Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, February 20, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 311

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. Sims

S. Sullivan

Hon. S. Simpson

T. Wat

S. Furstenau

J. Routledge

N. Letnick

R. Kahlon

R. Sultan

Hon. D. Eby

J. Thornthwaite

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2020

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. Sims: As I was saying earlier, it is a privilege to be here representing the

constituents of Surrey-Panorama, to stand up here and speak in support of a

very prudent and well-thought-out budget that keeps the people at its

centre.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This is in the context of B.C. having a triple-A credit rating. We’ve

got the highest growth rate, the lowest unemployment rate and, for the first

time in over a decade, I would say, people receiving the much-needed relief

they need in areas like child care and other supports. The Finance Minister,

as I said previously, is also focused like a laser to make sure that people

are at the centre of this budget and that the budget is also about growing

jobs.

As I look at this budget that was presented just a few days ago, I see

in it just so much that is good for the economy now that we do have a

government that is actually putting people first and is investing in people.

I look at the economic boost for the province as we look at the investments

that are taking place in infrastructure.

[1:35 p.m.]

This infrastructure is right around the province in every corner. It

is creating jobs. Budget 2020 does see the largest investment in B.C.

history in the infrastructure we need to keep moving forward, whether it’s

schools, hospitals, highways or housing.

This is the much-needed infrastructure that was neglected. I can say

that coming from Surrey, B.C. and having over 7,000 students sitting in

portables before this last election. I’m proud to say that over 7,000 seats

have now either been built or are in the process of being built and in the

pipeline.

When I take a look at the infrastructure spending in health…. You

know, I’ve heard people say across the way that this budget has nothing in

there about jobs. Well, when you build schools, when you build hospitals,

when you build child care centres and when you build roads and highways,

guess what? It’s people who are building those. It’s jobs. It’s jobs that

are decent-paying and that help to grow our economy.

We’re not going to take any lessons from the previous government that

neglected the infrastructure and neglected British Columbians while they

focused on the top 1 or 2 percent.

When I look at the health care investments in infrastructure alone….

I’m not talking about all the other amazing things that have been happening

in health care. From the capital fund, health care is going to be spending —

in the 2020 budget, it’s right in there — $6.4 billion to build and expand

hospitals and health facilities and for medical equipment. That is a lot of

money. Those hospitals are not just in the Lower Mainland, as some people

will say. These are new or upgraded hospitals in Williams Lake, Quesnel,

Trail, Nanaimo, Cowichan Valley, Fort St. James, Terrace, Surrey, Dawson

Creek, Richmond, Burnaby, Vancouver and North Vancouver.

As these hospitals and the expansions are occurring, guess what. That

brings work into those communities. At the same time, it builds the

much-needed infrastructure that we do need for our population —

infrastructure, as I said, that was grossly, grossly neglected by the

previous government.

Now let me talk a little bit about transportation: $7.4 billion for

priority projects, including bridge replacements. Once again, I’m very happy

that Pattullo Bridge, linking South Fraser with North, is right there, and

it’s part of these highway expansions and corridor improvements.

Once again, these projects are not just in the Lower Mainland. The

highways are being improved right around this province. The infrastructure

creates jobs, and that helps to support families.

For infrastructure — this is from the capital funding alone, and I

think it’s really good that the Minister of Education should just happen to

walk in — we are building schools and doing seismic upgrading at a pace that

is unheard of. I’ve heard that from trustees in Surrey, who are so happy

with the rate of schools being built in Surrey.

In education, $2.8 billion — not million but billion — is being spent

to replace, renovate or expand the K-to-12 schools. Some of these — many, we

hope — are going to include child care spaces and neighbourhood learning

centres.

Once again, as schools are being built, what is that about? That is

about jobs. That is about people working to build schools, bringing a decent

paycheque home and helping to support families in those

communities.

[1:40 p.m.]

You know, it’s not just the K-to-12 sector that is getting a great big

focus in capital spending. It’s also post-secondary education — $3.1 billion

to expand institutions, help meet workforce needs and build student

housing.

When you build infrastructure, whether it’s at post-secondary, K to

12, transportation or health, it creates jobs, good-paying jobs that are

occurring right around this province. The Minister of Housing earlier really

pointed out the great work that’s being done in that area. But in this

budget in this year, 2020, there is $1 billion for affordable housing for

seniors, Indigenous peoples, individuals and families.

When you’re taking a look at the amount of money that is being spent

on infrastructure, this is not about bridges or roads or hospitals. Of

course, we need all of those. This is also one of the best economic

investments any government can make and that is to replace the crumbling

architecture, infrastructure that exists. You know, we’ve heard a lot of

rhetoric here — and I suppose it is the place for rhetoric — and we’ve heard

a lot of comments that, I think, deserve a prize for chutzpah. I’m beginning

to think of those.

We’ve got the Leader of the Opposition who did say that there is going

to be no hospital for Surrey. I was thinking that it takes real audacity to

say that in this House, when as the Minister of Citizens’ Services, it was

that minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, who sold the land in

Surrey-Panorama where a hospital was going to be built, despite the fact

that the Premier from the other side had had a couple of press conferences

right on that site.

We’ve done a capital plan, announced straight away. Everything is

being expedited. A business plan is in process. When that is done, it will

go to procurement. But in the meantime, we bought land where the hospital is

going to be built. The reason I say it takes real chutzpah is, first, you

sell the land where a hospital can be built, and then you say there’s going

to be no hospital, and you go down that road. It just seems absolutely

bizarre.

Also, having read some of the things — that nothing is happening in

Surrey, and the Surrey MLAs are kind of…. What are they doing? I dug up

capital investments that are happening in Surrey. This is just a few. This

is in the 2020 budget. B.C. Housing is providing $29 million in capital

funding through the Supportive Housing Fund program to RainCity Housing and

Support Society’s 130-unit transitional housing project located at 9810

Foxglove Drive. That’s very specific, and it’s in the budget.

George Greenaway Elementary seismic upgrade, $11.8 million. That’s in

the budget. Holly Elementary seismic upgrade, $9.6 million. That’s in the

budget. Sullivan Elementary School’s addition to provide up to 200 new

much-needed student spaces, $13.5 million.

Grandview Heights Secondary School, a new secondary school to provide

1,500 student spaces, $82 million in total with $63 million coming from the

province. Maddaugh Road Elementary School, a new elementary school to

provide 605 student spaces, with a neighbourhood learning centre, $31.2

million. Regent Road Elementary School. I could go on with the schools, but

the list is quite long. I do know that there are other people who want to

speak.

I also want to talk about Pattullo Bridge. I had the pleasure of being

with the Premier and the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure as

they announced the procurement process has been completed. What comes next?

It’s shovels in the ground. That’s over a billion-dollar project that is

going to create good-paying jobs and be a boost for the economy for the

Lower Mainland.

[1:45 p.m.]

I mentioned the hospitals earlier. Of course, we’ve had so many other

improvements in Surrey when it comes to child care. I read those into

Hansard last week. But let me tell you. Every time I go out, I

have a parent or a grandparent who approaches me and says: “You are doing an

amazing job with child care.”

I’m also reminded…. I’ve got the Minister of Agriculture. I was

talking with her today and saying what an amazing job she has done with this

file, because she listened. She listened to the concerns from the farmers

about additional needs for accommodation, and she accommodated. That’s what

this side of the House does. That’s what this government does. We listen to

people, and then we make sure that we are responsive.

As I look at the budget, one of the things that really warmed my heart

this time…. Never mind the MSP premiums gone, being the largest, largest tax

break in B.C. history. For me, one of the most touching ones was the special

grant for students. Instead of waiting until they finish their courses,

these grants will make it so much easier for students to access

post-secondary education, whether it’s for two years or whether it’s a

longer diploma program or whether it’s a degree or whether they’re working

towards their red seal.

You combine that with the B.C. child opportunity benefit and combine

that with child care, and you know that families are saying: “Yes, this

government cares about the people of British Columbia. Yes, this government

is looking at affordability.”

It’s not in a definition, by the way. It’s about the real difference

it makes to people’s lives when they don’t have to pay MSP premiums, when

they can get $10-a-day child care, when they can get affordable housing,

when they are going to now be getting a B.C. child opportunity benefit that

goes to the age of 18. It doesn’t stop at six. It goes to the age of

All those things…. Let me mention some of the things we had done

previously, like the tolls having been gone. Also, let me say, as a closing

comment, it is an absolute pleasure and a delight to stand in this House and

speak in support of a budget that puts people at the centre of the budget

and makes decisions that are good for British Columbians.

S. Sullivan: I’m pleased to speak to the throne speech and the budget. I’d, first

of all, like to thank the constituents of Vancouver–False Creek for their

trust in electing me as their representative. We have a very remarkable

riding.

I call Vancouver–False Creek downtown British Columbia. It has got so

many major businesses, major cultural institutions and wonderful tourism

facilities. We have, basically, Science World for so many children, which

helps to show them the wonders of science and technology; Granville Island,

one of the most important tourism destinations; the art gallery; B.C. Place;

Rogers Arena.

[1:50 p.m.]

We are actually the largest mining area, mining riding constituency,

in British Columbia. I have about 1,000 mining companies right in

Vancouver–False Creek. Many downtown people who live and work downtown don’t

always understand that we are very dependent on the resource sector of

British Columbia.

We also have a lot of technology companies. Amazon is moving in very

shortly just down the street from where I live and where I work. They are

going to bring in many thousands of workers.

We have a very interesting demographic profile as well. More and more,

we’re getting young children and school-aged children. We are also very

heavily weighted in young people, who are attracted to the opportunities of

downtown, both working and recreation.

I’d like to acknowledge and thank some people who have made it

possible for me to be here. First of all, my wife, Lynn, who is incredible.

She does so much to enable me to do what I do. I couldn’t do it without her.

I’d also like to acknowledge Cris Garvey, my constituency assistant, and her

team for the great work they do in representing me and representing the

citizens to Victoria. I’d also like to acknowledge my riding association.

They do a tremendous job of supporting me.

First of all, before I go too far into the budget, I’d like to just

acknowledge that the throne speech spoke of some people that we lost last

year. Some good friends and people that I have great memories of, and I will

cherish those memories always. B.C. Lee, Paul Fraser, Wayson Choy, May

Brown, Gordon Smith — all of these great British Columbians that we will

truly miss.

My concern about this budget is that I believe that it is actually

harmful to our economy. It does threaten the well-being of many of our

future citizens. First of all, I’d like to just point out one deficiency

that I’m disappointed in. We have a lot of school children in

Vancouver–False Creek who are not able to go to school in their own

neighbourhood. Actually, if you look at the map of Vancouver, it is all of

the schools around the downtown, in and around, that are the ones that

cannot find enough space and are having to transfer students to different

schools.

The great hope that we had was for the Olympic Village school. I know

the minister has made some efforts on that file, but the reality is we have

a lot of parents who have moved into a high-density urban area thinking they

were going to live the urban life in a very environmentally responsible way.

Now what they do is they drive their children to school and then drive back

home and then walk to work. It’s very unfortunate.

I note just in a tweet this morning that Brent Toderian, the planner

who actually set up many of the urban areas that we enjoy today, moved in

right beside Crosstown School and has just been informed his child will not

be able to attend the school. A great disappointment for him, who has worked

so hard to create an urban environment where families can thrive.

To explain some of my concerns about the budget, I’m going to use a

couple of different metaphors. The first is a rocket. Now, our last term of

government left about a $2 billion surplus, and clearly the economy

was booming.

[1:55 p.m.]

What I like to explain is that when a rocket is going up, the engines

are full blast. When you turn the engine off, the rocket still goes up. It

goes up for a while. Then it starts to go slower and slower, and it starts

to sputter and turn down.

Now, we do still have surpluses, which I am very pleased about, but we

have to remember how those surpluses came about. They came about with great

spending increases but also great tax increases. So we saw about a $5.7

billion increase in taxes. Next year will be $8.8 billion. When I got here,

we were under $50 billion total budget. Now we’re looking at $60

billion.

The incredible, breathtaking increase in spending and taxes is a great

concern to me. We see 23 new or increased taxes.

The second metaphor I’d like to describe is that of a garden. You can

really think of an economy as a garden. It’s something that you cultivate,

that you cherish and that you look after.

When we talk about making a budget, we’re not just talking about

government revenues and expenses. We’re talking about how we tend to this

garden. What we do when we do a budget is we think about what we are going

to take out of the garden. How are we going to nurture it? How are we going

to look after it? What are we going to put back in? So I think of the

economy as a garden.

What we’re doing right now, I think, has some long-term implications.

When I want to have a good garden, I want to ask a gardener. When I want to

produce a good economy, I like to ask an economist. I believe that this is

one of the serious problems of this budget. It does not conform to good

economic thinking.

One of the problems with this budget is it represents a philosophy

that believes that you can just legislate a good garden; you can legislate

the market. It may be good politics, in some ways, short term, but it’s not

good economics.

What we need to realize is that the economy and the market has certain

ways that it will respond and not respond, just like a garden. We cannot

just will more produce. You can’t take more than is sustainable. If you

start to do that, it may be good in the short term. It may give you what you

want to extract every organic thing that you can get, but it doesn’t result

in long-term sustainability.

Now, there was a couple of comments in the budget that I found very

troubling. One was the comment: “The old practice of hoarding surpluses at

the expense of citizens is over.” I find that very troubling. What do we do

with surpluses? Hoard it? What does that mean? Do we just keep

it?

What we have is an economy where we have $66 billion in debt. What you

do with a surplus is you pay down your debt. Now, we know what deficits are

and debts are. What they are, are deferred taxes. So when people are talking

about how this is such a great budget for the future, for the future

citizens, what it is, is deferred taxes. Young people are going to have to

pay these taxes.

When we have the opportunity to have a surplus, that’s when we use

that surplus to put back into the garden so that it can produce for future

generations.

[2:00 p.m.]

Now this government is very vulnerable right now. Right now the

interest rates are record low, and it’s been that way for a long time. But

eventually, those rates are going up. At that point, we are going to be very

vulnerable, because we’re going to now have to pay much more to service the

$66 billion. I think this is very shortsighted.

A couple of other comments that were made. Rent controls. They’re

going to double down on the rent controls. If you look at the supply of

rental housing over the past — well, the current supply of housing…. Most,

possibly 80 percent to 90 percent, of all the rental housing was built

before 1973. Our rental housing is getting old. It’s getting decrepit, and

it needs to be renewed. Now, why was it that rental housing stopped being

built in 1973? That’s when a former NDP government brought in rent controls.

It just stopped rental housing cold.

We need more rental housing. We are getting some more rental housing

now that there have been more incentives offered. There are programs,

especially municipal programs, where they’ve offered a lot of incentives,

and that has brought some rental housing providers back to the table. But

what we’ve found in Vancouver…. I know, just in the last year or two,

several rental housing proposals were actually withdrawn. It was so

uneconomic to do it that they have withdrawn it. So I’m feeling very

vulnerable now in the downtown, with all of my neighbours.

We’ve got a booming economy in the high-tech sector — many people

moving in. As I say, Amazon will be arriving and Shopify. A number of

companies have announced that they will be setting up shop in Vancouver,

without the additional rental housing that will be available. That’s a

recipe for disaster. We are going to have increased house-rental rent

prices.

We see efforts that have been made to help the housing supply problem.

I notice the housing plan that was announced previously. Almost all…. Well,

the first 15 points are all about demand suppression to try to address

housing affordability by depressing demand. A number of other points were on

special housing, providing housing for special, vulnerable groups, but

nowhere can I find anything about housing for regular folks, people in the

market who are buying market housing.

There has been a theory that this government seems to have endorsed

that our house prices, our high house prices, are caused by foreigners. Now,

anybody who reads history…. You know, the Romans used to blame the

Carthaginians for their high house prices. Right throughout history, they’re

always blaming foreigners for what was really a locally instigated

problem.

[2:05 p.m.]

We are fortunate that the federal government decided to get to the

bottom of why we have our high house prices. They authorized the CMHC — gave

them $1.5 million and did a landmark study just a few years ago, three years

ago, on what was behind the high house prices. They had 30 master’s and PhD

economists and access to all of the Statistics Canada data. They concluded

that 75 percent of the rise in house prices could be attributed to

increasing population, increasing income and low mortgage rates. That was 75

percent.

They went to look for the other 25 percent, and they found it,

basically, in the supply elasticity of the housing market. Basically, what

they concluded was that Vancouver has a 0.25 elasticity, meaning that

basically for every rise in prices, where a normal market would create, say,

ten houses, Vancouver supplies 2½ houses. So basically, we’re saying that

Vancouver has a real supply problem, a supply elasticity problem.

Two parts to that. One is geography. We do have a constrained

geography. The other is government policy. So government policy, according

to the C.D. Howe Institute in a report called Through the Roof ….

They concluded that government policies are basically doubling the price of

housing. So our housing is twice as much as it should be, just because of

government policy.

We have seen this caricature of the fentanyl-pushing, casino-gambling,

money launderer that is causing our house prices to rise. Now, the

government did do a report on money laundering, especially through casinos,

and identified $100 million, they believe, in ten years. That’s $10 million

a year. That was the first report.

Now, remember that $10 million would buy one starter mansion per year.

Highly unlikely that such an impact would cause house prices to rise. Even

100 times that much would not even make a dent on house prices.

The government did a follow-up report on money laundering and found

that the No. 1 area of money laundering was Alberta. The second most dense

and critical area of money laundering was Ontario. The third and fourth were

Saskatchewan and Manitoba. This is from the government report. British

Columbia is No. 5 in the country.

It’s interesting that it’s only in British Columbia that people are

claiming that money laundering is affecting prices. We don’t hear that from

Saskatchewan and Manitoba, even though they have more money laundering,

apparently, according to the government report.

The government report also identified that 7.5 percent of money

laundering comes from East Asia. That includes Japan, Korea, China — 7.5

percent. So 90 percent of money laundering came from the United States and

Europe.

The caricature that the Asian, specifically Chinese — foreigner,

so-called — participation in the housing market is causing house prices to

rise is very questionable and very damaging to the community. This kind of

talk….

Statistics Canada recently tried to get more knowledge on what was

going on behind the house price problem, especially the foreign buyer

problem. They studied Ontario, British Columbia and, just to have another

balance, they chose another province and decided it would be Nova Scotia.

It’s interesting to go on to the Statistics Canada website and take a

look.

[2:10 p.m.]

The first thing you’ll note is that British Columbia has…. Of all of

its residential property, 3.7 percent of all British Columbia properties are

owned by foreigners or non-residents. In Nova Scotia, it’s 3.8 percent. I

was shocked. Excuse me? Nova Scotia has more foreign ownership of property

than British Columbia? Indeed, that’s what the numbers say.

Now, there are three areas of British Columbia where non-resident

buyers are higher than normal. One of them is in Richmond, one of them is at

UBC, and the other is downtown Vancouver. Now, even though those are very

high, they balance off the rest to actually make foreign ownership less than

Nova Scotia.

What about UBC? Why is it that we have such high non-resident

ownership there? Well, it turns out that almost 30 percent of the students

at UBC are from other countries. It is common for parents or the students to

purchase a home throughout their tenure. The stats don’t say how many

non-residents sold their property, because it’s also common that once they

finish their university, they sell it. But it does make sense that because

non-residents are basically funding a lot of the university, it would be

normal to expect that they would have a high level of non-resident

ownership.

Richmond, of course, beside the airport, and downtown Vancouver…. We

are, actually, a world city. We are a global city. Now, we notice that, in

Vancouver, they have published the data on the vacant home tax. There are

780 vacant homes that have to pay the vacant home tax. We’re looking at…. I

believe it’s about 300-some-odd homes in Vancouver. Less than 1,000 are

vacant. We used to hear about 25,000 empty homes. The number is 780. We’ve

seen that, in fact, most of those so-called empty homes are empty condos —

500 of them. The majority are empty condos.

Now, we have situations — and I know them, personally — where people

invest, build a company in Vancouver. They don’t live here. They live in

Silicon Valley, and they fly up to Vancouver regularly to look out for their

investment, their company. They are now being penalized because they’re

so-called speculators. They bought a condo near their business. They’re

providing jobs, and they’re called speculators.

One particular person has left. He was building a home, a very nice

home, on the west side of Vancouver. I was approached by an entrepreneur who

was distraught that he was losing his mentor and his investor, who had

decided to leave Vancouver and British Columbia because of the way he was

being treated — called a speculator and keeping an empty home.

All over the world in major cities…. For example, I have a neighbour

in my building. He lives in Abbotsford, but he has a condo in downtown

Vancouver. He has a company that is in air-conditioning — constantly in

Vancouver doing work, supporting the people who live there. He’s called a

speculator, having an empty home. This kind of disgusting treatment of

people who are valuable and important parts of our community….

[2:15 p.m.]

I have a neighbour who is very distraught as well. She has grown up —

born and lived — in Vancouver. She’s on the condo board. She’s a member of

her church. But she lives in Philadelphia with her husband while they’re

waiting until their retirement, when they’re going to come back. She’s being

threatened with this empty homes tax. She’s being called a speculator. She

looks forward to moving back to Vancouver full-time. She’s still a member of

the board, a member of the church and is treated in this way.

A university professor on a three-year term in Australia, speculator.

And a person that I used to meet in the bank…. Down at my bank, somehow we’d

always end up in the lineup together. He’s from San Francisco and loves

Vancouver, loves British Columbia, loves the values. He said: “You guys come

down to Palm Springs. I go to Vancouver.” Now he’s being charged as a

speculator, the empty homes tax. He said: “I thought I left this in the

U.S., this anti-foreigner sentiment. I come here. I thought I got away from

it.”

The reputational damage that this kind of behaviour, this fiscal

behaviour…. It’s incalculable. What it does…. We’ve had many situations in

our condos downtown where the U.S. citizens are leaving. They don’t want to

pay this tax. They have been really important members of our community. I

was with a group of people who all had second homes. Some of them had

purchased. They’re in British Columbia. Some of them live in rural areas.

When you live in an urban area, you have a second home often in a rural

area. But you know what? People in rural areas will have their second homes

in urban areas. They look at this as their summer home. And they are being

charged as speculators.

A lot of damage has been done to many people. A lot of Americans have

left. I think some of the people who put these taxes together assumed they

were going to be targeted at other people, but it turns out that the people

who have been hurt…. Many of them are U.S. citizens who love Vancouver, have

looked at Vancouver and British Columbia as a real haven away from this kind

of anti-foreign attitude, and here we have it right here in our

province.

The budget also took aim at high-income earners. Certainly, it’s taken

aim at people who have expensive houses, very punitive taxes. This looks and

certainly feels to some people like a type of class war. And what it is

doing…. It’s not just getting money out of wealthy people. It’s actually

chasing money away, chasing some of the people who are the investors and who

put their money into our economy.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

S. Sullivan: I have many more things to say, but I hope I got my point

across.

Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to join in debate around Budget

2020. I do want to start by saying thank you, certainly, to the people of

Vancouver-Hastings for allowing me to be here. It’s a great privilege. I was

thinking about this a little bit as I was preparing my thoughts for this

speech. As we come to the completion of this session, I know for myself and

a number of my colleagues who came in 2005, we will be completing about 15

years in this place by the end of this session. It’s been a remarkable

privilege to serve the people of Vancouver-Hastings.

[2:20 p.m.]

As the member previous and other members have said, the reality is

that there are always a lot of people for us to thank as we get to come here

and do the work that we do.

I certainly want to thank the staff who work for me, my staff in my

constituency office, who do a great job. I certainly know that with my

responsibilities as a member of executive council, I don’t get to be in my

constituency as much as I might have been before. I’m very, very fortunate

to have staff there who are focused on making sure the needs of the people

of Vancouver-Hastings are met and that when they come through my doors, they

are received by knowledgable, compassionate staff who are committed to doing

the work to resolve their problems or ensure that they know the

issues.

It’s also very true…. I talk about my time on executive council — a

huge thank-you to my staff in my office here, my ministerial office, who

keep my life very much in order. For those who have been in a cabinet

position, you all, I’m sure, very much appreciate the demands and the pushes

and the pulls on your time that we need to address. It is the people around

you who do such a remarkable job of helping to address that, moving

forward.

Finally, to my family. To Cate, who is just such a wonderful partner

and a support, somebody who has consistently, over the years, just been a

real rock, moving forward. And to my daughter Shayla, who now lives over on

this side of the water from Vancouver but has always been a great support

and helps to keep me focused at times when we get to talk about

things.

I did mention my constituency of Vancouver-Hastings. It’s great

constituency. I’m sure that there are 87 people in this room who would all

talk about how great their constituency is, and that’s a good thing. But I

know in my constituency, which is largely the one that I grew up in…. It’s a

constituency, a community, that I’ve watched evolve over the years and the

decades.

It’s changed, but throughout all of those changes that have come with

an inner-city community in Vancouver, it’s always continued to have a

foundation that I don’t think has wavered a lot. It’s been a foundation of

families, of people who work hard, of people who believe in their community,

of people who are supportive of their communities, of people who are

generous with each other and of people who are concerned about each other.

That’s something that I’ve found has always been an inspiration to me as the

MLA — to make sure that that’s what I reflect in the work that I do for my

constituents.

It’s a constituency that’s diverse in a whole array of areas. About 40

percent of my constituents, their original languages…. They’re Chinese

speaking in their original languages. It’s a community that has a lot of

people who have challenges and struggles, but it also has significant

affluence as well. It’s a mixed bag, yet it continues to be a community, as

I said, of people who are generous with each other, people who have grace

and people who care about their community, care about their neighbours and

care about how they interact with each other.

My ministry. I’m going to talk about that a fair amount in terms of my

comments today. I think, first, I want to just talk a little bit in general

terms about the budget and about where the budget takes us, to my

ministry.

I know that it’s a budget that…. We have continued to have a balanced

budget. We’ve continued to have an economy that has been at the top or right

near the top of the economies across this country. We have an economy that

continues to show good, solid economic growth, even in times of economic

uncertainty.

[2:25 p.m.]

There’s no doubt that we are seeing, globally and nationally,

increasing levels of uncertainty around our economy. Some of it, much of it,

influenced from external circumstances, some of it from Canadian

circumstances.

We continue to have a strong economy. We continue to have an economy

that allows this government to move forward on an agenda of affordability,

of delivering services while continuing to maintain a solid economy. We have

an economy that we have seen continues to show solid growth in wage and

income. That’s really important.

When we look back and I reflect over the time that I’ve been in this

place, part of the challenge, part of what I think created the affordability

challenge that we have seen in British Columbia, the affordability challenge

that our government has been focused on for the last couple of years…. Much

of that, I think, was driven by what was low wage growth. It was family

incomes and incomes of individuals that just were not keeping up.

We’ve been doing a lot of work to try to support that and to ensure

that we’re, in fact, enhancing that income growth. It’s more money into

people’s pockets so that they have the opportunity to go and largely spend

those dollars in their local communities, in communities like mine in

Vancouver-Hastings and other communities across the province as we move

forward.

We’ve seen an economy that, as was pointed out here, continues — and

we will have balanced budgets for the next three years — moving forward. I

heard the member previously. The member from False Creek talked about the

large surpluses that were in some of the budgets of the previous government.

That’s true. There were large surpluses. But you know, government budgeting

is different than corporate budgeting. Corporate budgeting says you want to

get that bottom number to be as big as it can be. With government, you have

to balance.

I believe smart government budgeting is about ensuring you have fiscal

responsibility — that you’re maintaining a good fiscal outlook, including

balancing budgets — and ensuring that you’re investing, though, in people,

in services, in infrastructure and in those things that the people of

British Columbia, in this case, want to see.

That has been the trick that our government has been engaged in for

the last few years. There have been significant increases in investments

that have been aimed at people, aimed at communities, aimed at supporting

people who are vulnerable; significant investments that ease affordability

pressures for people; and significant investments that create employment and

jobs and opportunity, much of that on the capital and infrastructure

side.

I think that the budget has found a good balance there, to be able to

say we have surpluses, we have room, we have capacity there, but we’ve

invested these dollars in the interests of the people of British Columbia

and ensuring that the people of British Columbia are the beneficiaries of

the investments that we’re making moving forward.

I want to take a good portion of my time to talk a little bit about my

ministry, the work of my ministry and the work that we’re doing and how that

work is supported by the initiatives in this budget and by this budget as a

continuing story, the continuing story of the efforts and work of our

government.

You’ll know that one of the significant things that we advanced

through my ministry was the poverty reduction strategy, which was put in

place a year or so ago with TogetherBC. It was a strategy that committed our

government, over the period of five years, to reduce overall poverty by 25

percent and child poverty by 50 percent. It’s a measure that….

We talked, at that time, of it being an all-of-government initiative,

about it being about collaboration, about how no one ministry was going to

make significant progress in achieving those objectives. It would be a

responsibility of all of government and not just this government, not just

the provincial government. But it would require local governments. It would

require the federal government to play a role. It would require community to

play a role. It would require business to play a role. I’m really pleased

that we have seen levels of collaboration and support that moved that

philosophy forward. So it’s very positive.

[2:30 p.m.]

Here we’re seeing initiatives in this budget that add to the work that

has already gone on. We see it in continuing to invest in child care. We

know that child care is a cornerstone of the success of poverty

reduction.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

It’s a cornerstone in terms of how it creates opportunities,

particularly for single moms who are, oftentimes, escaping violent

situations, where they’re looking to rebuild their lives and their family’s

lives and their opportunity for themselves and for their children. Child

care provides a cornerstone for that, whether it’s for people to go back to

school or whether it’s for people to go to employment.

We also know that child care is foundational in terms of supporting

young people and supporting children to have the opportunity to build the

foundations that they need to go on and be successful in their lives. I

think about my daughter, who went through child care before heading off to

kindergarten. There’s no doubt in my mind that much of the skill set that

she’s developed and her interaction and social skills and problem-solving

skills and that…. She started to learn those things in child care, and it

was a very positive thing for her.

We’ve also seen in this budget…. We’re going to realize this year one

of the cornerstone pieces of the poverty reduction strategy. We’re looking

for a 50 percent reduction in child poverty. The child opportunity benefit

that will kick in this year is critical to that. So 300,000 families across

British Columbia are going to be supported by this. Many of those are

families that are in poverty, or they’re families that are right on the

bubble. They’re going to see benefits that will ensure that they will see

$1,600 for their first child, $2,600 for two children and $3,400 for three

children. All that money that will be critical to their being able to make

ends meet.

It’s complementary to what the federal government has done and federal

initiatives. It’s complementary to a number of initiatives that we’ve put

forward. But the child opportunity benefit is a cornerstone of addressing

the issue of child poverty in this province, and I’m very excited that this

year we’re going to see that money going into the pockets of families,

moving forward.

Another thing that we’re very keen about in the strategy…. We built

the strategy on four foundations. Certainly, one of those was opportunity,

an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. Part of that is giving people

the chance to work. I had the opportunity, through the consultations we did

around poverty reduction, the consultations we’ve just completed recently

around access and inclusion and around disability issues…. It’s for people

living with disabilities, saying: “I want a job. I want to go to work. I

want to have the opportunity to have a better standard of living, but I want

to also have the opportunity to make a contribution.”

We’ve enhanced the earning exemptions in this budget. For a person

with disabilities who was able to earn $12,000 a year before they saw any

clawback on their assistance, that’s increased now to $15,000 a year. That

creates incentive for people who are living with disability and people who

are living with income assistance, who also are seeing significant increases

in their earning exemptions, to have the opportunity to do some work, to

earn some money and to enhance their lifestyle. It becomes a good transition

tool, I believe, to move us forward in the directions that we want to go

around creating opportunities for people who want to break that cycle of

poverty and move forward.

Now, to do that requires support, particularly on the employment side,

around creating work. That was part of the reason that we made the

significant transitions and restructure of the WorkBC and the employment

programs in British Columbia. That was about creating greater opportunities

for people who need more support — or need a little bit more help in terms

of being able to get into the workforce and be successful getting into the

workforce — and creating this new model that allows us to case-manage people

for up to a year and to support both an employer and an employee to be

successful.

[2:35 p.m.]

We know if we can do that — if we can keep people in place for up to a

year — the chances of them being successful in maintaining and keeping that

job after they’ve been there for a year becomes much greater. That’s a real

positive. It’s a positive that we should all be excited about, moving

forward.

As part of that, of course, we’ve looked at wages. We’ve looked at the

work that’s been done in the Ministry of Labour to continue to increase the

minimum wage — a minimum wage that will, in the next year, go to $15.20 an

hour, a minimum wage that will lift, again, a significant amount of people

out of poverty.

When we look at poverty in the province, there are about half a

million people living in poverty in British Columbia, and about 40 percent

of those are working poor. They go to work; they get a paycheque. The

paycheque doesn’t pay the bills; it doesn’t cover the costs. This is going

to help make a difference there as we see this transition up to a full

$15.20 an hour, moving forward.

We also know that education is such a big piece of that. I think there

are people who have said that the big equalizer is education. It is the

opportunity to give young people education, to provide training and

retraining and education for people who are transitioning, maybe, from one

opportunity, one employment and field of employment, to another because of

economic changes and economic circumstances.

We’ve seen continued investments in education, ongoing investments.

Those investments went from…. We saw the tuition waivers, which, for kids

aging out of care, provided opportunities for those young people to be able

to go and get a post-secondary degree and to have that degree paid for by

the state. That’s just such a valuable tool in terms of creating opportunity

for young people to move ahead and to succeed.

In this budget, we have taken the step that opens the door, through

education access grants, to provide opportunities for tens of thousands of

students to be able to receive $4,000 of support to help pay for their

education. We have all heard, time and time again for years and years, about

the struggles of student debt, about how student debt hampers young people

and how when you get out of school, it puts you right in the box from day

one if you’re sitting on a huge student debt. You’re going into the

workforce to start your career, and you start it with huge debt.

This is another significant step in improving the circumstance for

young people looking to be able to get their education, to be able to be

successful in their education — an education that takes them to the career

and the opportunity that they want — and to do that without having crippling

debt along the way.

I talked about how, as we’ve done this work, we’ve also looked to

partner with others. That’s really important. What I know about poverty

reduction, about homelessness, which is so interconnected with issues of

poverty, is that big provincial solutions probably aren’t going to work.

Solutions need to be a combination of provincial initiatives with local

strategies, local supports and local infrastructure, whether it’s local

governments, service providers or others in the community who come together

to provide support.

That’s part of the reason that we invested in and created the grants

for the Union of B.C. Municipalities to be able to deliver grants to their

member municipalities, to be able to set up poverty reduction committees

within their communities that can look at how initiatives that are targeted

in their communities might work. We’re seeing progress on that now, and the

province is able to work closely around those issues.

In a very similar vein, we’ve provided dollars to the Social Planning

and Research Council of B.C. to be able to develop homelessness initiatives

that are locally based. We know that local strategies are the cornerstone of

addressing homelessness, particularly if you look not just at the kind of

housing-first approach, which is very important to homelessness, but at the

prevention approach.

We know that the reality of what happens in Cranbrook or in Castlegar

versus in Vancouver is quite different. We know that in smaller communities,

often the service providers and others in those communities will know full

well who the people in those communities are who are struggling and how they

can be supported. We can work with them on those initiatives. In my ministry

now, the homelessness coordination branch works closely to advance those

issues.

[2:40 p.m.]

Also, we passed legislation in the last sitting that changed a whole

array of policies in the ministry — policies that, I would say, were

punitive to people who are on income and disability assistance. Taking that

away — having people live with more respect and more dignity — has been a

big part of the work that we’ve done: to change the culture of this

ministry, to have it be a ministry that talks about respect, talks about

dignity, talks about supporting opportunity and the creation of opportunity

for people.

We continue to do work around reimagining community inclusion for

persons with developmental and intellectual disabilities. The other piece

that we’re working on and that I’m very keen about is that we have the

social services sector roundtable, which has been going for a while

now.

It really is bringing all of those critical non-profit and social

service sector organizations together — who play such a critical role in the

delivery of public services — and working more closely with them about what

the relationship looks like between us on the contractual side and, maybe

even more importantly, what the relationship looks like in how we engage as

we address policy issues and how we move forward and look at what the vision

around the delivery of social services is in British Columbia.

All of these are issues that this budget, in so many different ways,

supports. It puts more pieces in to build that foundation, a foundation that

started in 2017 and that we have been building consistently on since that

time. The Minister of Finance has added many more significant pieces to that

in this budget.

As we look at how we move forward, to give you a sense, it’s about a

$400 million commitment to support these initiatives that are advanced in

this budget — about 400 million new dollars of initiatives to help us to get

through and support those areas, moving forward. Obviously, it’s not just my

ministry that is impacted by this budget. We’ve seen remarkable work in the

area of CleanBC. We know the challenge: to make sure that we are advancing

the economy and advancing this province in a sustainable way.

CleanBC provides to us the vehicle and the tool to be able to do that.

It’s a tool that’s thoughtful. It was developed in collaboration with

stakeholders, in collaboration with the Green Party caucus members and

developed in a way that, I believe, allows us to continue to build and grow

the economy, including in the resource sectors, but to do it in ways that

make sense and begin to achieve our very bold objectives around climate and

around the reduction of emissions, as we move forward.

It becomes very, very important, I think, that we wed all of these

things. As with most areas of government, not much gets isolated. There are

those who would say part of the biggest challenge that you have in

government is breaking down the silos between ministries about how

government works. I think we’re doing a good job. We have more work to do,

but we’re doing a good job when we connect all of these issues — issues

around child care, issues around housing and homelessness, issues around

people who are vulnerable, issues around climate and environment, issues

around community development and rural community development.

All of these become essential pieces in building a society in British

Columbia that is more affordable, building a society in British Columbia

that is people-focused and people-based and that looks at how we support

people, particularly those people who are more vulnerable and particularly

those people who need a little bit more support.

I know the other side has talked a little bit about the tax issue,

particularly the increased taxes on the top 1 percent of earners. Now, I

know that nobody probably likes to pay more taxes, but I also know a number

of people who would fall into that category and who would tell you that they

are prepared to pay a little bit more if that money is going to go and be

invested in addressing the issues that all of us as a society face

together.

[2:45 p.m.]

I believe that those people for whom British Columbia is their home,

those people in that 1 percent who raised their families here, set down

their roots here and have helped to build British Columbia…. The vast

majority of those folks would say: “Yes, I can afford this. And no, it

doesn’t take away from my standard of living if I’m enhancing my investment

into British Columbia to support people who need support or to advance those

issues like CleanBC that make this a more sustainable place.” I believe that

they would say yes to that. I believe that they would find that to be a

beneficial thing, as we see our economy grow and move forward.

The last thing I wanted to talk a little bit about is the issue of

reconciliation. It’s an area where we have invested significantly in our

commitment, in partnership with First Nations, to make British Columbia a

more just place. We have seen it in the passing of the legislation of Bill

41, which adopted the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people. We

have seen it in the sharing of revenue in gaming grants: $3 billion over 25

years going to nations, no strings attached, to allow them to invest in

building their communities; amounts between $250,000 and $2 million, with no

strings attached, to support those communities and allow them to make

choices for themselves that they choose to make.

It’s about the over-half-a-billion-dollar investment in housing. It’s

about the $50 million investment in languages. All of this is important. We

all know there are challenges we’re facing today, challenges that need to be

addressed and that the government is very focused on — as are other

governments across this country — to find resolution to. When all of that’s

said and done, the foundational pieces around reconciliation that we have

put in place will serve all British Columbians well. We need to continue our

commitment to that and continue to build on that commitment to

reconciliation moving forward.

I see my time is coming to a close. I just want to say: I’m very

pleased. I’m very proud of this budget. It’s a budget that advances our

issues in so many areas. There is so much more work to do. I do look forward

to this government, over many, many years to come, being able to do that

work that will take British Columbians to the place that people want, where

life is more affordable, where people who need supports and services are

receiving them and where our economy continues to be strong and continues to

be bold.

With that, I’ll take my place, and I look forward to hearing debate

from the other side.

T. Wat: It is always a privilege to rise in this House to debate another

budget.

First, I would like to thank all my constituents who continue to put

their faith in me to represent the riding of Richmond North Centre and to

bring our local issues to the provincial stage here in Victoria.

I would also like to thank my legislative assistant, Hannah; my

communication officer, Sam; my research officers, Karen and Ryan; and my

constituency assistants, David and Trix. Every member of this House knows

very well that none of the work we do, either here or at home in our

ridings, would be possible without the fabulous support network of staff to

assist us and our constituents.

Of course, I would like to thank my family for continuing to support

my role here. They were even kind enough to join me at the Legislature this

week. Elected officials, like our MLAs, spend a lot of time away from their

homes and families, but it is our loved ones who truly inspire us to serve

our communities and this province the best we can.

[2:50 p.m.]

Since being elected in 2013, I’ve had the privilege of serving on both

sides of this House and have witnessed many budgets introduced in February

every year. Like the throne speech, the budget gives British Columbians a

key foresight into what we can expect in the coming year. But unlike the

throne speech, the budget cannot hide behind rosy lenses and applause.

Eventually, it comes down to the facts and the numbers.

I have several issues with these numbers, both as a representative of

my riding of Richmond North Centre and as a critic for multiculturalism.

What I see in this budget is what I, unfortunately, anticipate for this

coming year. What I see are more taxes, more reckless spending and more

empty promises. Under this administration, taxes have increased by $5.7

billion, and spending has increased by twice that much.

Where is this money going? It is certainly not coming in the form of

relief for homeowners, commuters, small business owners or those in need of

social assistance. With a budget that acts dangerously close to putting our

province in deficit, there’s nothing in it that addresses the wage gap or

pay equity. My colleague from Surrey South has introduced two bills on this

issue, yet the government has taken no action.

This government has shaped an economic landscape that is making it

impossible for British Columbians to get ahead. Gas prices are up, ICBC

rates are skyrocketing, and employment and job losses are up. Housing starts

are down, and retail sales are stagnant. Vancouver is now home to the second

most unaffordable housing market in the world. Housing prices are on the

rise, and housing starts are down by more than 20 percent.

Renters in Richmond have seen a rise in rental rates of almost 10

percent and are paying, on average, an extra $1,800 a year since the NDP

took office and continue to pay some of the highest rates in the world. The

only thing greater than the rising cost of living under this government is

its sense of irony.

The previous speaker, the Minister of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction, said in his remarks just now that this government is investing in

people. To claim that this budget is all about family and people is

laughable. This administration claims to be committed to supporting

families, while it makes life harder for them with each passing year. To say

that they are building further upon the foundation they have created over

the last 2½ years is a strong indication of things to come.

Let’s look at the foundation, a foundation that has seen total

taxation for households rise by over $3,000. A foundation that has seen over

$1 billion in infrastructure projects delayed in 2019. A foundation that has

failed to meet its affordable housing targets by an abysmal margin. A

foundation that has been forced to pile on more and more taxes to

accommodate for its reckless spending. It is not only a foundation of

greater financial burdens for families but of broken promises

too.

The $10-a-day child care is dead. The $400 annual renters rebate is

dead. The promise of a business plan for the new Richmond acute care tower

seems to be gone too, as there is no mention of it in this budget nor the

ministry service plan.

When I return to my riding, I meet with various constituents and

organizations. They’re deeply saddened to hear how they are struggling more

and more each day from these broken promises. My riding is home to one of

the most vibrant multicultural communities in Canada. The foundation of our

community lies in our many small and independent businesses.

[2:55 p.m.]

I have spoken in this House previously about the impact that recent

global events have had on my community — most notably, the coronavirus.

Owners are doing everything to keep themselves from laying off workers, from

personally delivering meals to people’s homes to even closing their doors

for an indefinite period of time.

I’m asking this government the same question. Families from all across

my province have asked me: “What is this government doing to save my

business?” Many in my riding are losing confidence and saying that a

recession is on its way and are now fearing that the coronavirus is further

damaging their business.

Parklane, a restaurant that has been in business for decades, has

given notice that it will suspend its operation on February 17 and lay off

its employees due to a slowdown caused by the coronavirus. Its business went

down 50 percent. Today Parklane has already suspended its

operation.

Business at Marine Bay Restaurant on Alexandra Road have gone down 80

percent. Mr. Liu, owner of the restaurant, told Sing-Tao Daily news

that customers are afraid to eat out because of what they heard or read from

the media.

Many other restaurants and food courts have suffered, as people are

afraid to go into crowds. David Chung, the president of the B.C. Asian

Restaurant Café Owners Association and the owner of Jade Restaurant, told

Sing-Tao Daily news that their restaurant sales also dipped 25

percent. If the situation gets worse, his restaurant will lose money. Chung

mentioned that two restaurants have lost orders of 300 tables in just half a

month. Lunar new year celebrations and dinners were either cancelled or

postponed.

Flying Fresh Air Freight, a cargo logistics company also in my riding,

said seafood exports to Asia, China in particular, are zero now, because no

one is out. He’s very worried that this may go on for months. He believes

that seafood companies and exporters are in an even worse situation, and he

thinks that while industry has also been impacted, these businesses are

hoping our government can help them.

My riding of Richmond North Centre has the highest concentration of

restaurants in the province. It has been named the Golden Village, a

foodie’s dream. It is also our city’s main commercial district. But now we

are seeing both consumer and business confidence slipping. Some even fear

that a recession is approaching. Yet this government has done little to

boost our economy or offer any kind of incentives or relief.

Is there something our government can do to help our constituents and

businesses? Is government prepared to offer these businesses some sort of a

lifeline?

The business owners of Richmond are resilient. With proper government

assistance, our businesses would persevere, but they are instead forced to

bear the financial burdens that this government has forced upon them in the

form of the employer health tax. Small businesses throughout B.C.,

especially those in my riding and across the Lower Mainland, are facing huge

tax spikes for the air space above their heads as their properties are

assessed for the best use related to the undeveloped air space above

them.

Some organizations have seen property tax bills spike as high as 200

to 300 percent. My colleague the MLA for Kamloops–South Thompson tried to

throw business owners a lifeline when he introduced his private members bill

in the fall session — the Assessment (Split Assessment Classification)

Amendment Act, 2019 — to speak to zoning and provide tax relief to

individuals overwhelmed by these massive property tax hikes. But this

government stonewalled us and continues to do nothing to provide

relief.

My colleague reintroduced the bill this morning, as we continue to

hear from a broad coalition of stakeholders desperate for split zoning to

protect them from these overwhelming tax hikes.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’m hoping that this government will support this bill and prioritize

aid to small business owners over party politics.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the Minister of Education would like to introduce some

guests.

What is the pleasure of this House?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed, Minister.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for Richmond North Centre — for interrupting

the flow of her budget response. I appreciate that.

We’re joined here in the Legislature this afternoon by a group of 25

department of continuing studies. I see them in the gallery here, and I’d

ask every member in the House to make them most welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

I’ll ask the member to continue her presentation.

Debate Continued

T. Wat: It is not only business owners that continue to suffer from this

government’s lack of action. This weekend I am meeting with several strata

councils from my riding who tell me that the skyrocketing insurance premiums

are beyond what local strata owners can afford. We are hearing stories of

insurance premiums soaring as high as 500 percent, and deductibles have

increased between $100,000 and $500,000.

Frankly, I’m concerned about what I’m going to tell them, because it

is that side of the House that is responsible for addressing these concerns.

If they continue the trend we have seen over the last three years, things

are going to get far worse before they get even better.

How can a government that is slashing its own ministry budgets and

taxing things like Netflix to stay afloat ever hope to provide

relief?

I was deeply disappointed to see that the profile on multiculturalism

is subject to budget cuts in this day and age when we continue to see a rise

in xenophobia, social division and racial discrimination. I have spoken in

this House before about how the coronavirus has impacted business confidence

in my riding of Richmond North Centre. But the impact goes beyond

economical. There is a social impact as well.

Members on both sides of this House have reason to talk about how we

must avoid racial stereotypes and the spread of false information when it

comes to health scares like the coronavirus. But I continue to hear stories

about stigmatization and racial stereotypes against Chinese Canadians both

must continue to invest in resources that help fight against racial

stereotypes and fearmongering, now more than ever.

Last fall the NDP changed the name of our previous anti-racism program

and made a big show of it. Even the Premier was present at a ceremony that

happened at the Legislature, and he, himself, announced this renamed program

which was introduced by our B.C. Liberal government many years ago. Now

there’s no mention of racism in this budget. How is this not a priority for

this government? Once again, honouring British Columbia’s multicultural

heritage and defending the rights of our citizens has been put on the back

burner.

Although this government may skip out on legitimate action, they never

seem to fail to miss out on a PR opportunity. Last year they made a big show

of preserving our multicultural heritage through the Chinese-Canadian

heritage museum. This project is a cornerstone in claiming Vancouver’s

Chinatown as a world heritage site.

I have pressed this government to get this project off the ground, and

they have taken every opportunity to pat themselves on the back for their

commitment to it. But we have yet to see shovels break ground. This ministry

cannot continue to slow-walk this project. I’m truly hoping that we will see

them follow through so that we can show British Columbians that honouring

our multicultural heritage is still a top priority for the B.C.

government.

[3:05 p.m.]

Over the coming weeks, I will have many questions for this government,

for I am genuinely curious to see how this administration plans to answer a

few questions that this budget has left unanswered. How can they continue to

claim that they are making life more affordable for British Columbians while

the numbers continue to tell an entirely different truth?

Deputy Speaker: I now call on the House Leader of the Third Party.

[Applause.]

S. Furstenau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you to my colleagues for the warm

welcome as I rise to take my place in the debate on Budget 2020.

One of the things I actually enjoy about being part of the Green

caucus is that we neither need to provide a wholesale endorsement of this

budget, nor do we need to provide a sweeping condemnation. Instead, we can

occupy the middle ground, recognizing that budgets are about priorities and

trade-offs and also recognizing that while we are proud to support much of

what is in this budget, there is also much that we would do

differently.

I am fully supportive of many of the programs and policies in this

budget, but as a whole, it takes an incremental approach that is far too

rooted in looking backwards. What we need today is for governments to make

courageous choices, choices that recognize the necessary transformation upon

us and that commit to making the most out of the shift that is coming,

whether we prepare for it or not.

One core goal that all of us in this place should be pursuing is: how

do we build and support resilient communities? Where does this budget

deliver on this goal, and where does it fall short or take us in the wrong

direction?

The first pillar of a resilient community is economic security. In a

time of significant global uncertainty, we should be making choices that

make us less vulnerable to things that we can’t control. We need to become

less reliant on global commodity prices and the boom-and-bust swings that

come with them, instead supporting manufacturing and prioritizing adding

value right here in British Columbia.

We need to be investing in technologies and companies that are part of

the solution to climate change. But in pursuing the expansion of LNG, the

government is taking us in the opposite direction and tethering us to a

high-risk sector that is largely beyond our control. The B.C. Liberals have

also been cheerleaders for exactly this type of old-school

development.

We only need look to our provincial neighbour next door to see what

hitching our economy to fossil fuel commodity prices will do. Predicting

what the price for LNG will be, or any fossil fuel, for that matter, is a

fool’s game. The world is transitioning. The smart money is on leading that

change, not clinging to a 20th-century economy.

What’s at risk if we continue to pursue LNG? We can already see that

the B.C. Business Council is advocating for even more subsidies than what

have already been provided, all in the name of competitiveness. In 2020,

government should not be putting money behind fossil fuel companies to make

them competitive, especially with the growing risk that these become

stranded assets, massive projects with huge public dollars behind them that

fail to deliver a fraction of the promised revenue. Even worse, there is

growing evidence that natural gas is simply not cleaner than coal or any

other type of fossil fuel.

Mark Carney, the current governor of the Bank of England and the next

UN special envoy for climate change, has repeatedly stressed the need for

financial systems and governments to have a concrete plan today that gets us

to net zero by 2050. We need to be putting money behind those who are

solving the problem or are part of the solution and taking money away from

those who aren’t moving fast enough.

BlackRock, pension plans, universities, even entire countries are

divesting from fossil fuels. Sweden recently sold off Canadian bonds because

it felt that our greenhouse gas emissions were too high.

[3:10 p.m.]

We are not the outliers in making the point that continuing down the

path of fossil fuel development is no longer a viable economic strategy.

It’s not only environmentally disastrous to continue to expand fossil fuels

at this moment in our history; it is no longer a financially sound strategy.

Instead, our economic opportunity is in building a clean economy and, in

doing so, deliberately spurring local innovation and ensuring that B.C.

businesses have opportunities to flourish in the transition to a clean

economy, because economic security relies on thriving local

businesses.

I was struck by the comments I read recently by Catherine Holt, the

CEO of the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce. She articulated the

critical role that government plays in supporting thriving local business.

It goes far beyond the oversimplified message that we often hear — that

business owners are concerned, first and foremost, with low taxes. Of course

a competitive taxation environment is important, but the needs of business

are far broader and more nuanced. In many ways, the concerns of individuals

and the concerns of business align.

I hear similar scenes from the many business owners in my riding and

across B.C. that I’ve met with over the years. Businesses need workers who

can afford to live in cities where they work. They want to see better public

transportation and child care to support their working lives. They want fair

taxation and regulations. They want to contribute to climate solutions and

be rewarded for doing so, and they want a government that is efficient and

effective.

Government plays a central role in all of these areas, contributing to

the social fabric that supports people at home and at work and that builds

communities that can become destinations of choice for both businesses and

workers.

Catherine asks: “What if we had housing that didn’t require you to

mortgage your children’s future, or if child care was available at a

reasonable cost rather than relying on your worn-out parents or your

neighbour? What if you didn’t need a car because the bus goes by your stop

every eight minutes, as do the new rapid bus routes in Vancouver and in many

cities in Europe and Asia? What if health care didn’t require taking hours

off…to sit in a germ-ridden clinic to have five minutes with an overworked

GP you’ve never laid eyes on before? Or what if university tuition was only

$250 per year, as in France?” Catherine has articulated a vision that I can

get behind.

Some items in this budget take incremental steps in this direction.

The B.C. access grant, for example, will help make post-secondary studies

more affordable and accessible for lower- and middle-income students. This

is a needs-based upfront grant to students starting post-secondary

studies.

Through this program, government will provide up to $4,000 per year

for students in short programs up to two years and up to $1,000 per year for

students in programs over two years. There is also a federal grant for

students in these longer programs of up to $3,000 per year. Upfront grants

like this not only improve access to education but also encourage completion

by providing students support when they need it.

This budget also continues investments in implementing early childhood

education for families across B.C. However, as a number of advocates have

cautioned, the investment timeline stalls on the needed investments to truly

deliver a high-quality, affordable early childhood education system. We have

made progress on reducing the burden of child care on young families, but we

must maintain an ambitious plan to make this real for all families. Young

families need to be able to rely on a high-quality and affordable early

childhood education system.

It’s also critical to remember that we cannot build a high-quality ECE

system without educators, early childhood educators. They are the ones who

will first instill the joy of learning in our children. They are a vital

part of the education system, just like our teachers, and should be treated

as such. We also cannot forget that this is about early learning as well as

care. It must be high quality as well as affordable and have education as a

central focus.

We will continue to urge the government to move the Ministry of State

for Child Care from the Ministry of Children and Family Development to the

Ministry of Education, because the Ministry of Education is best suited to

fostering an educational continuum.

[3:15 p.m.]

This budget also makes investments in infrastructure on health,

transportation, education, post-secondary education and housing. Having

high-quality infrastructure is an essential part of building healthy

communities, and I welcome these investments. However, there is another

example of where government’s choices should be driven by an overarching

goal to support community resilience. The significant amount of money spent

on the procurement and building of these projects can be leveraged to serve

a larger purpose.

For example, government is investing billions in building new health

facilities. One of these is the St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver. There is

an opportunity here to build an innovation hub around the new St. Paul’s

site that could serve as a major R-and-D precinct for health and life

sciences research and innovation. The payoff from this would exceed any

incremental investment needed from the province at this stage. It would

support the growth of B.C. companies and result in better health outcomes

for British Columbians.

Similarly with transportation investments. Government has committed

$7.4 billion to priority transportation projects, yet we are still

prioritizing expanding highway infrastructure while there are major transit

gaps that exist in communities big and small across this province. We need a

more deliberate focus driving what we are trying to achieve with

infrastructure. All major infrastructure project decisions should be

assessed through the lens of our climate goals and community resilience.

This should determine where we prioritize investment and how the money gets

spent.

One question I will be asking is regarding the reduction of B.C.

Transit funding in this year’s budget. Public transit needs to be an

absolute priority, and I have trouble reconciling the government’s stated

commitments to investing in transit with a drop in funding this

year.

Another aspect of this budget that I have significant concerns and

further questions about is MCFD funding. We are still missing the shift that

is so necessary in the ministry towards emphasizing prevention of

apprehensions of children and, instead, working to keep families

together.

The child safety, family support and children in care services line

item in MCFD estimates has seen an increase in this budget from $682 million

to an estimated $731 million. It is impossible to see from this line item

whether the increase is directed towards supporting families and preventing

apprehensions or whether it’s continuing to go towards children in care.

There needs to be far greater transparency in how the budget in this

ministry is allocated so that we can actually see where the government is

choosing to invest its dollars.

I will be asking more questions about this and holding the government

to account on this issue over the session, because if we’re not investing in

prevention and realigning the priorities of this ministry, we’re continuing

to replicate the same patterns.

The problem is how we have chosen to fund this system and how the act

that governs this area is interpreted and applied. In 2½ years in my

constituency office, we have seen the structural problems in how the

Ministry of Children and Family Development deals with families and

children. There is often little willingness to consider evidence-based and

proven options in finding the least disruptive measures when considering the

removal of a child.

Perhaps most detrimental to the well-being of children are the stories

I’ve heard about how service providers communicate with the child’s parents,

grandparents and extended family members. This is especially acute for

Indigenous families, and I think all of us who are parents and grandparents

in this chamber can recognize that there could be nothing more stressful

than the threat of having our children removed from us.

My staff will work with families to advocate for a mother to see her

babies more than one hour per week, only to be denied. Or we hear that a

mother and a newborn’s visit took place in a service provider’s car outside

a coffee shop. There appears to be a double standard. In court, you are

innocent until proven otherwise. With the Ministry of Children and Families,

you are guilty until proven otherwise. How do you prove a

negative?

Nothing has substantially changed in the MCFD service provision in our

community. Community members remain distrusting and afraid of MCFD, and our

caseload remains the same year over year in our constituency

office.

[3:20 p.m.]

Most of the parents we do see quietly accept these circumstances.

They’re smart and determined. Early on we began to notice a trend with each

set of parents who would come into our office. Most of the families are

Indigenous. Without fail, even faced with the reality that it’s unlikely

that they will be reunited with their children, at some point, the parents

will say: “I don’t want this to happen to another family.”

Often all they need to be able to parent in the way that MCFD expects

is money and support. In most cases, their children were removed because

they’re living in poverty and/or don’t have enough support to manage their

home. That is why funding is such a crucial issue. Unless we change the

funding structure as well as the culture, we will continue to see the same

outcomes.

Children in care perform worse on every health determinant and add a

significant cost to our health and education systems. We can’t let the

status quo remain. As one Cowichan man said: “It’s easier for me to tell you

who in my family hasn’t been in government care than for me to tell you who

has.”

The act itself is not the problem. We need to change how we fund,

interpret, and apply it so that we support families, so that parents trust

MCFD service providers to serve their needs. We need a shift that puts the

health and well-being of individuals and families at the centre of how

government approaches child welfare.

Turning again to another aspect of the budget, one policy shift that

has the potential to improve health outcomes is a change in how sugary

drinks are taxed. In this budget, the government has eliminated the PST

exemption that currently exists for soft drinks that are sweetened with

sugar or natural or artificial sweeteners. At its best, this type of policy

can signal a shift to emphasizing preventative health measures, with the

potential for significant positive health outcomes.

It should not be seen as a revenue-generating tool but a preventative

health measure. We spend the vast majority of our resources in the Ministry

of Health and a substantial portion of the provincial budget in helping

people to recover when they are sick. Of course, an excellent health care

system that supports recovery should be a priority of every government. But

we also need a proactive approach to wellness that helps people lead healthy

lives.

I support this elimination of the PST exemption on sugary drinks, but

for it to be an effective tool that really has an impact on health outcomes,

I’d like to see it embedded in a broader set of measures to encourage

healthy food consumption.

A few years ago Chile introduced a set of health measures to reduce

the consumption of sugary drinks and other unhealthy foods. These policies

included not only a tax on sugary drinks but warning labels and a

restriction on junk food in schools. These policies worked together and have

together resulted in an impressive outcome. The result is a 25 percent drop

in sugary drink consumption in just 18 months.

In addition to measures to disincentivize unhealthy food consumption,

we need a positive, holistic approach that helps people have access to

healthy food choices. We need to build healthy foods into the fabric of our

schools and work with partners to ensure that lower-income families have

access to fresh, healthy foods so that they have real choice.

An interesting aspect of this policy is that it is the first time that

the government has applied a gender-based analysis plus analysis to the

policy. The analysis found that this policy will primarily affect young

males, as males consume more soft drinks than females, and that consumption

is highest among individuals aged 14 to 18.

This brings me to an area of partnership with this government that I’m

excited about — the work that we are undertaking to develop a set of genuine

progress indicators for British Columbia. Putting all of this together, we

need to realize that for most people, GDP growth isn’t felt. We need to be

measuring what actually matters to people. GDP does not provide an adequate

measure of progress or well-being. It doesn’t measure what really matters

for British Columbians. And it doesn’t give us a true picture of the health

of our economy or our society. It’s time that we stopped elevating it as the

primary metric we use to define a healthy economy.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’m excited to create a more holistic set of indicators that capture

the health and well-being of British Columbians, our social connections and

the state of our environment, because you have to measure and report on what

truly matters if you’re serious about making policy meet those

ends.

I would be thrilled to see us follow the footsteps of New Zealand,

which introduced their first well-being budget and runs all policies and

programs through the lens of how they will affect the well-being of current

and future generations of New Zealanders. I will keep working with the

government to move this forward, and I hope and expect that this is the last

B.C. budget that relies on GDP growth as the main metric of success of our

economy.

In B.C., we have a unique opportunity to build an equitable and

sustainable future and to create widespread prosperity and a high quality of

life as we do so. The B.C. Green caucus is looking for a coherent economic

strategy to create prosperity and position us for success in an era of

unprecedented change. Government has to make smarter, more courageous

choices that will allow us to meet our targets and embrace new opportunities

for economic prosperity rather than spending significant time and resources

to protect the status quo. We see the green economy as a central component

of a thriving 21st century economy, one that harnesses all the tools of

government towards the end of building resilient, sustainable communities

everywhere in our province.

I also want to comment on the two roles my colleague and I play in

this Legislature. We are both partners in CASA with the NDP and we are an

opposition party. So while I am supportive of many aspects of this budget, I

have also been clear about where I disagree on the direction the government

is taking or feel that there are significant missed

opportunities.

Some try to suggest that any disagreement between us and the NDP is a

sign that something has gone wrong or that we must support every item in

this budget in order to support the budget as a whole. I disagree. We have

agreed to partner with the NDP in this minority government, and while we

have shared areas of priority, we are also different parties and have

different visions for this province. This is a healthy tension.

I think minority governments result in better outcomes, where policy

is stronger and the governing party is kept more honest. They help to guard

us against some of the excessive tendencies that can come from one party

having 100 percent of the power.

I will be supporting this budget, and I will be continuing to hold the

government accountable for the choices it makes. I will be working to ensure

that we are addressing the most pressing issues facing our

province.

J. Routledge: I really appreciate this opportunity to stand in support of Budget

2020. At its heart, this is a budget that is about the people of British

Columbia. Given the extensive public consultation that has gone into this

and our previous budgets, one can also say that, in large part, this is a

budget by the people of British Columbia.

Speaking of people, I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge some of

the important people in my life: my husband, my son and daughter-in-law, and

my two grandchildren. They support what I do with so much love and

enthusiasm. They are engaged in the important work that happens in this

chamber.

Against all odds, my grandson and my husband were here in the gallery

to listen to the throne speech. I know that at least one of them is watching

the proceedings today. They have opinions about the issues of the day and,

may I even say, especially the kids are engaged citizens.

[3:30 p.m.]

Now, some of you in this chamber know that my family has recently

embarked on a new adventure. We are now all living together but separately,

under one roof. Our home, where my husband and I have lived for more than 20

years, became, as a result of some pretty major renovations,

multi-generational.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Speaking of people, I also want to acknowledge the people of Burnaby

North. I want to thank them for sharing their stories, their ideas, their

dreams and their fears. It is the experiences of people like them that have

shaped this budget. I’m confident that the vast majority of people I

represent will find themselves reflected in the vision that Budget 2020

represents.

This is a budget that affirms that, like household budgets, its job is

to create the best life possible for everyone who lives here under our

shared roof. Like a good household budget, it has something for the whole

B.C. family. Like a good household budget, it sets money aside for immediate

consumption for food, clothing and shelter, but it also plans for the future

— education for the kids, healthy retirement for the adults and insurance

against disaster.

I think we can all agree that a household that spends its money on

designer clothes for the parents while the kids are sent off to school in

rags, without warm coats in winter or dry shoes in the rain, is an unfair

and irresponsible household. A household that showers treats on one child

while the rest go without, I think we could all agree, would lead to

serious, costly family disunity down the road. Budget 2020 acknowledges

that. It acknowledges that we all make our living here in B.C.

together.

British Columbia is not simply a playground for the rich. British

Columbia is not simply a safety deposit box for those who have no stake in

our future. British Columbia is not simply an on-ramp for the global

highway. British Columbia is our home.

Now, over the last couple of days, I’ve listened to comments from

across the aisle that would argue that Budget 2020 just isn’t flashy enough:

too many fruits and vegetables, not enough spa days. This is a budget that

tends to the needs of the whole family today and in the future. It’s a

budget that acknowledges that our B.C. family has gone through some tough

times and needs to rebuild and re-bond.

Budget 2020 invests directly in the people who invest directly in our

communities, who spend their earnings in local businesses so that others can

also make a living. Here are just a few examples of the ways that our vision

and our budgets have made life better for the people in my community of

Burnaby.

Let me start with child care. Since 2018, we’ve invested over $25

million in Burnaby so that families have access to affordable, quality child

care when they need it. As of May 2019, we’d put $6.9 million back into the

pockets of Burnaby families through the affordable child care benefit

program and child care subsidy program. Since forming government, we’ve

funded the creation of 363 new licensed child care spaces and created 136

universal child care prototype spaces in Burnaby alone.

Let me turn to mental health and addiction. Burnaby is receiving

funding to implement community action teams so that more lives are

saved.

[3:35 p.m.]

Technology. The province is supporting Burnaby-based D-Wave Systems

with a $2 million investment to develop a next-generation quantum computer.

It will be far more powerful than its current model, on a wider variety of

applications, without increasing power demands. The technology will also

improve the way computers solve problems for people in areas such as

precision medicine, discovery of new materials, traffic management and

climate change.

In the area of education, we are building a brand-new 1,800-seat

Burnaby North secondary school, expected to be ready for students next year.

Child care, adult education and language development programs will be

operated out of a new 2,000-square-metre neighbourhood learning centre.

We’ve invested $150,000 to support the Take a Hike Foundation, which has one

of its five classes in Burnaby. We’ve hired 22 more full-time teachers in

Burnaby.

Now let me turn to housing, which is a critical issue and has been for

the last while — a critical issue in Burnaby. So 90 new affordable rental

homes are part of the ongoing redevelopment of Cedar Place, and 331 new and

affordable homes in Burnaby for low-income seniors and people with

disabilities.

We’ve funded two shelters, for a total of 54 beds; $14.2 million has

been invested for 142 affordable rental units for seniors; $6.1 million has

been invested for 142 other affordable units; $6.1 million is invested for

61 affordable rental units for individuals, families and people with

developmental disabilities; $2.5 million has been invested for 25 affordable

rental units for other families and seniors; $13.8 million for 138

affordable rental units as well. Twenty units of affordable rental housing

for women and children leaving violence, and $7.6 million invested for 53

modular housing units for people experiencing homelessness.

Last year we announced that Burnaby Hospital will finally be

redeveloped to the tune of $1.3 billion. There will be two new towers, 400

new beds and a cancer treatment centre.

Now, these are just some of the examples of the things that we’re

doing to make life better for the people who live in my community of

Burnaby, and it is just a beginning. Budget 2020 continues the hard work to

rebuild the Burnaby and B.C. family.

Earlier I alluded to a history of bad decisions that have torn our

B.C. family apart. Let me be more specific about what those things are that

our budget and our previous budgets have been working on to try to

correct.

Our predecessors, the B.C. Liberal government, cut funding to

important services British Columbians relied on. In the area of workers

compensation, they ended lifetime benefits for permanently injured workers.

They reduced benefit payments by 13 percent. They made budget cuts that led

to a 30 percent reduction in worksite visits by prevention officers. They

eliminated vocational rehabilitation assistance by a 98 percent reduction.

They reduced the employer premium rates at the expense of

workers.

Collective agreements have been stripped, which has resulted in

thousands of jobs lost in health care and the privatization of many health

care services. Stripping of collective agreements reduced support for

students, and, in fact, were found to be in violation of the Charter rights

of these workers.

In the area of the Employment Standards Act, massive cuts led to

reduced staffing at the branch by a third. It closed face-to-face services

by reducing offices from 17 to nine. It lowered the age of child employment

to 12.

[3:40 p.m.]

Other areas under labour relations. The previous government ended card

check certification, increased delays in holding and processing

certification votes. Budget cuts at the board left it understaffed and

under-resourced, and unionization in the province dropped.

Now, some across the aisle may applaud this. But I would point out

that though unionization rates declined across Canada in the ’80s and ’90s,

B.C. is the only province where unionization rates continued into the 2000s.

Everywhere else in the country, unionization rates decreased, except in

British Columbia.

Other things that happened on their watch. They clawed back benefits

to some of our most vulnerable neighbours. They mismanaged B.C. Hydro to the

tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. At one point, they used

non-standard accounting practices to make a deficit seem $520 million

smaller than it actually was. They lost $43 million of taxpayer’s money on a

fast land sale they were advised not to do. They hid a growing financial

crisis at ICBC. The term “dumpster fire” comes to mind. These are just some

of the more egregious examples.

What was the result of these bad choices? Well, between 2000 and 2015,

the number of seniors living in poverty more than doubled. While the B.C.

Liberals were in power, child poverty became the worst in Canada. Student

debt grew by 88 percent. Rent increased by 50 percent, and minimum wage went

from the highest in the country to one of the lowest.

The benchmark price of detached homes went from $370,000 when the B.C.

Liberals took office to $1.8 million when they were defeated.

How did people cope with these changes that they were undergoing?

Well, what they did is they ended up borrowing. People, the average British

Columbian, went into debt. By 2016, British Columbians had the highest

personal debt, excluding mortgage, of anywhere in the country.

Now, the debate in the last couple days has involved quite a few

distractions. The opposition does not want the people of British Columbia to

be reminded that they squandered the B.C. family’s fortune, but they are

back, knocking on the door to get back in to try and woo voters with flowers

and chocolates. They’ll say anything to get back where they want to be so

that they can go back to holding their lavish parties for their rich

friends, eating caviar while the kids are eating instant noodles.

If they get back in charge of the family again, they’ll be cutting the

kids’ allowances and sending them off to get jobs and then asked to be

thanked for not expecting a bigger share of their paycheques.

In 2017, the B.C. family kicked out the B.C. Liberals and changed the

locks. Maybe it’s time for a restraining order.

N. Letnick: First, it’s indeed a privilege to get up for my 11th budget speech.

I’m honoured to be the member representing and the voice of the constituents

of the Kelowna–​Lake Country riding. A great number of citizens,

two-thirds of the riding, come from Kelowna, and one-third from Lake

Country.

It is an amazing place. I would welcome everyone to come and visit,

spend their money in the riding any time they want. I’d even welcome them at

the airport if they let me know ahead of time they’re coming. That would be

great. We know hospitality in Kelowna–Lake Country, and we’d welcome

everyone to come, on both sides of the House, to visit and spend their

money. Making announcements would be great too.

We haven’t had many announcements in the last three years since the

government took over, but hopefully, that will change a year from now so we

can start making announcements again.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’d first like to thank, besides my constituents, my family for the

privilege of being here and for their support. My wife, Helene. My three

children, Melanie, J.P. and Naomi. In the order that I met them, the

significant others, Joanna, Eric and Calum. And, of course, the two added

recent loves of my life, Luna and Sol, my two grandchildren.

Also, the team. We have an extraordinary team of people that support

MLAs, and I’m no exception. I have constituency assistants back home, Katja

Maurmann and Heather Head — two wonderful CAs who are doing an awesome job

to make sure that our constituents are taken care of. I’m waving to them in

case they’re watching. They might be the only two that are watching. So

thank you very much to both of them. Here in the Legislature, we have Jonah

Gowans, my legislative assistant. Dion Weisner and Sam Arno Burgess, my

research and my communications assistant, as well.

The Leader of the Official Opposition, of course, who has given me the

privilege of being the critic for health care in the province of B.C. It

occupies approximately 40 percent of the provincial budget, and it keeps me

occupied and hopping all the time. Of course, our two Finance critics, the

MLA for Prince George–Valemount and the MLA for Surrey South, on doing the

great work that they’ve done to help us craft our response to this

budget.

Now, I have all kinds of information. I’m sure I’m going to run out of

time, but I’ll be looking for that green light to give me my two-minute

warning. I’ll just start with the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce. Their

particular perspective on the budget was that…. The president of the Kelowna

chamber said on Tuesday: “We were hoping to see relief on the taxes that are

holding small businesses back, like adjusting the threshold with the

employers health tax or a prudent approach for big business that will help

them compete globally. Our biggest producers and commodity exporters are

paying one of the highest carbon taxes in the world. This isn’t an

environment that encourages investment.”

The Kelowna chamber also sees the budget as a missed opportunity to

outline a broad vision on how the government plans to ensure we remain a

competitive jurisdiction globally that welcomes entrepreneurs who see the

value of investing in British Columbia. So not a glowing review by the

Kelowna Chamber of Commerce.

I also have lots from the Business Council of B.C., but I’ll save that

in case I speak faster than I think I am going to.

In the Budget 2020 strategic plan document, on page 13, it talks about

the three-year fiscal plan and gives the general overview. If I have a

moment, I’d like to just highlight a few things on here.

One of the overview issues is the capital spending. Capital spending.

We’re looking at taxpayer-supported capital spending going from $5.2 billion

to $8.4 billion — quite a considerable jump. That is, of course, including

all the amounts of moneys that the government is spending on their union

benefit agreements — $172 million so far on just two roads in excess of what

should have been paid because of these union benefit agreements — $172

million. I can just imagine how many schools we could have funded with that

— in particular, one in my riding. A brand-new Rutland Middle School would

have been more than paid for by less than half of that amount of

money.

What does that mean with the numbers? Well, taxpayer-supported debt to

revenue, from what I understand, the agencies that look at these numbers

look at around 92 percent or 93 percent before they start getting worried

about maybe reducing the triple-A credit rating. We’re going to go from 78

percent in taxpayer-supported debt to revenue to 94.4 percent over the

course of the three years of the plan. So, yes, it’s always great to be

investing money in capital, but we have to be prudent, because if we lose

our triple-A credit rating, then, of course, we’ll pay more on the interest,

and we’ll have less money to invest in British Columbians.

Another thing that was a little concerning for many of my colleagues

and myself was that the budget in 2019 was overspent by half a billion

dollars. That’s $500 million more than the government had planned to spend.

Of course, that is not prudent financial management.

[3:50 p.m.]

On the positive side — and I will start with a positive note on the

budget — the grant program that is being brought forward to change the way

students taking diplomas and certificate courses in trades, education and

health care programs, which were previously ineligible, I agree with. I

think most of the members would agree as well. The students made a good case

when they came and visited us not too long ago that we should be looking at

taking away some of the old program and replacing it with a needs-based

grant at the beginning of their education. I congratulate the government on

listening to the students and listening to the bipartisan Finance Committee

on that particular initiative.

I think having the UBC Okanagan campus in my riding helps me to

communicate on a frequent basis with the students, and I’ve heard this ask,

so I would like to congratulate the government on that. So I do have one

positive note on that.

I wish the government would also consider helping to find people to

work in our seniors care environment. Some of the applications of the

changes to the upfront grants program could be actually used to help find

ways to get more health care assistants in British Columbia.

Here are three things for government to consider. One is to improve

access to training and education by providing full or partial bursaries for

health care assistants enrolled in private and public and post-secondary

institutions across British Columbia. Providing bursaries will help address

the financial and economic barriers that prevent qualified candidates from

enrolling in the training.

Second, expand the eligibility for B.C.’s loan forgiveness program to

health care assistants working in and relocating to underserved communities

to address acute labour shortages in rural and remote communities in B.C.

Expanding this program will ensure that continuing care providers have an

adequate supply of well-trained health care workers and will ensure that

seniors are able to age in place in their own community.

Third of many recommendations, which I’m sure our seniors critic will

follow up on during estimates, is to establish and expand dual-credit

programs in school districts across B.C. in order to improve access to

training for qualified high school students interested in studying to become

HCAs. Expanding dual-credit programs will provide students with relevant,

purposeful learning and a smooth transition into industry after graduation.

I’m pleased to say that I actually communicated that one a few weeks ago,

probably months ago, to my local school district, and I think they are

considering exactly that. So a hats-off to local school district 23 for

that.

What does this budget really mean? Well, it means higher costs for

British Columbians on the whole. The NDP promised the $10-a-day daycare for

all parents, and that pledge has disappeared. In particular, our critic for

daycare, the member for Chilliwack-Kent, has put together a very

well-written note on this. He says:

“The NDP have abandoned their plan to implement universal, $10-a-day

child care for all parents who need or want it. The throne speech backed

away from universal child care, saying that subsidies for child care will be

based on need rather than need or want, as the NDP promised in their 2017

platform. The $10-a-day child care is still a temporary pilot program with

2,500 child care spaces, and that’s just 2 percent of the 119,000 total

spaces committed to.

“The $10-a-day plan is a ten-year plan. This year’s funding, $675

million, will flatline at one-third of the project’s cost, nearly $2 billion

of a full $10-a-day program. Three years from now, the NDP will be five

years into their ten-year plan at one-third funding.”

He also says:

“While more families, 28,000 families, happen to pay less than $10 a day

under government subsidies, that was also true under our government, with

22,000. These are not part of the $10-a-day plan. The NDP plan to have

funded 10,400 new spaces, but only 2,000 or less are actually

working.”

He ends by saying:

“The greatest problem in child care is the shortage of early childhood

educators. But there is nothing new for them in this budget. The government

will continue to spend $26 million annually in wage supports, representing

just 4 percent of child care spending annually.”

So not a glowing review by our critic for child

care.

We also see that help for renters facing increases has been

compromised. The promised $400-a-year rebate does not exist. It’s gone.

These are two things that helped propel the NDP to a second-place finish in

the election and put them in a position to take over government with the

support of the Third Party, and of course, those two things have been

dropped.

[3:55 p.m.]

Housing prices are on the rise, and housing starts have dropped 22

percent. It will take another 98 years for the NDP to deliver on a promise

of 114,000 homes. The cost to heat your home with natural gas is going up,

thanks to the increase in the carbon tax. ICBC rates will continue to

skyrocket this year, and any relief is not in sight until after the next

election.

In particular, on ICBC, I received a note from a constituent who said

to me that she had two Finance critics question the budget’s forecast for

the Insurance Corp. of B.C, which forecast a $91 million deficit for the

year ending in March, then surpluses in the next three years. This allows

record deficits totalling $2.5 billion in the previous two years. She said

that she would like to thank the two critics for bringing up that concern.

She spent a great deal of time researching the proposed changes, and her

concern is that what’s being presented to the public is misleading and

limits the rights of injured workers in terms of fair

compensation.

She goes on to say: “I currently work with a number of workers who

have been injured in a motor vehicle accident. These workers range in age,

earning levels, occupational history and education level.” In order to be

fully transparent, she does receive from ICBC directly, as well as personal

injury lawyers. Regardless of referral source, her goal is to help return

these workers back to employment. In almost all cases, these workers have

residual limitations — physical, cognitive and/or mental health — which are

barriers that they now have to navigate as part of this return to

work.

In repeated cases, she’s worked with clients whose wage loss benefits

have been delayed repeatedly, impacting their ability to pay rent,

utilities, purchase groceries and pay bills. Compounding this is the fact

that as wage loss benefits are never comparable to actual income levels,

many of these people are having to use community resources, such as the food

bank, in order to feed themselves and their families.

Additionally, treatment services are, in many cases, also delayed,

meaning that although services such as physio, massage and counselling may

have been recommended, getting authorization for more sessions leaves gaps

in treatment provision and impacts on pain management and recovery

strategies.

She recognizes that what’s being proposed as a care model, and they’ve

presented that as a service, will allow for greater numbers of therapy

appointments. However, she says that’s only one factor. They note that

overall limits to weekly wage loss will be much higher than the current.

However, this is not reflective of what workers will actually

receive.

In other words, if the maximum weekly wage loss allowed is to be

$1,200 per week, what is not being stated by the government is that the

actual wage loss amount that you will receive is based on the calculation of

actual earnings. Someone earning about $64,000 per year in wages may get the

maximum of $1,200 per year, but someone earning $45,000 per year is going to

get much less, and this maximum is only a portion of their actual

earnings.

For those that are catastrophically injured…. It is her understanding

that for students who may be in the early stages of education and training

towards a career, they will not be able to access earning potential for

their careers.

Under the current system, there is a way for this to be evaluated and

looked at — what is likely in terms of the career trajectory — and access

accordingly. But what is proposed is a flat-rate number per year based on

what grade they’re in.

The person I was speaking to about this was unable to explain to me

what that looks like in actuality, and she is very concerned. She has a

number of other concerns as well. She ends up by saying: “I do not believe

that this proposed change to no-fault insurance will help injured workers.”

She is seriously concerned about the issue and that the attempts of ICBC to

save costs is going to be at the expense of the injured worker. She’s asked

me to forward her concerns to the members of the House, and I have done

that.

We also see in this budget no help for small businesses that are being

attacked by high taxes, and of course, we’ve heard lately that strata owners

are not getting enough help when it comes to insurance rates or access. One

letter I got yesterday says:

“Dear sir:

“We live in a condo complex in Kelowna on Enterprise Way. Last year our

property insurance was $103,000, a jump from $64,000 the year before. This

year it increased to $324,000, and we had made no claims.

“This is just gouging by the insurance companies. I find it amusing the

reason given for the increase in premiums by the Minister of Finance was the

cost of construction material.

“I would love to see the documentation to back up her statement. A 300

percent increase in one year — hardly likely.”

[4:00 p.m.]

That’s just one comment from one constituent on facing the difficulty

that most strata owners, I’m sure, will be facing if they haven’t already

faced it. Again, nothing in the budget by this government.

We’ve seen that by 2022, total taxation in B.C. will have increased by

almost $4,700 per household under this current government. The NDP are now

at 23 or 24 new or increased taxes. At the same time, expenses have

increased $11.4 billion, and $14.95 billion in the next year, with not much

planned for economic growth other than through taxation. The Finance

Minister confirmed she overspent this year by nearly $500 million and failed

to follow through on capital projects worth over $1 billion.

We’ve also seen confidence dropping, and when confidence drops,

investment drops. According to the budget documents, British Columbia will

continue its streak of losing full-time private sector jobs, which is 32,800

over the last eight months. All the economic indicators — employment,

manufacturing, exports, retail sales, housing starts — are pointing in the

wrong direction. Revenue from the resource sector is declining, and forestry

is dropping by over 40 percent since 2018. We’ve seen a loss of 21,800 total

jobs in 2019 as well. So these are very troublesome times in our

province.

The government continues to tax and spend. Surprise, surprise. We now

have a new Netflix tax, a tax on streaming services which will apply PST to

services like Netflix and Spotify. This could cost consumers as much as $44

each per year. People earning above $220,000 will now be taxed 20.5 percent.

The previous rate was 16.8 percent.

This was printed in the Okanagan Edge this morning, I

believe.

“A Kelowna tax expert believes the provincial government could be

driving business out of B.C. with the budget it released on

Tuesday.

“Quinton Pullen, a tax partner at BDO, gave a presentation for the

Kelowna Chamber of Commerce breakfast on Wednesday and said the top-bracket

increase could drive employers out of the province. Combined with federal

tax, those earning more than $220,000 will now surpass the 50 percent tax

rate.

“‘The question that we see when this comes up is: where is the line? At

what point do employers and business owners look at this and say, “It’s not

worth putting in extra effort? If I don’t get to keep even half of every

dollar I make, at what point do I say maybe I don’t want to hire this other

employee to help expand the business for me because it’s just too much

effort for me and I’m not getting anything out of it?”’

“Pullen added the increase also looks like a disguised estate

tax….”

Let me say that again. It took me a couple of times to get

that.

“Pullen added the increase also looks like a disguised estate tax, as

business owners who pass away will be hit with an even larger tax bill.

They’re not in the highest tax bracket when they’re alive, but they enter it

upon passing.”

I know the speaker following me, who was a Harvard professor, has way

more knowledge on these kinds of things than I do and might actually have a

few comments to say about that.

“‘You’re treated as if you sold the shares of that business,’ Pullen

said. ‘So not only do you have to pay a big tax bill; you have no cash to

pay the tax.’”

A double whammy.

This is just the start of comments I’m sure we’ll all be receiving

over time as people dissect the budget point by point, bullet by

bullet.

We also have those key promises that have been broken since the last

election. As I said before, no $400 rebate. No new money for the $10-a-day

daycare. No moneys added to reduce congestion, to get drivers out of

traffic. Of course, no money for replacing the George Massey Tunnel. No

money for commuter rail in the Fraser Valley. No money for the Surrey

SkyTrain or SkyTrain to UBC.

No money to eliminate Surrey portables. No money for Surrey Hospital.

We’ll talk about that more in a minute. No money for the opioid crisis. No

action to promote new market housing and make housing affordable. The NDP

have only opened 2,430 housing units as of the latest report, meaning it

will take almost 100 years to meet their promise of units built.

It’s really getting harder for B.C. companies to sell their products.

As we’ve noticed, our exports have fallen by 6.4 percent.

[4:05 p.m.]

So what’s the picture like back home? Well, in yesterday’s social

media, I found this, which was produced by the local regional district

economic board. They show housing starts in the Central Okanagan have gone

down: single detached homes down from 618 to 494 between 2018 and 2019 and

multifamily down from 1,937 to 1,731. So that’s a drop of almost 13 percent

in housing starts in the local market in the Central Okanagan. At the same

time, we’ve seen the median new-home price go up 5.6 percent in the same

market.

Supply and demand has obviously reared its head in our market. We have

lower supply, and we have constant, if not more, demand, which has raised

prices. A big part of that is the speculation tax. The speculation tax,

which applies to Kelowna and West Kelowna — not to Lake Country — has seen a

major impact on the amount of new housing starts in our local area. Indeed,

$185 million provincewide has been taken in by the speculation

tax.

The commitment to the mayors — in particular, our mayor, Colin Basran

— was that the funds would be rechannelled back into new housing

developments in the local communities from which the tax has been taken.

Well, I would prefer that the speculation tax just disappear in Kelowna, as

is the wish of our Kelowna city council and the west council as well. But at

least they should honour their commitment to return the money back to the

municipalities. There’s nothing in this budget that honours that commitment.

Again, a promise made and a promise not kept, unfortunately.

Local projects. In past budgets, we’ve had the opportunity to see

investments in the Kelowna area. I’m really proud to stand here and talk

about some of those that we’ve invested in — Okanagan College, UBC Okanagan.

We even put in $10 million for tourism. We had $9.4 million for the tree

fruit replant program and $7 million for the innovation and high-tech centre

in B.C., to help build that. We built a new highway from Winfield to Oyama;

four-laned Highway 97 going through my riding, including improving

intersections that were congested; three-laning Highway 33; a passing lane

up at Walker Hill; thousands of more handyDART, conventional bus

hours.

We helped to purchase the rail corridor from CN. We put $8.4 million

into that. I’m pretty sure if we wouldn’t have done that, we wouldn’t today

be holding on to that beautiful corridor between Kelowna and

Vernon.

Of course, almost $1 billion in health care in the Central Okanagan,

particularly Kelowna General Hospital — lab building, Centennial tower,

cardiac surgical centre, obstetrics, a new medical school.

We’ve put money in to create the Foundry, a new hub for youth and

young adults with mental health and substance abuse challenges.

We have a new integrated team approach to seniors health, which the

current government is continuing on. Congratulations to that.

Funds for the new all-season soccer dome in