t want to give my social insurance

number.”

I would defy any member on the opposite benches to stand up and

say they haven’t heard from some of their constituents. In fact, we know

they have, because after they get no answers in those constituency

offices, guess where they call. They call our offices. Do you know what

they ask for? They ask for help. They ask for help because they get on

the help line….

I just got a new case today where a couple came back to us and

said: “We called the help line, and here’s what they told us, ‘We can’t

help you.’” That doesn’t exactly define the purpose of having a help

line.

This minister and this government know full well that the

speculation tax is a mess and that there are people in this province

deeply concerned about providing their social insurance number. The

people on the help line continue to insist: “You have to give us your

social insurance number.” Well, I can tell you, there’s going to be a

whole lot of the 1.6 million British Columbians who are going to be in

for a rude awakening when the tax bill arrives because they wanted to

protect their personal information.

By the way, for the record, and on behalf of the official

opposition, they are not speculators. They should never have been

captured. The Premier promised that. The Minister of Finance even stood

up and said: “No, I can’t imagine cottages or cabins being captured.”

And what’s happened? Exactly that.

Madam Speaker, you can understand why the opposition has concerns

about looking at a bill that implements policies that we don’t agree

with. I heartily endorse the Minister of Finance’s comments that we’re

going to agree to disagree. We are going to agree to disagree. We don’t

believe that a 26 percent spending rate in 18 months is sustainable. We

absolutely want to urge this minister to go back and take a look at her

budget. It has completely ignored the world that is surrounding British

Columbia.

When we think about our lack of competitiveness…. The global

economy is deteriorating, and what are we doing in British Columbia? If

this minister wants to talk about taking care of people, then it’s time

for her to go back to the drawing board, get rid of the ill-planned

speculation tax that actually taxes the wrong people and have a good

look in the mirror.

The world around us is changing, and what are we doing? We are

just moving straight ahead. Batten down the hatches, British

Columbia.

British Columbians deserve better than to be required to prove

they are not speculators. They should not have to provide personal

information with a lack of clarity and not have any assurance on whether

or not it will be safe.

Let’s look at some of the specific measures in Bill 5. The bill

includes the formula and technical changes that would be needed to

create the B.C. child opportunity benefit.

During committee, my colleague and I…. She is incredibly skilled,

and I know she’s already analyzing the formulas and all of the details.

I have every confidence that there will be some very tough questions

about this benefit in particular. But during committee, we want a better

understanding of the benefits thresholds. Who exactly is going to

receive the benefit, and how will families access the

program?

[3:25 p.m.]

Once again, as I said earlier, we see an expensive promise with a

very long timeline for implementation. We’re still waiting to see

$10-a-day daycare in British Columbia. We know the price tag attached to

that. And where did the renters’ grant go? That’s completely

missing.

There are huge, expensive promises, and they’re not captured in

the 26 percent increase in spending over 18 months. There are lots of

unanswered questions about what is undoubtedly the signature piece of

the 2019 budget. Does that sound familiar — the signature piece? I seem

to remember all of the government MLAs out on the campaign trail

promising $10-a-day daycare. “It’s going to happen. We’re going to make

it happen.”

Well, today in British Columbia there is no $10-a-day daycare

program. In fact, you’re a winner of a lottery if you get to one of the

pilot daycares. Expensive promise — no delivery.

As we have said numerous times, the devil is in the details. We

see extensions of some tax credits, some for one year and some for

three. We will want to know why the differentiation and on what basis

are there different extension periods and how are they determined.

Again, there are multiple sections.

This is important to British Columbians. And the irony of this? I

remember it clearly that when those members were on this side of the

House, every single time that we’d talk about regulation-making power or

we’d talk about collecting information, we would hear about it. Oh,

would we hear about it. There would be ongoing criticism about the

collection of personal data. How is it going to be captured? Who’s going

to use it?

What do we see in every single piece of legislation, including

this one, that comes before the House? Guess what. They’re collecting

more information. They’re sharing it from one agency to the next. That’s

exactly what this implementation bill talks about. Guess what. We’re

collecting more use and disclosure of personal information. It’s

interesting. Apparently, that was then, and this is now. I’ll tell you:

they would stand in this House and rail, especially about

regulation-making power, because then everything was going to be decided

behind closed doors.

I don’t think I’ve seen a bill yet that’s come through since this

government has been in power that doesn’t have regulation-making power.

In fact, half the time British Columbians have no idea what kinds of

consultations are going on. In fact, look at mountain caribou. Nobody in

the world knows what’s going on there. Apparently a few do, but we

certainly don’t.

We’re going to seek clarity in every single case about why

information is needed and what protections are being put in place.

Virtually every bill contains regulation-making authority and data

collection.

Bill 5 also allows for additional gasoline taxes under the South

Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act. This tax increase

of up to 1.5 cents will be in addition to the carbon tax increases.

Well, guess what. Just the other day Dan McTeague of gasbuddy.com said

this: “You’re looking at about a 3.5 percent increase in costs, bringing

taxes to 53 cents a litre which, of course, will make Vancouver” — wait

for it — “the highest-taxed jurisdiction of any major city not just

across Canada, across North America.”

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Well, congratulations to the Finance Minister. She won an award.

In fact, we’re ramping it right up to the ceiling. We now, the people of

Vancouver, with this Budget Measures Implementation Act and the carbon

tax that’s going to be added on an ongoing basis, have now ramped

Vancouver costs to the highest tax jurisdiction of any major city across

North America when it comes to gas.

Well, I can tell the minister opposite that, in fact, this has

been, according to her, all about affordability and all about putting

money back in people’s pockets. Well, the fact of the matter is that

apparently, from the minister’s perspective, having the highest gasoline

prices in North America, looking at ongoing costs for employers and

small businesses, layering on taxes, including the speculation tax — I

think we’re going to have a pretty good argument that demonstrates that

while we may be putting money in one pocket, they’re taking it out of

the other pocket at a faster rate than most British Columbians can

actually imagine.

There are many other sections that will require additional

information, and we will endeavour to get answers through­out the

committee stage of this.

[3:30 p.m.]

From our perspective, as I said, Bill 5 implements a budget that

is full of risk, and that’s our most heartfelt concern. There are

enormous risks for British Columbia on the horizon.

Interjections.

S. Bond: The members opposite can guffaw and make comment about that, but

perhaps they want to listen to the Bank of Canada, which today just

issued a very dire warning about the future of the economy. In fact,

we’re talking about references to 2008.

I would suggest it’s about time that the minister and her team

paid a bit of attention to the storm clouds that are gathering. There

are razor-thin surpluses in this budget, growing debt and continued tax

increases and, again, a complete lack of a jobs plan or economic growth

strategy. The government has even given up defending that. They

basically just said: “We’re investing in people. That’s how we grow the

economy.”

Actually, the way you grow the economy is making sure that British

Columbia has a thriving economy, that it is competitive with other

jurisdictions. We’ve already pointed out that geographically, we are

becoming an island, an island that is not competitive. And it’s going to

continue to get worse, as we look at what other jurisdictions are doing

in terms of looking at tax reductions, focusing on growing the economy,

supporting a private sector economy.

We’re going to continue, every opportunity we get, to urge this

minister to reconsider her approach in view of all of the economic

warning signs. It’s time that this government took a second…. It’s time

that the government actually paid attention to what’s going on around

us. It is simply not enough to continue to spend, to continue to grow

debt in the province, without a single reference to a job strategy. No

economic growth strategy.

And what are we seeing? Dropping consumer confidence. British

Columbia’s economy is strong because of the confidence that consumers

have had in British Columbia. We’re seeing that weaken. Needless to say,

we do not support Budget ’19, and the Budget Implementation Act simply

gives life to a budget that we have fundamental concerns about. We are

concerned about the risks. We’re concerned about the growing economic

storm clouds that we see, with warnings that we’re hearing day after

day.

It’s evidenced by businesses being closed, people choosing to

leave British Columbia. British Columbians deserve better than that. It

is time for this government to rethink their efforts. We’ve seen 19 tax

increases since the government took office. There have about no new tax

cuts announced since the ones made by the previous government. The list

goes on.

With those initial comments…. I know that my colleague and my

co-critic will want to make additional comments, but I end my remarks on

this note. There are concerns being expressed around the world about the

continued deterioration of the economy. British Columbians deserve a

government that actually is aware of those issues, that recognizes the

importance of prudent and sound fiscal management. It is not about

expensive promises promised in 2020, promises that have disappeared from

this government’s radar screen and, most importantly, from their

budget.

It’s a time for prudence, for caution and for protecting the

interests of British Columbians. In our view, this budget and, thus, the

implementation of it are simply not sustainable. As the minister in her

own words said, we will agree to disagree and certainly will not be

supporting either these measures or the budget in its

entirety.

Hon. G. Heyman: It gives me great pleasure to stand and speak to Bill 5, the

Budget Measures Implementation Act, although, frankly, judging by most

of the comments from the member for Prince George–Valemount, it’s not

actually critical that I speak to the bill itself.

However, what I will say is this bill gives life to a number of

important measures that are contained in the budget, measures that speak

to what British Columbians asked for from their government. The member

opposite said that this government needs to pay attention to what’s

going on around us. I would say that’s exactly what this government is

doing.

[3:35 p.m.]

I would say there are probably 40 MLAs on the other side of the

House that wish the previous Finance Minister had paid even a jot of

attention to what was going on around them with housing affordability

and any number of other measures that British Columbians were crying for

day in, day out, which are now getting addressed by a government that

puts them in the centre of the budget, in the centre of our policies,

and not their corporate friends, to the sole exclusion of everyone

else.

The member opposite said this budget doesn’t have necessary

prudence. I would beg to disagree. This budget has ample amounts of

prudence, and that has been affirmed by commentators across the

political and business and civic spectrum. We are more than aware, and

the Finance Minister is more than aware, of the challenges facing the

global economy. That’s why there are so many measures in this budget to

address competitiveness, to address small business, to address venture

capital, to give the stability to the mining industry that they have

sought for many, many years.

Let’s talk about the claim that we don’t care about

competitiveness. If we didn’t care about competitiveness, we would not

have worked with the Business Council of British Columbia on how we can

diversify B.C.’s economy, how we can work together to market B.C.’s

innovation while addressing the challenge of reducing carbon, to give

stability and certainty to resource communities, to our existing

industrial sectors and to the workers who depend on them.

The members opposite have claimed at times that there is no

difference between our climate plan, CleanBC, our climate and economic

plan, and what they had started. But there is a difference in every

single metric you want to look at, not the least of which is an express

commitment that we have talked about, that we will introduce, that will

address the competitiveness issues for emissions-intensive,

trade-exposed industries in full consultation and partnership with them.

That was never found under the previous government.

They simply ignored both the climate challenge and the

competitiveness issues that go with addressing the climate challenge for

many, many large industrial operators in British Columbia, who recognize

that their survival depends on reducing emissions and cooperating with a

government that will make it possible for them to do so without putting

them at risk of competition from other jurisdictions and will help them

invest in the measures and technology that can make them

world-leading.

Apparently, members opposite think that everything good came from

them and everything bad can be attributed to us who are now in

government. That’s an interesting perspective, but to me, I think it

simply speaks to the fact that they have yet to accept that British

Columbians disagreed with their view that they had a natural right to

govern in perpetuity in British Columbia, that whatever they did would

result in their re-election.

I know that there are many members opposite who look at any one of

the investments in programs for communities, programs for families,

programs for people that are contained in this budget and wish the

previous Finance Minister had invested in even one of them. Because in

their heart of hearts, they believe that if they had made some of those

investments that people were crying for, instead of telling everyone,

year after year after year, that paying off debt came before investing

in their future and their children’s future, they might still be in

government.

I don’t believe that’s the case. But certainly, when the member

opposite says that they have people, British Columbians, calling them

for help every day in their constituency offices…. I can tell them who’s

calling us for help — or calling us, more correctly, to thank us for

help. It’s the parents and families who finally have affordable,

accessible child care and see it expanding week after week, month after

month and year after year. It is enabling them to have a life and to go

out and achieve the participation in the workforce that, for many of

them, was previously denied.

[3:40 p.m.]

The renters who were seeing double-digit, sometimes in the

mid-30s, rent increases made possible by loopholes are now calling us to

thank us for closing those loopholes, for taking the challenges of

renters of all ages — students, middle class, seniors, people who can’t

afford homes — taking their concerns seriously and taking measures to

increase the stock of rental housing and increase the affordability of

renting.

Students. Students are not allowed to borrow however much they

want under the student loan programs but are drowning under tens of

thousands of dollars of debt with interest accruing. Many students who I

know left school because they could not face the mounting debt that they

knew lay ahead of them and instead chose to try to make their way in the

economy without the degrees that would help them make a decent living

and help our economy grow and thrive. Those students are thanking us for

the measures contained in this budget to eliminate the interest on

student loans.

This budget and this Budget Measures Implementation Act are

delivering to British Columbians who work hard day in and day out, in

communities throughout British Columbia — people who own small

businesses; people who have steady jobs; people who are starting out in

their careers; people who are dreaming of taking their skills, whether

it be in technology or as craftspeople or as tradespeople, and starting

their own small businesses. They see assistance in this budget — not

just in the tax measures that encourage investment in small business,

investment in innovation but also the many measures that help them on a

day-to-day basis with their families, whether it’s child care, whether

it’s investment in education, whether it’s support for renters or any of

the number of other supports that British Columbians have been crying

for, for 16 long years. We’ve listened, we’re answering their concerns,

and we’re taking measures to help them.

Members opposite talk about how there is nothing in this budget

about jobs. If that’s the case, why did they have nothing to say when

they oversaw the elimination of 30,000 jobs in the forestry sector and

then have the temerity to accuse us of not taking the softwood lumber

threat and industry seriously?

We’re working to rebuild rural communities in B.C., to rebuild our

natural resource industries by adding value and providing secure jobs to

British Columbians. We’re working to make the mining industry, the

fossil fuel industry and the forest industry less carbon intensive, more

productive, more stable, therefore providing more jobs for British

Columbians. That’s what this government is about. If we weren’t about

jobs, we wouldn’t have gone to the lowest unemployment rate in Canada

under this government’s watch — not that government’s watch, but this

government’s watch.

There are any number of measures in the bills that we’ll be

debating before this House and in the budget and in CleanBC that will

provide impetus to our technology sector that will use technologies to

make our resource sector more productive; that will create jobs for

British Columbians, not just in the Lower Mainland, but in communities

all around British Columbia. The members opposite can scoff if they

want, but they are going to have a very long time on that side of the

House to do their scoffing, because British Columbians know that we’re

providing a better, more affordable and more comfortable life for

them.

Let me simply close by saying that when the member for Prince

George–Valemount stated that we care not a whit for the tax cost or

burden on Vancouverites…. It takes some gall to say that when under the

previous government’s watch, house prices in British Columbia generally,

but in Vancouver and Victoria specifically, drove almost everyone, every

young person, out of a position of ever, ever imagining being able to

own a home. Rents skyrocketing. That’s what made Vancouver

unaffordable.

As for the gas tax, it’s a permissive measure. It’s a permissive

measure for municipalities, and Metro Vancouver in particular, who have

asked for tools in order to fund transit expansion. Funding for transit

expansion was consistently denied by the previous government.

[3:45 p.m.]

Every measure that Metro Vancouver sought to put forward to fill

the funding gap for expanding public transit in Metro Vancouver was

turned down by the previous government or put to a phony, ill-advised

referendum that nobody wanted, that was guaranteed to fail and that

resulted in massive congestion and costs to the people in Vancouver,

both in terms of lost time and the costs of being stuck in congested

traffic instead of having an efficient and effective transportation

system.

If the members opposite want life to be better for British

Columbians, if they want life to be more affordable for people in

Vancouver, if they want jobs for British Columbians, if they want

innovation, if they want prudent budgets, then they can stay on that

side, support this bill and let us do our job.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Member for Chilliwack, if you want to make a comment, you have to

do it from your own seat, please.

The member for Surrey–White Rock has the floor.

T. Redies: I’m pleased to stand here to make some brief remarks with respect

to Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2019. This bill, as

we know, contains a number of tax measures, including the main feature

of the 2019 budget, the government’s new child opportunity benefit,

although it is not coming into effect until late 2020. It also contains

a number of other tax measures, some consequential, some extending

programs that were put in place under the former B.C. Liberal

government, such as the farmers food donation tax credit and the

shipbuilding and ship repair industry tax credit.

I know a number of members on the other side think that I’m overly

critical of this government and I that don’t always acknowledge some of

the good things that the government has actually put in place. So let me

say that I appreciate that the government is seeking to provide some

additional relief to families with children, with incomes mostly under

$100,000, with this new child opportunity benefit.

It’s very clear, especially in the Lower Mainland, that young

families are struggling to keep pace with costs — costs that seem to

keep rising year over year. Based on some of the language in the budget

measures bill and in the budget document, though, it’s not clear to me

that this benefit is going to do as much for these families as the

government purports, however. It also seems to be eliminating existing

benefits for some families who currently receive them. We’ll be

exploring that in the committee stage of this bill and in

estimates.

When I looked at this child opportunity benefit, I wondered about

other people — couples with no children who are making less than

$80,000, for example, who are also finding it hard to get ahead,

especially in the Lower Mainland. Seniors who are renting. Young people

who are living paycheque to paycheque. Young couples trying to save up

for a down payment for an apartment or a townhouse. It appears that

there’s little relief in this budget or in this budget measures bill for

them.

I’d also say that it was kind of curious to me that the child

opportunity benefit will not be implemented until late 2020, although

the Finance Minister has indicated that’s because the CRA can’t get it

in place in time. But for me, for a government that indicates that it

wants to address affordability challenges for British Columbians…. Why

are they not asking the feds to speed up the implementation? These will

be some of the questions we’ll be pursuing in the committee stage and,

perhaps, estimates.

Now, on the business side…. The members opposite are going to be

very surprised, because I’m going to speak positively about another

measure in this budget measures bill. I was pleased to see the mining

flow-through share tax credit as well as the mining exploration tax

credit both made permanent in this budget. As we all know, mining is a

very important industry to this province, and it’s integral, in my mind,

that B.C. be able to develop its resources on a sustainable basis. Our

go-forward standard of living depends on it.

B.C. has the fastest-aging society in Canada — indeed, one of the

fastest in North America. I worry that we cannot get our resources to

market fast enough, whether it’s mine commodities, natural gas or even

Alberta oil and bitumen, which do and could generate substantially

increased tax revenues and transfers for the country and province

respectively.

[3:50 p.m.]

Given our aging population and the spectre of an increasingly

fewer number of working people supporting a ballooning retiree group, we

face a potentially significant drop in our standard of living if we

can’t get our resources to market, albeit we must ensure we do it in a

responsible and sustainable manner. So it’s good to see the government

making the flow-through tax credits for mining permanent in this

province to encourage ongoing investment.

The mining of commodities, of course, is a very challenging,

high-risk business. And in recent years, it has become increasingly

difficult to get permits and mines off the ground in our province. The

government’s new mining oversight body, one of the touted initiatives

that are, so-called, helping the mining industry, is not likely to make

that any easier. But I am digressing from being positive.

Let me talk about another program that I was pleased to see in the

budget measures act. While it was started under the previous government,

it’s good to see that the small business venture capital tax credit was

enhanced with this budget measures act, although I have a few questions

on the program that we’ll canvass at a later stage. The increase of the

annual tax credit from $60,000 to $120,000 and the raising of the

maximum amount that eligible business corporations can raise through the

program from $5 million to $10 million are welcome changes, and it will

support increased investment in start-ups in our province. So I thank

the government for making these two changes.

Now after that list of positives, let me talk to the issues that I

have with this budget measures bill and, indeed, with the overall

approach to the budget in 2019. Notwithstanding the two programs that I

just spoke to, the budget measures bill and Budget 2019 do little for

the overall business climate in this province. In fact, beyond these two

initiatives, there is glaringly little in this budget and the budget

measures act for economic development, job creation and growth in the

private sector. It’s the private sector that grows the economy

sustainably, not the public sector.

The government is spending at a rate that is not sustainable,

especially in a downturn. And capital spending is growing at a compound

annual growth rate of almost 14 percent per year. That’s not

sustainable, particularly if the economy does go into a downturn. Again

I say that there is very little in this budget to stimulate the private

sector. It’s the private sector that grows sustainable jobs, not the

public sector. When the government spends, taxpayers have to pay it.

When the government spends on capital spending, taxpayers have to pay

it. So it’s very, very important that government creates a healthy

climate for the private sector to invest and to grow jobs.

There certainly isn’t anything for business in this budget

measures bill in terms of reducing the growing tax burden on businesses

or sufficient initiatives for growing jobs and investment across our

province in the private sector. I guess we should be thankful there were

no new taxes in this budget. But most B.C. businesses are about to get

punished, in 2019, with the advent of the myriad of business taxes

introduced last year. From the employers tax to the double-dipping with

MSP premiums to the increased corporate tax to yet another increase in

the carbon tax as of April 1, B.C. businesses have been hard hit by this

NDP government.

Over the last two years, B.C.’s marginal effective corporate tax

rate has plunged to the 14th worst of 14 jurisdictions in North America.

And that was before the leader of the UCP, the United Conservative Party

in Alberta, announced yesterday that if he becomes Premier of our

neighboring province to the east, he will cut corporate taxes by

one-third — from 12 percent to 8 percent. Moreover, many of the new

taxes aren’t even accounted for in the marginal effective corporate tax

rate that I referred to.

The onerous employers health tax alone will generate $2 billion

annually in tax revenues off the backs of businesses. And this tax will

be on top of the MSP premiums that businesses must continue to pay in

2019 because the government chose to double-dip in order to support its

massive spending increases. In fact, I did a rough calculation that the

EHT, corporate tax and 50 percent of the carbon tax will add about $8

billion in taxes to the business sector over the life of this

plan.

The other side seems to think that businesses can take all of

this. In fact, actually, we’re hearing stories of businesses who are

seeing their profits decimated by this EHT and other taxes. In one case,

we’ve been advised of a small business in the Fraser Valley where their

net profits are being brought to near zero as they now have to pay

$200,000 in EHT.

If the businesses are feeling the pinch, there is a reason. That’s

because this government has declared an all-out war on the business

sector, who are getting hit with the lion’s share of the tax increases

implemented by this NDP minority government.

[3:55 p.m.]

We’re already starting to see the impacts of this. I said last

year around this time that all of these taxes have the potential to send

the economy into a downward trajectory by dampening competitiveness,

increasing costs and choking off the private sector investment. And what

are we seeing? A 6.4 percent decline in housing starts, with another

almost 30 percent predicted to climb through the balance of the plan

period. Housing sales down year over year in January by 40 percent and

down year over year in February by 32 percent.

Business confidence is tanking. According to the Canadian

Federation of Independent Business, the B.C. small business confidence

index now sits at 55.4 points, placing it below the Canadian average of

59 by 3.6 points. Compared to last year, according to the CFIB,

entrepreneurial confidence in B.C. has dropped 14.1 points. That does

not bode well for investment.

In fact, Muriel Protzer, the policy analyst for the CFIB for B.C.

and Alberta, described the situation as follows: “This year is already

proving to be a challenge for local businesses in B.C. The 2019

provincial budget shows no new meaningful measures to support local

businesses. Entrepreneurs still face a mountain of cost increases as a

result of last year’s budget that are just coming into play, such as the

employer health tax, carbon tax increases and minimum wage

hikes.”

Further, as raised by my co–Finance critic from Prince

George–Valemount, this budget also introduces another 1.5-cent-per-litre

tax on gasoline. At the same time, the government is introducing yet

another increase in the carbon tax, of $5 per tonne, in April. This

government is on track to raise the carbon tax by 67 percent by 2021,

and they’ve removed the revenue neutrality.

On top of that, British Columbians in the Lower Mainland are now

expected to pay another 1.5 cents a litre more for their gasoline. So

much for making life more affordable. Far from it. This government’s

actions have resulted in British Columbia now paying the highest gas

prices of any jurisdiction in North America. And gas taxes are only

going one way: up.

Governments have to make choices and must walk a careful balance

between providing social services and taxing individuals and businesses

to such an extent that they either leave the province or, in the case of

businesses, stop investing — or, worse, lay off people. I think we are

precariously close to that now.

This government has shown no signs of letting up on expenditures.

In fact, it is pedal to the metal on spending. Astoundingly, to me, this

government spent an extra $2 billion in fiscal 2018-19 than it forecast

it would spend. In just one year alone, two billion extra dollars of the

taxpayers’ money was spent.

This is all coming at a time when the economic growth party

appears to be grinding to a halt in Canada, and, as my colleague from

Prince George–Valemount raised, there are a lot of storm clouds on the

horizon. The five largest economies in the world are all expected to

experience economic slowdowns in 2019, mostly due to self-inflicted

wounds but some dealing with economic headwinds, like Japan, due to its

changing demographics.

The Canadian economy in the last quarter only grew by 0.1 percent.

The governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz had this to say:

“Consumer spending and the housing market were soft,” speaking with

respect to the last quarter, “despite strong growth in employment and

labour income. Both exports and business investments also fell short of

expectations. And after growing at a pace of 1.8 percent in 2018, it now

appears that the economy will be weaker in the first half of 2019 than

the bank projected in January.”

The bank is changing its projections after one month. This is

happening a lot faster, I think, than people are expecting or people on

the other side are anticipating. And while B.C.’s economic growth has

remained relatively strong, it’s still declining. Make no mistake. It

cannot weather these economic storm clouds untouched.

All of this to say it’s not a given that the strong B.C. economy

will go on forever. From our perspective on this side of the House, it

seems to us that this government is continuing to spend like there is no

tomorrow. As such, while there are positives in this budget measures

bill, I remain very concerned with the overall direction of this

government, its free-spending ways and its inordinate disregard for the

competitiveness of the province and the businesses within it. There will

be a reckoning. No economic cycle, positive or negative, goes on

forever.

[4:00 p.m.]

I worry that this government will have structured spending in such

a way, between the union benefit agreements and public sector contracts,

that it will be difficult to avoid significant budget deficits in an

economic downturn. When that reckoning comes, I just hope it’s not

British Columbians that pay dearly for it in the form of much higher tax

increases or substantial cuts to needed programs.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on second reading on

Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2019.

As we know, this bill implements a number of the tax changes that

were outlined in the budget. I won’t go into rather gory detail on this.

Of course, I did speak quite a long time to the original budget, and

we’re seeing a few of the items there reflected in the implementation

act here.

There are, obviously, a number of initiatives — major new

initiatives like the new B.C. child opportunity benefit, as well as

things like expanding existing programs like the small business venture

capital tax credit. I’ll come to some others shortly. There’s a number

of other minor changes that we’ve been told clarify administrative

aspects of existing taxes. By and large, I and my colleagues are

supportive of the overall direction of this budget, as we articulated in

our budget speech.

The first one I want to address, though, is

section 1 of Bill 5,

2019. This is a proposed change to the Carbon Tax Act. Now, it’s been

suggested to us that the legislative change here just clarifies that the

existing penalty already exists for selling natural gas without a

certificate, and the legislation wasn’t clear enough previously. I must

admit a flag was raised by this section, and I look forward to a

briefing on this section, in approximately 45 minutes, to ask a few

questions directly about what was intended here.

Other sections in the bill are not particularly controversial,

from our perspective.

I want to address the flow-through mining tax credit. This is a

key