2013 Legislative Session: First Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, July 8, 2013

Morning Sitting

Volume 2, Number 1

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, JULY 8, 2013

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: Almost five decades ago an amazing amateur football team went undefeated for three years. The East Georgia Giants were infamous and were particularly proud of defeating their archrivals, the Westside Engineers. Four all-stars from that team are in the precincts today: quarterback Peter Barriscale, inside receiver Wayne Proctor, two-way lineman Doug Cashin and special teams captain Dave Jamieson.

I would ask this House to join me in congratulating them and welcoming them to Victoria.

[1005]

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

SAVING FOR OUR CHILDREN'S AND
GRANDCHILDREN'S FUTURE:
THE ADVANTAGE OF THE B.C. TRAINING
AND EDUCATION SAVINGS GRANT

L. Larson: I rise today to speak to an important initiative aimed at helping families to start planning and saving early for their children's education after high school: the B.C. training and education savings grant.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

All B.C. children with a registered education savings plan, or RESP, born on or after January 1, 2007, who are residents of B.C. are entitled to receive the grant. To access it, a family must open an RESP before the child turns seven years old. No matching or additional contributions are required.

All B.C. children with a registered education savings plan, or RESP, born on or after January 1, 2007, who are residents of B.C. are entitled to receive the grant. To access it, a family must open an RESP before the child turns seven years old. No matching or additional contributions are required.

The power of savings is evident. If a family opens an RESP for their child at age six, that $1,200 will swell to $1,825 by the time he or she is 18 years old.

In addition to the grant from the province of British Columbia, families that contribute to the RESP can access similar savings grants from the government of Canada. So if the family is able to make a contribution of $50 a month, that 18-year-old will have about $12,500 saved up for his or her post-secondary education.

It is clear that the sooner you create an RESP, the sooner your savings can start to grow and earn interest for your child. Students can use the money in a variety of ways. In keeping with the federal RESP requirements, the grant can be used at any qualifying post-secondary education or training program across Canada or outside of Canada.

In Canada the grant can be used towards full-time and part-time education, including apprenticeships, trade schools, colleges, universities and other certified institutions. RESPs can be used for vocational training, including such things as hair design, providing the institutions are certified by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. Outside Canada the grant may be used for full-time education, such as a program at a foreign educational institution lasting at least 13 weeks.

We felt that this grant was an important measure to help families plan early for their children's future. This grant will help pay for the education and training of these young people and help them become productive members of our working world. But to me, it's much more than that. This grant is also a way of saying that we recognize the value of young working families in this province.

We know that the moms and dads out there are working hard to secure the best possible future for their children. They are working long hours in their jobs and long hours caring for their children and others. They're shuffling their kids to hockey or soccer practice at the crack of dawn, getting them to school in the morning, helping them with their homework in the evening and keeping up with chores and activities on the weekends.

They are doing all they can to give their children every opportunity in life. They get up early to go to those hockey or soccer games because they know that their children are developing skills in areas like teamwork and discipline. They work through math problems with their children to help them succeed not only in tests and exams but in real-world thinking and problem-solving. They know how fast time flies, and they want to arm their children with as many skills and opportunities as possible before setting them free to find their own way.

This grant recognizes that hard work and aims to get young learners on the path to success. With that in mind, it's unbelievable that some members of the House actually oppose this B.C. training and education savings grant. During the provincial election campaign the NDP announced that they would scrap the program if elected and claw back the funds already invested in these students' futures. The platform of the NDP threatened this fund for the future of the children of B.C.

Thankfully, British Columbians supported this initiative. They wanted their children and grandchildren to be able to access this education opportunity. Now, with the strong mandate from the people of British Columbia, our government is moving ahead with the $1,200 B.C. training and education savings grant.

We hope that the NDP agrees with us that helping
[ Page 190 ]
families save for future education needs is important. We hope they stand with us to give the kids the opportunity to dream big when it comes to their future.

[1010]

As adults, we like to ask kids what they want to be when they grow up. We smile at their replies — doctor, lawyer, superhero, princess — but we have a real opportunity here to help turn those aspirations into reality. I hope that we take it.

R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for Boundary-Similkameen for putting this statement before the House this morning to have a little discussion about government's program announcement. If it feels familiar and feels like déjà vu all over again, that's because this program was first announced in the 2007 budget, and here we are talking about it now as a solid commitment that British Columbians can take to the bank in the 2013-2014 fiscal year.

I won't hold my breath as to how this program will come, and if it actually comes, to fruition, because this government still has a lot of work to do with Ottawa to actually make sure that the province has the authority and jurisdiction to have a universally administered registered education savings program here in British Columbia. They don't have that approval yet. When will that get through the House of Commons? The government simply doesn't know. But here they are announcing it again anyway — for the fifth or sixth time.

Now, the last time Canada had a plan to help Canadian families afford public post-secondary education in our country was the creation of the millennium scholarship fund. That was a very interesting experiment from a federal Liberal government in the last decade — which the Premier was very involved in working for, I believe.

When the Canadian millennium scholarship fund was set up with an endowment of money to see how they could best support Canadian kids getting a public post-secondary education, they actually did the policy work to determine who needed the help the most in Canada and how that would benefit business and diversify our economy and skills training in Canada.

They decided that 95 percent of the funds in the Canadian millennium scholarship fund should go to kids and families in Canada who have the greatest amount of need. They targeted the money to families who traditionally had not been able to participate in post-secondary education, and they said that that is where the money was most needed.

Now, that's the opposite approach of what this government is doing with this program. This is an across-the-board savings program that applies to Jimmy Pattison just as it applies to some other family in a disadvantaged neighbourhood. That's the exact opposite approach to what the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation took, and I think it's important to note that.

The other thing that I think British Columbians well understand is that this program is announced on the back of some other steps that we well remember from the B.C. Liberal government.

You have to stack up and compare the $1,200 savings grant that is being announced again today to the cancellation by this government of needs-based grants that covered up to 30 percent of a student's costs for post-secondary. It was one of the first things they did in 2002-2003. This government has doubled tuition fees. We now have the second-largest student debt rate in the country — $27,000 on average upon graduation for a four-year program. Compare all of that — the massive cost transfers onto middle-class families in British Columbia — to a $1,200 RESP grant.

Eighty percent of job openings require post-secondary education. Young people in British Columbia need help now, not 12 years from now. Employers need trained, skilled workers now, not 12 years from now. B.C. Hydro's new transmission project, which is $200 million over budget, needs skilled workers now — or, rather, yesterday — not 12 years from now, if public funds for infrastructure are going to be efficiently spent. This program doesn't do anything to address those needs.

As a tool to promote equality of opportunity, to promote economic development, to promote economic diversification, this government has failed to show that this is the best public policy choice, in this program. It's not that it's universally bad, but in terms of using public funds, it simply hasn't been demonstrated by this government that it's the best intervention to help students and families in B.C. to promote those broader goals.

[1015]

Having made that choice, this government now needs to ensure that this program actually helps low-income families. There's a study by the Omega Foundation that looks at RESPs in Canada and says, essentially, that they reward upper-middle-class Canadians disproportionately and do very little for low-income Canadians, because they don't take advantage of that program. This government needs to promote it properly and aggressively, having made that choice.

L. Larson: Like many parents and grandparents on both sides of this House, I have family who will directly benefit from this investment in the future of our children. I have two grandchildren — Austin, who is three, and Riley, who is two months — who will benefit from this program. Their parents are average working people who, while managing all of the challenges of a young family, are also very committed to looking ahead to when their young families will move from K to 12 and out into the next phase of their lives — post-secondary education.

We can only imagine what the post-secondary opportunities will look like in 2019, when the first children to benefit from this grant will make their career choices.
[ Page 191 ]
Many will be in careers and jobs not even dreamed of today. There will be new training and skills needed. What we do know is that each and every one of those young people will now have some financial support to get them started, thanks to this government that has planned ahead and invested in the future of our province.

This education savings grant is only one of the many investments that are being made to help students prepare for success in a rapidly changing world. It clearly demonstrates this government's commitment to the future of our children.

We all know the challenges of raising and educating our children, and all of us would like to see them become successful, happy and able to give back to their communities. I would have appreciated this type of initiative when my children were young. I am pleased that future generations will benefit from this education grant, including my own young grandchildren.

WOMEN IN THE WORKFORCE

M. Karagianis: I rise today to talk about women in the workforce.

I'd like to talk about a few statistics, to start with. It is true that men and women have very different work patterns in their lives, and those actually change over the course of their lives. Men are more likely to have full-time, family-supporting, full-year jobs, while women are more likely to alter their work in order to accommodate unpaid family responsibilities.

Twice as many women as men work part-time. Women's reasons for working part-time are different from men's. In 2011, Canada-wide, 336,000 women aged 25 to 54 reported working part-time to accommodate unpaid labour responsibilities such as child care and elder care.

There is a persistent wage gap, despite us living in the 21st century, between men and women. That, combined with the fact that women work fewer hours, makes for a significant earnings gap. Women continue to earn between 71 and 75 percent of men's earnings — with the same level of education, doing the same work.

The result of women's kind of non-standard working patterns is that fewer unemployed women qualify for unemployment insurance. Between 2006 and 2010 women's average weekly benefits were consistently about $60 per week lower than men's. Women who are on employment insurance will likely have to pay for child care and elder care in order to return to work, so it becomes less likely that this change will be enough of an incentive for them to take available temporary employment for lower wages.

This brings me, really, to the heart of the matter. We know that there is a huge income gap for women. Certainly, in the employable history of women this will affect not only unemployment income, but it will also affect pensions and CPP as women go through their worklife. This results in a considerable poverty issue that strikes senior women in particular when they are ready to retire.

[1020]

Certainly, throughout the worklife of women in their prime earning years, one of the major barriers to this is affordable child care. Research on affordable child care in Quebec has shown that more mothers return to work when there is affordable, quality child care available to them. Following the introduction of affordable child care in Quebec, the labour force participation of women rose dramatically. This has immediate impact on women's incomes but also reduces the lifetime earnings penalty that women often face for taking out part of their worklife to become caregivers for their own children.

It also increases government taxation revenues. Researchers estimate that in 2008, the province of Quebec recouped the entire cost of their child care subsidy, and the federal government gained $717 million due to the additional tax revenue and lower transfers because the women were working full-time. The Child Care Human Resources Sector Council of Canada has estimated that every dollar invested in child care programs increases the GDP by $2.30. That's a pretty good investment, in anybody's world.

In British Columbia in 2010 we had 97,170 regulated child care spaces. That, unfortunately, was to serve 570,900 children, 12 or younger. So 29.8 percent of the number of spaces were available for full-day, centre-based spaces for children zero to six, enough for 11.3 percent of the total number of children in that age group. So 11.3 percent of children had spaces to go into child care.

You can immediately see the correlation between women in the workforce and their ability to get child care. If we are not providing nearly enough child care spaces, affordable and accessible to families, then how do we ensure that women are able to participate in the workforce? And frankly, it's not just women. It's also men who often are now staying home as primary caregivers.

The fees we have here in British Columbia are also among the highest in the country. In 2012 the median, full-time, monthly parent fee in B.C. was $1,047 for infants, $907 for toddlers and $761 for three- to five-year-olds. In 2012 the median fees across Canada were significantly lower. While we were paying $1,047 for infants, across Canada the average is $761. While we are paying $907 for toddlers, the average across Canada is $696. And while we are paying $761 for three-to-five-year-olds, the average across Canada is $674.

These facts, combined with the fact that women are having to make hard choices about the affordability of child care, mean that we are failing those women here in British Columbia. I would argue that child care is largely a parent-funded service in B.C. and that we have the highest child care fees in the country — thereby, eroding the take-home pay of parents more than taxes do.
[ Page 192 ]

Primarily, this is affecting women in the workforce. This is, in many ways, affecting their lifelong earning and their end-of-employment earning as well — pensions, CPP. We are seeing more women who live in poverty, more children who live in poverty, more challenges for women to get into the workforce and participate fully. Child care is one of the primary factors. We are falling far short of the national average here, and we have a long, long way to go.

I know that the government has talked about doing some very minor investments, in the upcoming budget. We've heard that repeatedly throughout time. But the reality is that we have got to go a long way if we aren't supplying a fraction of the child care spaces that are needed. Marginalizing more women, more families — that is contributing significantly to the poverty story, and in reality, it's not making adequate investments in the economy of this country and those families' ability to participate in the economy of this province.

I look forward to hearing what the other members have to say from the other side of the House.

J. Tegart: I am pleased to speak on the issue of women in the workforce as a newly elected female member of this workplace. I'm proud to stand with so many other women in this House.

[1025]

After the provincial election the Vancouver Sun noted that more than a third of the members elected were women, the highest share in B.C.'s history, higher than any other province in Canada. To me, this is extremely significant. It shows more women are choosing to pursue executive and leadership positions — and succeeding. These women are serving as role models to younger generations in their communities, showing them that they, too, can achieve their dreams no matter how big those dreams are.

We still have work to do. Women make up more than half of the global population. We should strive for more gender parity in various areas, not just government and politics. One area of the working world where women are particularly prevalent is small business. B.C. has the second-highest number of female small business owners in the country. We have invested $100,000 with the Women's Enterprise Centre to encourage new women entrepreneurs in our province.

We have also promised to create a Premier's women's economic advisory council to provide face-to-face feedback on how government policy changes can help further women's business opportunities in our province. This council will be made up of women leaders in various sectors who will give their advice on how to make life easier for women who are running small businesses.

We're also encouraging women to think about the skilled trades as a career option. Forty-three percent of the jobs opening up in B.C. between now and 2020 will require trades and technical training. Our government is making significant investments in skills and trades training programs as well as new capital and equipment.

We're working with employers, offering tax credits and working to increase the number of apprentices. We're hoping many women will be seizing those opportunities that will abound in the skilled trades in the coming years. When they find that success but have little ones at home to worry about, our government has allocated $32 million over three years to create up to 2,000 new licensed child care spaces, with the goal of creating 13,000 more spaces by year 8.

We also hope to make child care easier to find by requiring school boards to establish policy promoting the use of school property between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays by licensed child care providers.

What's more, the government's child care subsidy program has an annual budget of $135 million to support care for more than 50,000 children, including a supplement for children with special needs.

However, demand for this subsidy program has fallen since the introduction of full-day kindergarten, which so many families are embracing. When we consider how we can help women in the workplace, we need to think beyond the individual and know that their families matter also. Many of us struggle with achieving a work-life balance, and as government, we recognize that there are things we can do to help people get there. I know this firsthand as an MLA and, before that, as an employee, an elected official, a community advocate, a businesswoman and, of course, being a mom.

M. Karagianis: Thank you very much to the previous member for her comments about women in the workforce as well as skills training and child care. I agree that we have more women in the Legislature now than ever before. In fact, that's the reason we should all be standing up and fighting for a universal child care program, because there's not a woman in this building who does not understand intrinsically how important child care is to getting back to work, getting out to work.

The member talked earlier about women in business. I, too, have been a woman in business my entire career, and child care has always been a very pivotal part of the need that I have to go out and be successful in business or in politics. Women who are running entrepreneurial businesses or participating in the workforce in business need the same resources as every other woman in this province.

[1030]

The member made reference to skills training, and certainly, we know that that is another component of making sure that women have an opportunity to get out and participate in the economy, to attain those family-supporting jobs. I'd love to see more women down at the shipyard in my community being electricians and painters and welders — all of those jobs that pay very well.
[ Page 193 ]

In fact, unfortunately, the government has again, in this budget, committed to a $46 million cut to skills training. So who will be marginalized the most by those cuts? I would argue that that will be women, because we know that their ability to participate in those programs is diminished by their inability to find adequate child care.

So 571,000 children looking for child care in British Columbia, and only a fraction of those receiving spaces. We need to be arguing for a universal, affordable, accessible child care program here that addresses all the children in this province, that addresses the needs of all families who are looking for child care.

There is no better way to invest in our economy in the future than to provide that fundamental resource for families so that women can get back into the workforce, so they can participate in business, so they can train for skills in the workforce and participate in really well-paid jobs. The more we continue to marginalize women by marginalizing our investment in child care, the less we are investing responsibly in the economy.

This is a government that purports itself to be all about business and the business ethic, and it's all about the economy. Well, I would say this is a fundamental building block now — to do more, to make more investment in child care, not marginalized investment but real in-depth investment in child care. Make sure that the skills training programs that are available out there are adequately funded so women can also participate as vigorously as men do in these programs.

We need to prevent lifelong poverty for women by making these fundamental investments in the early years so that they can also create careers and have lifelong stable economic environments to raise their families in.

SUPPORTING STRONG INVESTMENTS
IN OKANAGAN HEALTH CARE:
NOW, TOMORROW AND INTO THE FUTURE

D. Ashton: I'm honoured to rise in the House today for the first time, to be able to speak about the significant investments being made in Okanagan health care. As the representative for Penticton, I can tell you that health care is one of the biggest issues that people are talking about right now, because they are thrilled that we're in the business planning process for a new patient care tower at Penticton Hospital.

This project is our community's number one priority, but something like this does not move forward without strong partnerships. First came the strategic plan. The regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen approved $2 million for this, at a cost that came in at just under $800,000.

For the business case, the regional district has committed to 40 percent of the cost, with the province contributing the other 60 percent. I can't tell you what that commitment means to this community, our community. Once the business case is completed, procurement for the construction of the new tower can commence.

But there have been other incredible commitments. For example, in Vernon this government has now opened the Polson Tower. This $180 million tower added 181,000 square feet of space to the Vernon Jubilee Hospital site. The facility in Vernon has been expanded and modernized, and there have also been improvements in Salmon Arm.

Also, in Kelowna our government has undertaken extensive work at the Kelowna General Hospital. The $218 million Centennial Building opened up to patients this last year. This 360,000-square-foot tower was built to support the increasing demand on health care in the Okanagan.

But that is not all. The $367 million Interior heart and surgical centre at Kelowna General Hospital, scheduled to open in the middle of 2015, accommodates a new cardiac centre, surgical centre and laboratory. Heart surgeries are taking place in two renovated operating rooms at the hospital while the centre is being constructed — 290 operations so far.

This project is important to patients undergoing heart surgery. It means an improvement in access to the services for diagnosing and treatment of heart disease, and it means they do not have to travel to the Lower Mainland for care.

The Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins Centre in the southern Interior is also taking away that additional travel stress. It is staffed by more than 270 health professionals, ensuring that southern Interior families receive the highest quality of cancer care possible without having to travel hours to Vancouver. This is an out-patient facility, which means the patients are treated there during the day. When there is 24-7 treatment needed, it also provides it via the adjoining Kelowna General Hospital.

[1035]

It was named after the late MLA Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins, who was a champion for better health care and research throughout British Columbia before losing her seven-year battle with acute myeloid leukemia in 2010. This centre serves more than 850,000 people from the Boundary, the Cariboo, the Kootenays, the Okanagan-Similkameen and Thompson regions.

I would also like to point out the Bennett Bridge and the Highway 97 expansion in the Okanagan. Thanks to these important transportation upgrades, citizens in Penticton and the South Okanagan now have safe and timely access to these much-needed health services. A personal friend, a Penticton resident, was rushed by ambulance to Kelowna and within 45 minutes was receiving a life-saving cardiac procedure at the hospital. In fact, the old derelict floating bridge deck would often rise and get stuck at the most inappropriate times. This put the safety of our entire region at risk.

In addition to this infrastructure, we have been thinking about our next generation of medical professionals.
[ Page 194 ]
It is well known that in the entire decade when the opposition was in power they never did expand the UBC Faculty of Medicine to graduate more doctors, even though they knew that there was a critical shortage. This government has doubled the size of the UBC Faculty of Medicine, and that is why in 2011 we saw the largest graduating class of new doctors in British Columbia's history.

In fact, in the Okanagan there is now a medical teaching unit at Kelowna General Hospital. This fall there will be roughly 24 students in a full year of clinical rotations in internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, psychiatry, emergency medical medicine, orthopedics and anaesthesiology.

But it's just not the doctors. This government has also invested in new opportunities to train nurses. In Penticton, Kelowna, Vernon and Salmon Arm there are now courses available for licensed practical nurses at Okanagan College. There's a great career opportunity for young graduates. It's much needed in our health care community. These programs are very popular. It's one of the reasons why Okanagan College has become the largest in British Columbia.

We celebrate all of these investments and accomplishments and look forward to much more to come.

J. Darcy: The announcements in the Okanagan are certainly welcome news indeed for the residents of the Okanagan. But I do have to say that looking at what has been occurring in health care in the Okanagan — and throughout Interior Health, for that matter — over the last few years, there's a very clear pattern of behaviour on the part of this government.

That pattern goes something like this. There's a crisis. Nothing is done. There's another crisis. Nothing is done. There's a third crisis, sometimes a fourth and a fifth, and still nothing is done. Finally, when it's impossible to ignore the community's concerns — finally, when we see blaring headlines in local papers or across the province, when we see communities up in arms — finally, finally, we see announcements made.

Certainly with the election coming, in the time period leading up to the election and throughout the recent election, we saw a whole spate of announcements timed for political purposes, not always for health care purposes, and very often overlooking the timetables that Interior Health had put in place for new capital projects and frequently pitting one community against another.

Just a few cases in point. One is the Penticton Regional Hospital, the new patient care tower that was referred to. These hospital upgrades have been needed for a very, very long time. Certainly, the absence of that additional capacity has been a hot topic for years because it is the regional hospital, and due to a series of cutbacks and closures, it has forced many in the region to go to Kamloops or Kelowna for treatments.

Following the very harsh criticism that nothing was in the 2013 budget, what we did finally, eventually, see is not something in a commitment made in a service plan or a fiscal plan but something unveiled in a platform document.

So yes, indeed, it is good news that we're going to be improving care for the folks in Penticton, but it is unfortunate that the timing of these are politically motivated and that the government felt it necessary to try and make it a divisive issue in the election, claiming that those of us this side of the House did not support those kind of upgrades.

[1040]

Another case in point is the Royal Inland Hospital sterilization problems. As far back as 2008 an internal audit recommended replacement, and the minutes of the IHA revealed that they knew this was a problem. The problem exploded in 2010, and it caused hundreds of surgeries to be cancelled and contributed to wait-lists.

Due to those dirty instruments, 250 patients had their elective surgeries cancelled. Then a second set of dirty instruments was found. Then finally, Interior Health had to go public with the issue and sent 9,000 letters out to patients who'd had procedures in that period of time. Finally — finally — after three long years an announcement was made that the sterilization unit would be replaced.

The member for Penticton referred to Vernon Jubilee Hospital. That also is a prime example of a Liberal government that puts politics ahead of patients. They made a huge show of building a new tower, giving themselves the opportunity to stand in for the ribbon cutting, but then refused to adequately fund operating expenses. So after the tower was complete, the hospital was left with the same number of beds as before the construction — this at a time when the hospital was consistently at or over capacity.

If we look at seniors care in the Okanagan or in the Interior or across the province, for that matter, the 2013 budget contains very little for seniors — no specific funding, no new programs, no mention of improving standards of care in residential care or assisted living, no action on addressing 74 percent of the recommendations in the Ombudsperson's report on seniors care.

This, when access to home support services has dropped 30 percent in the IHA in the last ten years — 30 percent. This, when over 16 percent of acute care beds are taken up by patients who properly belong in ALC beds, alternative level of care. This, despite the fact that the cost of treating a senior in an acute care bed ranges from $900 to $1,900 a day, compared to $200 a day for residential care and significantly less for home support services.

So we certainly welcome the announcements that have been made, but what we really need to see is a comprehensive plan for health care reform that puts in place solid home and community supports, improved primary
[ Page 195 ]
care with a wide range of health care supporters. That's what we need to do justice to the needs of patients in the Okanagan, in the Interior and across B.C.

D. Ashton: Many thanks to the hon. member for her comments.

British Columbians can be very proud of their health care system, which has helped make our province a leader in many areas. Life expectancy in British Columbia is the highest in Canada, at 82 years. B.C. has the highest overall, best cancer survival rates in Canada. B.C. men and women have the lowest overall mortality rate for cancers in Canada, the lowest overall incident rate of cancers in the country. They also have the lowest incident rate for lung and colorectal cancers, and the five-year survival rate for breast cancer in B.C. is 91.8 percent — of the best in Canada.

The B.C. cancer agency provides comprehensive cancer screening programs, such as the screening mammography program and the cervical cancer screening program. Soon we will roll out a new provincial colorectal cancer screening program as well.

B.C. is the only province in Canada that has shown a consistent decline in new HIV diagnoses, and HIV/AIDS–related deaths have decreased by more than 90 percent since 1996. Over that same period, new HIV infections per year in B.C. have dropped dramatically.

B.C. has the lowest smoking rate in Canada, at 14.2 percent, thanks in part to initiatives like the smoking cessation program. It covers prescription medications or free nicotine replacement therapies and other supports to help British Columbians stop smoking.

We have also implemented a provincial regulation banning the use, under the age of 18, of ultraviolet tanning to help reduce their risk of skin cancer over their lifetime.

We also have great health outcomes as a result of our state-of-the-art facilities, innovative programs and professional health care workers. Even though economic times are tough, our government is honouring its commitment to protect health care. We want to maintain a system that we can be proud of.

[1045]

Indeed, all of our outstanding facilities, even beyond the Okanagan — the ones that I've highlighted today — come about because of great partnerships between various levels of government — regional districts, hospital foundations, private donors and health care professionals who offer top-of-the-line care to patients and their families. In that sense of community, of building greater things together, these are the things that help make these facilities come to reality. That is what will drive a new, improved Penticton hospital to reality.

SUSTAINABLE JOBS

G. Heyman: I rise today to talk about sustainable jobs — sustainable jobs in the film industry. When we talk about sustainable jobs, most people in British Columbia, most people in this House…. The first things that come to mind are jobs that are environmentally friendly, about which there is not much conflict in terms of their impact and their footprint. But sustainable jobs are also stable jobs, industries that are built, that provide jobs lasting into the future, as well as jobs that build stable communities and small businesses within that community.

The film industry hits that test on all counts. Since 1987 here in B.C. we've grown an industry of 25,000 well-paid, well-employed, well-trained people. There's over $1 billion in production spent in British Columbia a year, and it's spread across British Columbia. It's not simply concentrated in the Lower Mainland.

One of the driving forces for this industry since the 1990s has been the film tax credits, introduced by the New Democrat government and added to by the Liberal government. It's made British Columbia a hub for film, for television, for digital media. We have over 20 post-secondary institutions with programs dedicated to developing skills within the film industry.

Last Wednesday the member for North Vancouver–Seymour stood to talk about the opening of a new sound stage at Bridge Studios in Burnaby. Of course, on this side of the House we celebrate that addition to infrastructure in British Columbia along with other members in this House, but I must point out that in today's reality, that addition is an anomaly. Since Ontario, followed by Quebec, boosted their film tax credit regime in 2009, we have seen a decline of 3,500 jobs in British Columbia in 2012 over 2011. We have seen a $300 million drop in production dollars in British Columbia. This is according to the Canadian Media Production Association.

B.C. has top-flight crews. We have innovative production companies. We have beautiful locations. We have proximity to Hollywood. We used to be known as Hollywood North. We used to be the third-largest centre in North America behind Los Angeles and New York — leaders in Canada. Since Ontario surpassed us with their film tax credit regime, we have dropped to second. We have lost jobs. We have lost production dollars. We have lost productions. Ontario has gained 8,000 jobs, while we've been losing jobs, bleeding jobs, bleeding an industry here in British Columbia.

That's why 30,000 people signed a petition from Save B.C. Film. They want British Columbia, supported by our government, to be able to compete. They don't want, as trained workers, to have to leave their families behind in B.C. while they go to Ontario or Quebec or south of the border to work. They don't want to have to make the other choice, if they choose to stay with their families, of leaving the industry that they love and for which they're trained.

[1050]

That's why, in the last election campaign, British Columbia New Democrats proposed that we raise the film
[ Page 196 ]
tax labour credit in British Columbia so we would compete with Ontario, we would compete with Quebec, and we would compete with jurisdictions south of the border.

We didn't say that we needed to match it. We said that we needed to be competitive, because that's what the film industry told us we needed. We needed to get in the ballpark. And then let's sit down with our colleagues in other jurisdictions in Canada and talk about what we do to ensure that we don't continually try to leapfrog each other with credits to the film industry, that we work in a common cross-Canada strategy so that we all have a burgeoning, healthy film industry so that we save and protect the investments we've made and we save and protect the jobs that we have.

This government has declined to take the action requested by so many workers in the film industry, so many owners of small business that depend on the film industry in British Columbia. The Finance Minister has simply said, "We want to sit down and talk with Ontario and Quebec and see if we can reach an agreement," while we have bled jobs, while we've lost jobs, while we've lost workers. When Ontario and Quebec are gaining jobs, gaining workers, gaining production dollars and share in the industry, why would they sit down with us, except to be polite?

This government needs to protect and sustain film industry jobs in British Columbia. This government needs to put the industry on a fighting basis with other jurisdictions and protect the infrastructure, skills and jobs that we have here in B.C. That's the time to sit down and talk. That's the time to sit down and negotiate.

That's what workers in the film industry, small businesses across B.C. that depend on the film industry and communities that have solid family-sustaining jobs in the film industry expect from this government. That is what we on this side of the House expect from this government as well.

M. Bernier: I'd like to start by thanking the hon. member for bringing up this issue. Of course, this is something, I guess, that we can agree on. This is an industry that our government full-heartedly supports. In fact, last year we spent over $300 million in cash subsidies to this. When you look at what our government is doing toward this industry, this is something that we do support wholeheartedly.

Let me just take this back a little bit. What gives people a sense of pride when they wake up in the morning? It's having a job. It's having a good-paying job, knowing that they can go home and put food on the table, support their families and look at opportunities for a great future. This government does that.

I'm proud to say that last month B.C. actually led the country in job creation — 8,900 new jobs last month in British Columbia. We led the nation. When we look at the new numbers just put out by StatsCan…. I mean, look at the low unemployment rates — in Northern B.C., for instance, record low unemployment. When you look at Prince George, they've got the lowest numbers in decades — 3½ percent unemployment. This is because of diversity. This is because of growing the economy, which this government is doing.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Sustainability means being diverse and productive over time. It's about being environmental, social, economic and looking at all of the aspects, hon. Member. I know that you're well aware of that.

Diversity is key, but capitalizing on those opportunities when they're here is just as important, and that's what this government is doing. When you look at…. In my riding 150 wind towers have been built in the last few years, creating hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars of investment.

Last year alone, $6.7 billion of investments in the province of British Columbia because of the natural gas industry, employing thousands and thousands of people. New mines opening up in the province. A new coal mine in my jurisdiction just announced — 500 new jobs. This is diversity in the province. This is what is building our province. This is what it's about. These are all well-paid, long-term, sustainable jobs.

[1055]

This is what British Columbia wants, and this is what British Columbians deserve. And I can say this is what this government is delivering.

I think we can broaden it out and say one of the best things we've been doing in this government is creating sustainable jobs. A case in point: 12 years of this government in power and of the hon. members in opposition, I believe, is quite a sustainable record.

G. Heyman: I'd like to thank the member for Peace River South for addressing the issue of jobs in his region. One of the things that comes to mind is…. I appreciate the comments from the member because the member's comments, while not directly addressing the film industry, do address some of the measures that this government has taken in the past to support jobs with subsidies, with reduced royalties in the oil and gas industry. Clearly this government has no problem with supporting industries. It's simply a matter of selective choice.

Last week the member for North Vancouver–Seymour also talked about how important Lions Gate, now known as North Shore Studios, was to her community, both for direct jobs and for spinoff jobs.

Well, it stresses me and distresses me to report that the head of North Shore Studios said that the first quarter of 2013 was the worst quarter ever for North Shore Studios. They were working only to 25 percent capacity — 25 percent capacity. While their numbers are up somewhat in this quarter, they're still 25 percent short of their target of
[ Page 197 ]
85 percent. That is not building sustainable jobs in North Vancouver, in Burnaby, in communities across British Columbia that depend on the film industry.

This year overall production in British Columbia is down 15 percent over the previous year. Hundreds of jobs are gone or at risk.

The question here for the government, the question here for British Columbians, with respect to the film industry is very simple: are we going to protect the jobs of workers who've been trained in B.C., who've built their skills in B.C. to work in the film industry? Are we going to protect their jobs so they can stay in B.C. and work and use the skills that they've developed? Are we going to risk losing infrastructure that has been built up over 20 years in British Columbia? If it is unutilized or underutilized, we risk that infrastructure being used for other purposes.

[1100]

Who owns North Shore properties? Bosa owns North Shore properties. If North Shore Studios are not being used for film, Bosa will find another use for those properties.

We need to take measures to protect this industry now, because it is bleeding dollars and bleeding jobs. A simple addition to the tax credit regime in British Columbia, which the industry is asking for, will put us back in a position to use our natural advantages — our location, our trained workers, our infrastructure, our innovation.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 1 — REFERENDUM
ON TransLink REVENUE SOURCES

L. Reimer: It is a pleasure to rise in the House this morning to move the following motion:

[Given the importance of allowing taxpayers a say in how their money is managed, be it resolved that this House support subjecting new revenue sources for future TransLink projects to a referendum, to be held on the same day as the November 2014 municipal elections.]

We all know that TransLink provides a world-class service that is the envy of many jurisdictions, but in recent years, and despite billions of dollars in investment, the demand and the need for expanded transit services has greatly increased, beyond current funding models.

In 2011 our government changed legislation to increase regional fuel tax by two cents per litre, which commenced April of 2012. This recommendation came at the request of the TransLink Mayors Council. It assisted in paying for some transit expansion projects and the region's $400 million share of the Evergreen line, which runs right through my riding.

In October 2012 we completed an audit of TransLink and found significant savings. In addition to the $98 million in savings TransLink already acts on in their 2013 base plan, we found an additional $1 million. While these savings were good news, more must be done to meet the growing need for expanded transit.

In February 2013 the Mayors Council proposed several new funding tools, including a vehicle registration fee, a regional sales tax of up to 0.5 percent, a reallocation of future provincial carbon tax or a new regional carbon tax, and land-value capturing and road pricing.

We greatly appreciate the hard work that the Mayors Council has conducted. Taxpayers, however, are being challenged to make ends meet. We need to consider their ability to pay, and for them to clearly understand what they are paying for and why.

Government has laid out four criteria for funding TransLink. It must be affordable for families and be regionally sourced. It must avoid negative impacts on our provincial economy, and it must create capacity for TransLink to share in local benefits of infrastructure investment.

In 2007 the government introduced a new structure for TransLink to free it from political interference, ensuring, though, that it continued to be accountable through the Mayors Council. The decision to pose a referendum question around funding options will ensure that the wishes of the people are honoured and that the good work of the Mayors Council be decided.

I had the pleasure this past Friday of attending a meeting for the TransLink draft strategic framework consultation with many of my colleagues here. It is their intention to create a transportation plan that will assist in maintaining Metro Vancouver's position as one of the best places in the world to live. To do this, though, will require some tough decisions, and when those decisions affect our taxpayers, they must absolutely have a say.

We had already committed to putting forward governance legislation in the spring of 2014 and have agreement by the chair and vice-chair of TransLink about them moving forward with a public engagement on proposed funding mechanisms. I note that holding the referendum in the fall of 2014 is not a delay, as it would have taken the same time regardless of which avenue was chosen.

It is our desire to work collaboratively with the TransLink Mayors Council on a framework for the referendum question. That process will begin this week, as our hon. Transportation Minister will be meeting with the Mayors Council chair and vice-chair.

[1105]

We will be honouring our campaign commitments and plan on this referendum to be held no later than the municipal elections in November 2014. Regardless of what options the Mayors Council and government were to choose, those impacted the most ought to have a say.

British Columbians supported our election this past May. We told them then we would take these funding options out to referendum, and we are keeping our word.

Hon. Speaker, thank you for opportunity to move this motion.

H. Bains: I'm glad to reply to this motion. I think what we see here through this motion before us is a clear example
[ Page 198 ]
of how a government can shirk of its responsibility and how a government can actually use a delaying tactic on some of the very important decisions they need to make today.

South of the Fraser we are gaining, in Surrey alone, 1,000 new citizens every month. That's like 12,000 new citizens in Surrey every year. It's like a small city being absorbed in Surrey every year.

The decisions need to be made today. We don't have public transportation to meet the needs of that population today. This government is talking about delaying that decision 14 months down the road, and 1,400 new citizens will be moving into Surrey by that time.

We don't have buses. We have thousands of pass-ups on King George, on 104, on Fraser Highway every day. What we need is leadership, not referendum, to deal with the very important issues that face South Fraser as far as public transportation is concerned. It's a lack of leadership that brought us here today.

In September 2010 this government sat with the local mayors to sign a memorandum of understanding, committing themselves to finding a long-term, sustainable funding formula so that we would have public transportation to meet the needs of the population today. Some 1.2 million new people will be moving into the Lower Mainland in the next 30 years, and we're not ready to meet those needs today. How are we going to deal with it later?

This referendum will be nothing more than divisive. It is okay for the member to stand up here today, because she is going to get the Evergreen line. We have Canada Line, Millennium Line and all other lines serving the needs of those communities. Well, when the time comes for Surrey and the South Fraser, this government is completely shirking of their responsibility and using politics — pure politics — rather than making some decisions that are practical and that are commonsense decisions.

So if the people and the mayor of Surrey are upset, I don't blame them. That's why many of the mayors have called this initiative ridiculous — a recipe for disaster, an abrogation of responsibility, an absolute, utter and total mistake.

We need to change the governance so that those mayors are back at the table to make the decisions that they make, along with the land-use decisions that they make, because both go hand in hand. We need a long-term, sustainable funding formula — you know, sitting down with those mayors, with this government, so that we have a funding formula.

We already had the member talk about that it should be affordable to the population. Of course it should be affordable. We are already paying carbon tax. Use some of the carbon tax money. We've been saying, the mayors have been saying, and every other person in the Lower Mainland has been saying: "Use some of that money." We can use that as a long-term, sustainable funding formula to pay for the public transportation needs of the population, especially south of the Fraser.

We have huge bottlenecks on Broadway corridor as well. Many other Lower Mainland areas need to be addressed today, not 14 months down the road. Clear abrogation of their responsibility — that's a real example of this.

We're proposing: "Let's sit down and take some action and make some decisions, working with those local mayors." First, bring them back to the decision-making table so that they are responsible in making decisions on transportation and land use. Then work with them so that they can come up with a long-term, sustainable funding formula.

Use some of the carbon tax that is already being collected. Some $1.2 million was collected prior to the government making the decision on raising those taxes by 1 percent. So still half of that, about $600 million, is still collected for a year.

[1110]

Those are some of the real, commonsense solutions, decisions that we need to make today, especially south of the Fraser, especially for Surrey.

There are members sitting on that side of the hall who come from the Surrey area. They should be standing up to the government, this Premier, and telling them that they need to make a decision today to meet the needs of the population, not 14 months down the road.

That clearly is shirking of their responsibility. We will be pushing from this side to have those decisions made now, not 14 months down the road, so the public can have a real solution to public transportation.

M. Hunt: I want to thank the member opposite for his introduction. That was very gracious of him to also give me an introduction as a member from Surrey.

I think it's very important, as we look at this whole issue of TransLink, that we do a little bit of looking back at history and seeing what has actually happened in the past.

I think we've got to recognize, first of all, that TransLink was created in 1999 by the NDP government of the day. I had the awesome privilege of being able to serve on that for the entire time that locally elected officials were making those decisions. In fact, we have a number of members here within the House who have also served on TransLink as elected officials.

What was the issue? The problem was dealing with transit and transportation in Metro Vancouver and letting those decisions come from the local municipalities. It was created with a wide variety of fundraising options. In fact, we had the wonderful privilege of being able to host many nations that came to see this wonderful and innovative model of how to deal with local transportation.

The problem? Well, the problem was quite simple. The problem was that there was no money. Everybody wanted more. Nobody wanted to be able to pay for it.
[ Page 199 ]

In fact, at the time that TransLink was created there was $50 million sitting in a bank account over here. That money had been raised locally, but the provincial cupboard was bare. As a result, TransLink was created, that $50 million was given to TransLink to begin with, and TransLink began with the simple, easy funding options.

They were always trying to balance the pain of raising those funds with those places that they could: the farebox, vehicles, property owners. But the innovative funding options always were challenges because the innovative funding options all had strings back here to Victoria. They all had strings. TransLink could do it, but they couldn't collect the money. So in fact, we find, for example, the vehicle levy.

The vehicle levy was proposed. The vehicle levy went forward. It went through consultation. It went through massive processes with the public. And then, oh, the Premier of the day said: "No, no, after all, you can't do that one because there's an election coming up and we don't want to be involved in that."

So then we created the parking stall tax, spending — if my memory serves me correctly — somewhere in the order of about $5 million, with B.C. Assessment Authority creating this whole tax roll to be able to create it. And then, again, we have a Premier that says: "No, no, you can't do that one either." But this was part of the legislation. So we find two Premiers who have this…. We created this. Both of them saying: "Well, we're listening to the public; TransLink is not."

As a result, we find the TransLink decisions, which were made by elected officials, were in fact cancelled. Elected by the same people, Madame Speaker. The money was raised from the taxpayers themselves. They were involved in this whole process. But we find the conflict between provincial interests and regional interests, and the same problem exists today.

Everybody wants more. Everybody wants somebody else to pay for it. That is the challenge. The real issue, I believe, that is before us is letting the taxpayer decide how they want this done. Personally, I look forward to the process of making that decision and seeing what that question is going to be, because I believe the taxpayers are the only ones that can actually settle this so that we can get on with building transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland.

We all want to see it. But where the money is coming from…. The taxpayers who are paying the bill need to be the ones that are deciding that. I look forward to the process of deciding what that question will be so that it can be put before the taxpayers. The taxpayers can decide, and we can get on with transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland.

[1115]

G. Heyman: I suspect that the good citizens of Surrey are actually very concerned and wondering when their transit needs are going to be addressed and what's going to happen to the bottleneck south of the Fraser. I don't think they're much interested in ragging the puck for another two to three years.

My colleague mentioned that in September 2010 the province and the Mayors Council signed an agreement — a regional transportation agreement, a livable cities agreement. Of that agreement, the news release from this government said: "Today we are reaffirming our commitment to the people of Metro Vancouver that their mayors and the provincial government will collaborate closely to keep people, goods and services moving quickly and efficiently, with minimal impact on our environment."

The then Transportation Minister said: "Together, we're creating a transportation system that encourages people to take transit rather than to drive their cars. An efficient, affordable and reliable public transportation system is an essential component of a livable region."

The then-mayor of the city of Langley, now the Education Minister, said: "This agreement forms the foundation of a new dialogue to sustainably plan, fund and deliver a world-class transportation system in the region."

That was three years ago. Today this government and this province still haven't taken the measures necessary and have no strategy to meet the goals of their own transportation plan from 2008 to double transit ridership and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 4.7 million tonnes by 2020. In order to do that, we need to take action.

TransLink says and the mayors say that their regional plan relies on having additional trips over the coming two to three decades taken by transit, by walking, by cycling, and holding the level of trips taken by single-occupancy vehicles to a stable rate.

TransLink is desperately trying to maintain service, not add service. Without a stable funding model, TransLink cannot add service. Their projections show that between 2013 and 2015 they will have to cut 306,000 annual service hours in order to meet their budget. Those hours are needed to reduce crowding.

They may have to cut buses in growing areas. There will be delays in addressing needs throughout the region — the Broadway corridor in Vancouver; the congestion at the Broadway-Commercial SkyTrain station, particularly when the Evergreen line is up and running; the great need south of the Fraser; the King George corridor; as well as the need to move goods efficiently on various roads in the region.

TransLink has no ability to respond as population grows, as the needs of the region grow. TransLink officials say they cannot — and they've said this publicly — proceed without assurance of stable funding. All future expansion projects after the Evergreen line are on hold. They're waiting for an answer.

There is no ability, as municipalities in the region prepare and allow developments to go forward that are
[ Page 200 ]
based around transit, to actually provide the transit that's needed for those developments. The result of that will be that families make a choice and a commitment to get a second vehicle.

We cannot afford delays, and it won't simply be a delay that's already in place. The head of the Mayors Council has said that a referendum means that, in practical terms, there can be no legislation — if the referendum occurs in 2014 — until 2015. It's 18 months from the time of tender to buy a bus to hire and train operators. It's six years for subway and five years for light rail.

[1120]

We're also at risk of losing matching funds of over $100 million a year from the federal government, from 2015 on — funds that may be reallocated for many years in the future if TransLink cannot make a commitment to match them. That is why we say no to delay, no to referendum.

M. Dalton: Yes, I stand in support of this motion. I'll read it again. "Given the importance of allowing taxpayers a say in how their money is managed, be it resolved that this House support subjecting new revenue sources for future TransLink projects to a referendum, to be held on the same day as the November 2014 municipal elections."

The previous member spoke about the ability to pay for transportation projects and infrastructure. I think another very key thing to consider is the taxpayers' ability to pay. That's what it boils down to. It's not just Metro's dollars and government dollars. It is the people's money. They have a vested interest in having a say in how their dollars are being spent.

We're all for transportation. It's essential — I'll go over some of the points here in a few moments — but what is key is keeping the taxpayer's pocketbook in mind.

I represent Maple Ridge–Mission. Maple Ridge is part of Metro Vancouver, and Mission isn't, so my remarks will be based more on representing Maple Ridge.

Transit is an important issue in Maple Ridge, as it is everywhere in the Lower Mainland. We've seen some significant transit growth in ridership. There are some very high satisfaction rates, particularly with West Coast Express. However, this is limited to five trains a day going one way and five trains coming back the other way in the afternoon.

We've had some improvements with the Golden Ears Bridge. We have transit going across there now, with the increased frequency of 701. So that's positive. But I would say that on the whole, residents in my riding are not very pleased with the availability and accessibility with ridership. I have a daughter that's attending SFU, and she moved recently closer to the university, primarily because of availability of and accessibility to speedy transit to get to the university.

There would be, from my region, increased use if there was increased availability. But as has been mentioned, increased availability is expensive. I know that's a struggle that TransLink faces, that the Mayors Council has faced. It just costs money, and this does come from residents. But residents are loath to pay more to have the same and not to see the benefits. That's what we struggle with in Maple Ridge and in Mission. It's a chicken-and-egg quandary.

TransLink has a number of revenue sources: the gas tax — which has been raised, even recently, for Metro Vancouver; property taxes; and fares. So those are already there. We're not suggesting a referendum on what's already available. We are saying that what needs to go before the people is new revenue streams.

The conditions for these new revenue streams. It must be affordable to families and regionally sourced, meaning that it has to be…. The user pays, so the money can't be coming from Fort St. John and Vancouver Island to provide the needs of Metro Vancouver transit users. It has to avoid negative impacts to the provincial economy, and it must create capacity. You know, we have to see results for the money that's being put into it.

I know there were a number of suggestions that were put forward by the Mayors Council, including a vehicle registration fee, a regional sales tax of up to half a percent, a reallocation of future carbon tax or other regional taxes and also road pricing.

Again, it hits the pocketbook, but there are benefits also. There is less traffic congestion when you have improved transportation. There's less pollution.

[1125]

The development of our urban core. We see that in New Westminster, in Burnaby, in Surrey, in Coquitlam. You see that in a lot of places. Maple Ridge — we're not there yet because it hasn't reached out. I know that will cost a lot of money. As far as the government, we are certainly committed, and we have put our money where our mouth is as far as helping out with a lot of the projects, whether it be Canada Line, the Evergreen line. And there are a number of other things that we have done.

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, time flies when you're having fun, right? Just like that, it's gone.

I know this is a difficult file for the government. I mean, you've had it for 12 years. You've played around with it, fooled with it, tried to manage it for 12 years. I know there are competing jurisdictions — my colleague from Surrey-Panorama detailed some of them — and I know there are different interests surrounding this file. But 12 years, 12 long years, to get a handle on this file and move it forward.

I also know that sometimes people change their minds when they're trying to find a solution. Sometimes this is characterized as a flip-flop. Far be it for me to say that, but sometimes those are the characterizations.

I understand — and I can be corrected — that Premier Christy Clark opposed the tax referendums during the leadership race. When there was a debate around referendums on the carbon tax and the HST, she opposed it.
[ Page 201 ]
She said: "I never thought that tax issues are best outside the Legislature." She said: "People, if you talk to them enough, are willing to accept changes to the tax system."

That was then, and this is now. We have a referendum in 2014, so now we can say it's 14 long years. You've had this file for 14 years, and it's not solved. It will possibly be solved with a referendum.

I should have the fun of also quoting the current Education Minister. He admitted that the government didn't have a plan for the referendum. We have a referendum; we have no plan. When asked about the question, he said: "'What's the question?' I don't know, because we haven't done the work to formulate what it is." We have a referendum, we have 14 years on this file, we have no question, and we have no plan.

I come from the city of Surrey. So do a number of my colleagues. I would like to reiterate that 1,000 new people come into that city every month. My good colleague across the way nodded. We know that this is an issue that the city of Surrey is dealing with continually. That 1,000 — I don't need to do the math for anybody — is 12,000 a year, which is, in many places, a very small city. Those are the new people coming into Surrey.

Surrey needs a comprehensive, well-thought-out transit system. Those people who live south of the Fraser understand and know what gridlock is. You can't move around that city now without moving from stop to stop, with traffic backed up, and it's getting worse and worse every year, every month, every week. We have the solution not 12 years from now but 14 years from now, and it's just not good enough.

The member said we should not play politics with TransLink. Well, the dumping of the elected board was done purely as a political reaction to the fact that the elected members did not want to pass the Canada Line prior to the Olympics. They were removed because they were thwarting the government's agenda, and if that isn't politics, I don't know what is.

[1130]

In 2007 they removed local control. If you have local control of a local service, you get a better service. Minister Falcon removed the elected officials from the TransLink board of directors and replaced them with unelected appointees selected by the board of trade, Gateway Council, chartered accountants and the Minister of Transportation. Only a Mayors Council on Regional Transportation remained to provide local accountability, but only had arms-length control.

That was then. That model, that governance was never seen anywhere and to this day does not work.

R. Sultan: How to finance TransLink is no small question. On Friday Ian Jarvis, TransLink CEO, addressed a group of us, including our member for Port Moody–Coquitlam, and said that over the next 30 years TransLink's outlays on maintenance, roads — and roads are part of their mandate — transit, bikeways and pathways will add up to a cool $23 billion. Thirty years. To put that into perspective, it's almost half the size of our provincial debt and surely warrants consultation with the people.

Metro Vancouver mayors are pressing the provincial government to abandon the idea. Our own Transportation Minister declares firmly that there will be one. Now, we made fundamental mistakes in the way we introduced the HST and compounded them in the way we responded to the HST referendum. It will be important to learn from those mistakes and get this one right.

The referendum must be carefully constructed. Transit policy is extremely complicated. It's critical that the government engage closely and publicly with the Mayor's Council in drafting the question.

Metro mayors have been creating and suggesting various financing options. Vehicle levy, divert a portion of the carbon tax, regional sales tax…. They've even shown enthusiasm for road pricing. On the other hand, they appear resolute in opposing higher real estate taxes. We at the provincial level have not revealed our favoured financing options, although we have an inclination to public-private partnerships, and I find myself in that camp as well.

Meanwhile, as has been pointed out this morning and before, the need to move people around my region is growing more rapidly than TransLink is currently funded to accommodate. Most of us realize that we cannot realistically expect to pay for all of this expansion through the farebox. The taxman cometh. Choose your poison.

It seems to me that both levels of government recognize the inevitability of higher taxes. However, each partner on the dance floor hopes the other partner will step out and take responsibility for the decision. As the pirouettes continue, ridership continues to grow.

Let's face it. How and when to price a bond issue to move people around our region and the collateral which will support it is a question best left to the capital markets and not to the people. Therefore, it is clear to me that the referendum should be focused more on governance than on choosing a specific funding model.

I believe the referendum question should advance the proposition that mass transit for metropolitan Vancouver is primarily a regional responsibility — not a provincial responsibility — in all respects. What do the citizens of Cranbrook or Prince George care about Metro Vancouver bikeways, roads or transit, except to be assured that the bulk of the financing burden will be carried regionally and not provincially?

If you have not much transit in your riding, you may instinctively favour blacktop. So I think the referendum question should simply ask whether it's time for the province to cut the TransLink apron strings financially and operationally. We must allow Metro Vancouver to grow into adulthood and take on both responsibility and authority.
[ Page 202 ]

Regional mass transit should be regionally planned, regionally governed and regionally paid for, with the province playing a helpful participatory role but certainly not being the decider. It's how those of us living in the Vancouver area provide our own water and collect our own trash. Why should our people transportation be any different? Good luck, Metro Vancouver.

[1135]

S. Simpson: I very much appreciated the comments of the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. I'm not sure that all of his colleagues will totally appreciate it. I'm not sure those were the speaking notes that were handed out ahead of time. I'd also note for the members that he can feel some comfort that after the B.C. Liberals continue their capital spending plan, that $23 billion will only be a third of the debt in three years, not a half of the debt as it is today — if that'll make him feel any better, the way spending is going.

What we are talking about here, of course, when we talk about TransLink and we talk about these issues, is we're talking about an essential core service in a major metropolitan area. Transportation, transit services are essential. They're essential. They're not a frill in any way, shape or form. They're part of the fabric. They've got to be an integral part of what we do.

An integrated transit system is particularly key to land use planning decisions, to coherent community development. In fact, if we're going to get our heads around the climate issues that are in front of us and if we are going to look at how we begin to deal with climate issues, we had better start looking at how we do it in our populated areas in a more aggressive way than we are doing it today. A piece of that, clearly, is having a transit system in place that creates legitimate options for people to get out of their cars.

This is unlike a convention centre, which is a nice facility, or the roof of a stadium that cost, between the two of them, a half a billion dollars of cost overruns, Liberal cost overruns. That's the reality. Those are nice. But they're not essential. Transit truly is essential and we need to focus on it in that way.

What we have is this critical essential service, and we have a government that appears to want to avoid dealing with the issue by calling for this referendum under some guise of political accountability and saying: "Let's have a referendum." As my colleagues have said, it's a referendum that assures us that nothing much gets done till 2015, at least — at a minimum till 2015 — some more than 14 years or so after this government came to power, still not able to deal with this issue. You have a government that's looking to off-load the transit issue at least until 2014 and probably beyond that.

How did we get into the situation in the first place, where we have this challenge and this problem in front of us? The reality is…. It goes back to comments that have been made, and it's very interesting that these comments reference, again, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. They come back to decisions that were made, I believe, by this government in 2007 when the then minister, Minister Falcon at the time, frankly had a bit of a snit over the fact that the governing body of locally elected representatives were not prepared…. They had some ideas of their own.

Of course, Minister Falcon at that point said, "Out with you all," and threw out the governing structure, threw out the locally elected people from true governance of this system and put in place this professional board, a professional board that holds much of its meetings in private, that it's a struggle to get information out of that's meaningful and that, I would argue, for anybody, has done little, if anything, to improve the system from the time that they took over to where we sit today.

During all that time, you've had a Mayors Council that has had marginal authority, if at all, that has largely been in conflict with the government because they haven't had authority — a Mayors Council that often is talking about plans and proposals but without the authority to move forward. You have, I believe, the situation where you have seriously undermined the ability of TransLink because you've undermined its governance structure.

Comments made by members earlier about this being the people's money…. Sure, it's the people's money. The people's money should have decisions made by people who are accountable, and that would be elected officials. It's either the elected officials in this place or the elected officials locally.

[1140]

The reality is that we don't need a referendum in 2014. We need a plan where local governments have again the authority, sooner rather than later. It would be great for the government to bring legislation this fall to give authority back. But give it back. Let the local governments make those decisions, and they will be accountable politically in 2014. It's time to put authority back in local government hands.

J. Thornthwaite: I just want to reiterate what my colleagues have said. We are very, very committed here in the government to work very collaboratively with the Mayors Council and the mayors and TransLink. I do support the hybrid model of having a professional body being involved. Obviously, they are the ones that are the transportation experts. And I also support the political involvement as well from our government, as well as from the local governments. But we really do have to work down and dirty, get down together and get to the bottom of this, because everybody does recognize that transit is an issue.

I really do sense in this new government a real willingness to get down with the mayors and the Mayors Council, and it has already been mentioned before. I
[ Page 203 ]
understand that our minister is going to be meeting with the head of the Mayors Council and the vice-chair as well this week. That, to me, shows a commitment.

The government had specified specific funding criteria, and they all make sense — affordability for families, be regionally sourced. This is key, because we don't want to have to make Fort St. John pay for what's going on in North Vancouver. We definitely need to have the people that are connected to the TransLink jurisdictions the ones that are responsible for the funding choices. And to avoid negative effects on the provincial economy…. Obviously, we want to grow our economy, and we don't want to make decisions that are going to be negative.

This was key as well: "Must create capacity for TransLink to share in local benefits arising as a consequence of its infrastructure investments." The MLAs and the mayors…. I have heard this numerous times in my area. We need more transportation, not less. We want more buses in the east of Seymour.

For those of you who aren't familiar with my particular riding, yes, we all know that the significant TransLink investment was the SeaBus. But not necessarily anybody from Deep Cove or from Whytecliff Park in West Vancouver can benefit from the advantages of the SeaBus — for instance, like people that are closer to the Lonsdale area. Definitely buses — and lack thereof, of buses — are key in my riding, so I definitely appreciate it.

Again, paying for these things has to come from the region, and it has to be equitable. We don't want to have to pay for a system in North Vancouver that we don't benefit from, so that's why I want to make sure that people that are from my area, North Vancouver, have a say.

The mayors have also asked for improvement to governance, and we are committed to that. In fact, we're committed to putting forward governance legislation in the spring of 2014. We're open to new funding options, and this, again, is very important. This could be the vehicle registration fee, a regional sales tax, a reallocation of a future carbon tax — not the carbon tax that we have right now because that is provincial, but something regional that would go towards the TransLink jurisdictions or land value capture on road pricing. We are open to funding solutions that are…. Everything is on the table, as I've been told. We need help, and we need to work with the Mayors Council on that.

The other thing the Mayors Council had been asking for is more consultation and public input. That is why this question is really, really important, and again, everything's on the table. What is that question going to be? We want to get it fruitful. We want to get it helpful, and we want to get it accountable to the public. So in that regard, I think this meets the criteria of moving forward and working collaboratively with all the other levels of government and, in particular, the Mayors Council. I look forward in my riding, in my role, to assist the minister in doing that in the coming days and months.

[1145]

K. Corrigan: The problem with B.C. Transit is not going to be cured by a referendum. The problem with B.C. Transit is that this Liberal government took it away from local, democratically accountable politicians in 2008, and it has been a mess ever since, with a private board controlled by this government. The decisions have been completely politicized. That is the problem, in a nutshell, with TransLink.

But I'm really glad to hear that the B.C. Liberals are suddenly interested in referendums as a solution. It's a new development. Certainly, the B.C. Liberals weren't interested in a referendum when it came to the HST. They had to be pulled kicking and screaming and spent public dollars to try to convince the people to change their mind on the HST. So they weren't interested in that.

They certainly weren't interested in a referendum on the Port Mann Bridge. They weren't interested in a referendum on tolls on the Port Mann Bridge. Maybe we should have a referendum on that. No. We're getting a referendum now because it's completely politically motivated by the Liberals.

What they are doing is once again ragging the puck like they have for the last three years, ragging the puck so that they don't have to make any decisions or take any responsibility like a grown-up government would do. What they want to do is they want to delay the funding solutions. They want to blame the mayors for the result. They want to deflect to the mayors, and they don't want to take responsibility for leadership. The mayors of the region have said: "No. We're not going to do that on your behalf."

It goes right back to 2008, when they handed TransLink responsibility over to a private board, which was essentially appointed by the big business friends of this government: gateway lobby group, Vancouver Board of Trade and the B.C. Liberals. The local elected members have no say in it whatsoever. All they get to do is rubber-stamp the members that have been appointed, essentially, by this government and their big business friends.

In 2010 the Minister of Education, then the mayor of Langley, signed an accord with the B.C. Liberals promising that there would be funding agreements, governance changes and so on, and it was a real Kumbayah moment. That was three years ago, several Transportation ministers ago, and nothing has happened since then.

As has been mentioned, the mayors have suggested several options, including a vehicle levy, which was rejected despite the fact that that source of revenue was okayed in the legislation. They suggested a portion of the carbon tax, which makes sense — to have a carbon tax going to transportation. They have made several suggestions, but they have all been rejected.

There have been three audits. So apparently, this private board that the Liberals have put in place…. They don't trust their private board. But all of these things have been a delay to avoid responsibility.

You know, if this government had not stepped in several years ago and forced its model on the local government, I think we would have had a world-class system that would
[ Page 204 ]
have been appropriately funded because it would have been democratically arrived at. It's very unfortunate that we've had this interference.

Every single mayor in the Lower Mainland has gotten together and said this is a bad idea. They've said it's a bad idea. They said it's irresponsible, is disastrous. These are responsible local mayors who understand their transit system, and this government is ignoring what they are having to say.

They say they are not aware of any broader policy discussion that led to this decision. They want to know who is going to pay for this referendum. Given all the money that was put into the HST referendum by this government, in advocacy, is the provincial government going to pay for it? They want to know whether their earlier proposed sources of revenue, such as the vehicle levy and the sales tax, are still unacceptable.

[1150]

S. Hamilton: I guess I'm left with the least enviable position of talking last just before lunch, so I'll try to keep my comments brief. But they are just as important as all the comments that have been made in the House today.

I think if either side of this House agrees on one thing, it's the fact that we need to improve our transit system in the Lower Mainland and Metro Vancouver for the benefit of our economy, for the benefit of the people who commute back and forth to work every day and slave it out to make sure that this continues to be an enviable place, the best place in the world to live.

Speaking of that couple, I commuted to work from where I live in my riding of Delta North for nearly 25 years, and I went to the Broadway corridor on a regular basis every day. Transit was available to me, and sometimes when it wasn't particularly nice out, I was one of those many, many people — hundreds of thousands of people — that climb into my car all by myself and transit back and forth all alone listening to nothing more than my radio.

But as we drive our economy, it's just as important for me to have been able to get back and forth to my place of employment. It's just as important for the young couple that live in South Surrey. It's just as important for the people that live in Maple Ridge and the people that live in Surrey — the people that live around the region — for them to get to their places of employment, to their offices, to their factories, as it is for me to get to mine. That's what's helping to drive this economy. That's what's helping to continue to make this a better place to live. That's what's helping us all move forward together.

It was my pleasure on just this past Friday to emcee an event which saw the 80 percent completion of the South Fraser perimeter road, with our Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure in attendance. I took advantage of that opportunity to host a meeting between the minister and my mayor, Lois Jackson. And Mayor Jackson, most people might be surprised to hear, is in 100 percent full agreement with moving forward with the referendum, because she also understands the importance to the region of having funding, proper funding, for our transit systems.

The message she provided and the sage advice she gave the minister at the time was that transit, I think we can also all agree, means different things to different people around our region. In areas of Delta, I think all we require is a few more buses, a few extra routes, a little more frequency. Vancouver has requested funding to drive a new SkyTrain line to UBC down the Broadway corridor. Thankfully, our friends in the northeast sector have funding approved, and we're moving forward with the Evergreen line.

I know some comments have been made across the aisle with regard to the governance model and the changes that were made to TransLink over the last few years. I don't know who, if anyone, in this House has ridden the Canada Line lately, but when I ride that line, it's shoulder to shoulder. It's exceptionally well-used. So whatever decision was made a few years ago to drive the Canada Line was obviously the right decision.

I have a great deal of respect for the collective intelligence of the people in this region to make the right kind of decision. I'm quite certain, as they give it the proper time and deliberation, they will conclude that spending a little extra money in order to afford to drive this economy, to move this region forward with proper transit is the right thing to do.

I'm certain, if we frame the question properly, they're going to make the right decision and they're going to support it at every level. I'm confident of that. It's just how we message it and how we move forward with the consultation, with regard to how we consult with our friends at the Mayors Council, how we consult with the community at large, to make sure that we are putting the proper perspective, the proper weight, on the proper question.

[1155]

I see my little green light is on, so I'll conclude. This region continues to grow. Despite the provincial governance model of the '90s, we continue to grow. We still require greater amounts of transit in the region, and I am fully in support of this. I can't see why we wouldn't go take this to the ultimate democracy to ask the question to the people.

J. Horgan: Noting the time, I move adjournment of the debate.

J. Horgan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House at its rising stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada