2014 Legislative Session: Second 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)

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 6, Number 1

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

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2014

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1005]

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: I have an elementary school visiting from Saanich South today: Marigold Elementary School. I'd like to welcome their teacher Mrs. Janet Langston and the 25 grade 5 students who are visiting. My legislative assistant, Teresa Scambler, let me know that she attended Marigold Elementary School a few years ago, but she forbid me to say how many years ago that actually was. Welcome, Marigold.

Tributes

BILL RITCHIE

Hon. M. de Jong: I was a 16-year-old high school student when I met an MLA for the first time. He was Bill Ritchie, and he was the MLA out in Abbotsford where I lived. There are lots of interesting stories about what transpired from there on.

I rise today to sadly announce to the House that former MLA Bill Ritchie passed away a few weeks ago. He was 87 years old. He was a two-term MLA. He served here with dignity and distinction. He became the Minister of Municipal Affairs during his second term.

He was born in Scotland and came to Canada in 1952. Really a farmer at heart, he farmed in Scotland and later here in British Columbia and established a very, very successful feed business, agrifood business. In his later years Bill lived in Qualicum Beach, where he resided at the time of his passing.

Madame Speaker, I know that you will, on behalf of members of the House, forward our condolences to his wife and his family members, and our thanks for the service that Bill Ritchie rendered to the province of British Columbia.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: I have a couple introductions to make. Firstly, joining us in the gallery from the great community of Langford and Juan de Fuca environs are a group of young people who are participating in the PATHWAY Project, funded by various entities, to provide life skills and job-training skills for people seeking to enter the workforce. Joining us are: coordinator Randy Waldie, Tara Hall, Howard Baker, Brandon Campbell-Moore, Kyle Dalon, Stephan Granger, Chris Howell-Malais, April Johnson, Anthony Keen, Alex McClellan, Driana Picard, Noel Schwartz and David Sinor. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

Also with us in the gallery today for his first question period is a new office assistant for the official opposition, someone I affectionately call the new door guy, and that's William Maartman. Would the House please make him very, very welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

TEACHERS AND EDUCATION SYSTEM

J. Shin: Now, I wasn't a believer until it happened to me: a full-on baby fever. So I'm proud to report — and, I'm sure, to my mother's relief — that I survived, in my first winter as MLA, the half a dozen Christmas concerts performed by our school gyms full of adorable children in Burnaby-Lougheed over the holidays. At every event I had the pleasure of being amongst parents shooting laser beams of love for the apples of their eyes.

For one of the shows I stayed well past its end, helping with the cleanup, and tried to catch a conversation or two with the folks. That's when I noticed a teacher keeping company of her student. Presumably the parents were running late for a pickup. Just like that, I went back to that scared child I was on my first day at school and remembered that teacher in my life. Burnaby resident, the late Beata Hittrich, former president of the multicultural society of B.C., took me under her wings.

Now, some schools in my community, like the Second Street Community School and the Armstrong Elementary School, have seen a century go by as they celebrated their centennial last fall. But be it 100 years ago when life expectancy was 47 years and people washed their hair only once a month or now in today's world where so much has changed, some things I believe in life never change, like the caring spirits of our teachers. Beata, who I hope is smiling at me from up above, will never die in my memory as others do, and I'm sure that will be the same for many of our students.

[1010]

It is with my most genuine gratitude that I recognize and thank our hard-working Burnaby school trustees, Burnaby Teachers Association and all of our educators and staff for their unseen and all too often underappreciated work for our children.

CHISHAUN HOUSING SOCIETY

Moira Stilwell: I would like to take this opportunity to tell the House about a wonderful partnership in my
[ Page 1434 ]
constituency between the Shaughnessy Heights United Church and the Chinese Canadian Activity Centre.

These two organizations have been working together since 1986 to operate the Chishaun Housing Society, an eight-storey apartment building that provides high-quality, affordable residences to low-income seniors and seniors with disabilities.

Currently this facility is home to 87 tenants. These tenants come from a variety of different backgrounds and have a diverse range of experiences. They are brought together in an environment that allows them to share and learn from each other at many community social events which are organized by their board of directors, as well as the social events committee, which is volunteer.

On February 6, I had the pleasure of attending their Chinese New Year celebration luncheon, where I had the opportunity to meet some of the wonderful tenants, hand out red lucky packets and offer my greetings for a prosperous new year.

I especially want to recognize Sue Yuen Mar and Chuck Lu, co-chairs of the Chishaun Housing Society board of directors, for the wonderful service that they helped provide.

Will the House please join me in thanking these individuals and their organizations for providing low-income seniors and seniors with disabilities with community, fellowship and a place to call home.

BEN THOMSEN AND
2014 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES

N. Macdonald: Invermere has a rich Olympic history. We often claim Manny Osborne-Paradis as one of ours and celebrate his near decade of achievement in alpine skiing, but Vancouver and Calgary also claim him. An Olympian, however, that is all Invermere is at his first Olympics as a competitor, and I want members to understand just how difficult it is to even make these games.

Ben Thomsen started up at Panorama as a two-year-old and raced on Team B.C. as a young man, but his achievement speaks more to perseverance than anything else. His path to the Olympics has been anything but easy. He has funded his own participation in NorAm competitions. Even on the World Cup circuit, he has largely paid his own way.

He only made the Olympic team with a last-minute top 15 result at the famous Kitzbühel World Cup race just prior to the Olympics. Now, the Hahnenkamm in Kitzbühel…. For those who follow downhill racing, they'll know that this is a legendary course, considered to be amongst the most difficult downhill in the World Cup circuit. Ben risked, of course, a great deal to finish with a strong result there. Last week he finished in the top 20 and was the second Canadian in the Olympic downhill.

The Olympics is about many things, but at its best, it's about a love of sport and a celebration of character. Ben epitomizes both of those things. I ask members to join me in offering our Olympic congratulations to Ben Thomsen, his family and his friends.

J. BALLAM FURNITURE

J. Martin: Members, in an era of consumer homogeneity and a handful of multinational corporate brands dominating the retail market, it's so refreshing to see small business persevering and thriving with the entrepreneurial spirit that still drives the B.C. economy.

For 60 years the Ballam family has been providing great quality furniture in Chilliwack. Leading the retail sector in the downtown core of Chilliwack's main business area, Ballam's has seen firsthand the many changes that have taken place over the decades.

Jim Ballam Sr. began working at Sears Ltd. in downtown Chilliwack at the age of 15 in 1954. Later he worked at Peacock Furniture before finally opening his own store, Chilliwack Furniture World, right downtown on Wellington Avenue.

Providing exemplary customer service was always Ballam Sr.'s greatest priority, and this was something he taught his son, Jim Ballam Jr. He said: "Treat others how you want to be treated. Don't sell people stuff they don't need or can't afford. Honesty is everything."

When Ballam Sr. retired in 1994, his son took over the store, renamed it J. Ballam Furniture and relocated across the street. A few years later Ballam Furniture expanded into the neighbouring storefront.

[1015]

After 32 years of J. Ballam Furniture, it was time for Ballam Jr.'s son, Ryan Ballam, to take on a management role in the family business, and the Bedroom Gallery, a division of Ballam Furniture, was established just down the block.

The Ballams secured a woodworking shop and private builder locally so that they could manufacture quality furniture right in Chilliwack. Having access to a variety of Canadian products, the Ballams focused on made-in-B.C. as much as possible, utilizing real wood such as the reclaimed B.C. pine beetle wood.

From the bedroom to the kitchen to the dining room to the living room, the Ballam family continues to serve their countless repeat customers, all the while supporting an economic revitalization movement in the downtown core of Chilliwack.

Thank you for the opportunity to recognize such a notable Chilliwack institution that continues to be an inspiring example of a family-owned, independent small business serving the community with such distinction.

JACK O'DELL

D. Eby: Members, Living in Vancouver–Point Grey and serving that community is a privilege every day,
[ Page 1435 ]
and the following is just one example of the remarkable people who make up this community.

During our seven-month break I was asked to attend Canadian Memorial United Church to introduce Jack O'Dell. I'd never heard his name before. I did some research and discovered that just two streets over from my place lives a community advocate and organizer of legendary status — a man who was for many years the boots on the ground for, and a close adviser to, Dr. Martin Luther King in the deep south of the United States.

Despite his years of work advancing the interests of African Americans at the grass-roots level, Mr. O'Dell is most recognized for his work as director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Inspired by Rosa Parks, founded by Dr. King and directed by Mr. O'Dell, the leadership conference was an African-American civil rights organization and was instrumental in ending the racist laws and policies of segregation in the American south during the civil rights struggle.

In 1984 Mr. O'Dell's skills and experience were again recognized in a very public way when he was appointed the senior foreign policy adviser to the Jesse Jackson for President campaign.

Following the election, he worked with Mr. Jackson as an international affairs consultant to the National Rainbow Coalition. The coalition, which lives on today, demands basic social programs, voting rights and affirmative action for minority groups in the United States.

Mr. O'Dell is now 90 years old, but don't let his age fool you. He regularly travels to visit with family and friends in the U.S., and he and his loving partner, Jane Power, are fixtures at events in our community. Far from being a fossil in a dusty museum of the historical organizers of note, Mr. O'Dell is highly active in educating the next generation of community organizers across North America through the O'Dell Center in Seattle, which bears his name.

While surely Mr. O'Dell must be recognized for his part in the civil rights victories for African Americans in the American south, he must equally be recognized for his principled stands on non-violence and peace, which remain touchstones for him and in his teachings to the next generation at the O'Dell Centre even today.

Thank you, Mr. O'Dell, for your work in contributing to a more equal and more just world for all of us. It's a privilege for me to be your MLA.

NORTH SHORE ROTARY CLUBS
AND SHELTERBOX PROJECT

R. Sultan: I want to pay tribute to the Rotary clubs of the North Shore. You all know Rotary, and many of you are members. The most impressive thing for me is Rotary's commitment to eradicate polio globally, and I believe they've come very close to achieving that very remarkable goal.

My friend Chris Loat of Rotary Sunrise in West Vancouver recently made me aware of a relatively new rotary project, ShelterBox. ShelterBoxes are those plastic storage boxes like you might pick up at Wal-Marts. They contain a tent, a stove, a groundsheet, thermal blankets, water purification systems, a hammer, a saw and a pair of pliers. Total cost is about $1,000.

Response teams, frequently Rotary volunteers, go to disaster areas and use ShelterBoxes to assist families made homeless by natural disasters or war. Recently ShelterBox assisted 4,500 families displaced by the violence in Syria. It's hard to decide whom to help. Six million people have been driven from their homes in that beleaguered country.

Recently ShelterBox assisted 7,800 families made homeless by Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. In that disaster, four million persons were made homeless.

[1020]

A North Shore News story described the dilemma of a Rotary volunteer from the North Shore who had the dilemma of trying to decide which of four families to give the last ShelterBox to. Since 2000 ShelterBox has responded to 200 disasters in 75 countries.

Thank you, Rotary; thank you, ShelterBox.

Oral Questions

BUDGET POLICIES AND FEE INCREASES

M. Farnworth: Yesterday in question period the Minister of Finance indicated that we shouldn't rely on the budget documents. So if we can't rely on the budget documents, then perhaps we can rely on the Premier, who just yesterday said she "would not be going out to taxpayers and asking them for more money."

My question for the Finance Minister is this. How is raising MSP premiums, hydro and ferry fares not taking hard-earned money out of the pockets of B.C. families?

Hon. M. de Jong: In the budget that the House will consider over the next period of weeks, we are increasing funding to health care and health care services over the next three years by $2.5 billion. That represents a 2.6 percent increase year over year for the budget.

I understand that for an opposition and a present Leader of the Opposition who set as their goal to have the highest per-capita spending on health care, that will fall far short of their expectations. We, of course, are more interested in outcomes, and we lead the nation in most of the important outcomes.

We are also asking some British Columbians to contribute a little more — $5.50 for middle- and higher-income families — on MSP premiums. For 800,000 British Columbians, they will not pay any MSP premium, and for 200,000, they will pay a significantly reduced amount. Once again, through the power of a balanced budget we
[ Page 1436 ]
are able to provide that additional relief to the people that need it most.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Yes, I do have a supplemental. Once again, we still don't know whether it's the budget documents that are accurate or the Premier's statements that are the accurate ones.

Look, it's the Premier herself who yesterday said she would not be going out to taxpayers and asking them for any more money. Yet when you read the budget documents — and I'll read them just for members of this House — exactly where additional expenses are going to be coming for British Columbia families.... They're going to pay more in MSP. They're going to pay more for hydro. They're going to pay more for ferry trips. They're going to pay more for car insurance, and if they live south of the Fraser, they're definitely going to be paying more in tolls. But for hundreds of thousands of families in this province, they're going to be paying at least $900 more of their hard-earned income to this government than they did last year.

My question again to the Minister of Finance is: how are these increases not taking money out of the pockets of B.C. families?

Hon. M. de Jong: I continue to be mightily impressed by the degree to which the Finance critic and members of the opposition appear this year to wish to rely on the budgetary documents.

I remember last year, when that was not the case. I could go through the list — the official opposition critic, the member for Cowichan Valley, the member for Stikine, the member for Vancouver-Fairview, for Surrey-Newton, for Nanaimo, for Columbia River–Revelstoke, for Victoria–Swan Lake. One by one they stood in their place and denounced the budget documents, said it wasn't a balanced budget, staked their political reputation on their statements that the budget wasn't in fact balanced. Today we know that the budget for 2013-14 is balanced.

[1025]

I know that in his subsequent supplemental the hon. Finance critic is going to stand up and fairly point out that, in the same budget documents that he is quoting from, we are providing to British Columbians through this fiscal plan an additional $650 a year through an early childhood tax credit. And I know that he is going to stand in this place and applaud sending $1,200 to a family's RESP for a young child to assist in their future education needs.

Madame Speaker: Member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: I'm going to keep my remarks to the budget, where I can either be kind or accurate. In particular, it's the Premier who seems to be wanting to stake her political reputation on saying: "We are not going to be taking any more money from taxpayers in the province of British Columbia."

Let's go back to a really clear example for the Minister of Finance. Back in 2009 a radio show host who would go on to become Premier said: "They're going to keep whacking you for MSP premiums — keep whacking you." Was she ever right, because since that time, since the Liberals have taken office, the MSP premium tax has doubled in this province.

Again to the Finance Minister: when the Premier is out publicly saying she is not asking British Columbians to pay more money, how can — to use the Premier's own words — whacking people for MSP premium increases, whacking them for ferry increases and whacking them for hydro rate increases not be taking hard-earned money out of their pockets and whacking their families even harder?

Hon. M. de Jong: One of the myriad of improvements that have taken place in the budgeting process since the hon. member and a few of his colleagues have sat on this side of the House is that we actually publish with the budget a three-year fiscal plan. We did that last year, and we did that the year ahead. So it is apparently a revelation to the hon. member that there is for some British Columbians an increase in MSP premiums — and there is — of up to $5.50 a month for certain families in a certain income bracket.

Since this government took office, the budget for health care has increased from $8 billion to now $17 billion, and MSP premiums account for just under 12 percent of that amount. Now, I understand that in the dreamland, the spend-o-meter world of the opposition, that money arrives magically and mythically and grows on some money tree that I have yet to discover here in Victoria. This government knows and is forthright with British Columbians about the fact that health care is publicly funded but is not free. That's the road to securing a prosperous future for all British Columbians.

J. Darcy: Madame Speaker, I'd like to talk about this….

Madame Speaker: Excuse me, Member. The Chair needs to hear the question and the answer.

I recognize the member for New Westminster.

J. Darcy: I guess you only do that once, Madame Speaker.

MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN PREMIUMS

J. Darcy: I'd like to return to this year's budget. The
[ Page 1437 ]
Finance Minister has said, as my colleagues have noted, that he did not want us in the opposition to rely exclusively on the budget documents. But in the interests of ensuring that British Columbians have a full and complete understanding of what's in this budget, I have a very simple question.

[1030]

Can the minister confirm the accuracy of the figures on page 15 which show that the Liberals are taking an additional $721 million from the pockets of hard-working British Columbians for the medical services tax?

Hon. M. de Jong: Look, if the member is embarking upon an intensive cross-examination to seek an admission from me that for families above a certain income bracket there will be an increase in medical services premiums of $5.50 a month, success for the hon. member. That is taking place — as, by the way, was signalled in Budget 2013, as was signalled in Budget 2012.

The costs associated with administering our health care system…. By the way, the member, given her background, is particularly well placed to understand the cost pressures associated with our publicly funded health care system, or at least she should be.

We are providing support, because we can, to families with young children, who will be receiving an additional $650 a year through the yearly child tax credit. We are providing additional funding to those members of our society who need the most help, and we are providing, starting next year, $1,200 to help families support the skills and educational training needs of their kids. We can do it because of sound fiscal planning, expenditure control and a strong, growing economy.

J. Darcy: The Finance Minister refers to cross-examination, but in fact he didn't answer the question, and, as far as I know, this issue is not before the courts.

In February of 2012 the Premier told British Columbians that increases in medical services taxes would be "in line with increases in the Health budget." Then that promise was broken when the tax increase outpaced the spending increase, and now we see that in January 2015 the medical services tax will increase by another 4 percent while health spending is rising by just 2.6 percent.

Now, I know that the minister does not want to rely or does not want us to rely on the accuracy of the budget documents, but can he confirm that the budget documents are accurate enough to tell us that the promise the Premier broke last year is being broken once again in this year's budget?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure what part of my earlier answer the hon. member didn't understand when I acknowledged, admitted, conceded that for many British Columbians and many British Columbia families there will be an additional MSP premium cost.

The amounts are quantified and contained within the budget documents. I'm thrilled beyond belief that the member has actually gotten to read at least one page of those documents. I encourage her to read the remainder, because it's a pretty good story. While I'm at it, I encourage her to read what people are saying across Canada about the strength of British Columbia leading the way in terms of prudent fiscal management of the people's moneys. That's the reputation that we have earned in British Columbia, that's what people across Canada are saying, and British Columbians are proud of it.

[1035]

S. Hammell: A tax increase has occurred, and the Premier has been misleading the people of the province — straight up, right out of the Finance Minister's mouth. Yesterday the Finance Minister also called into question his own budget documents. So we want to see that these numbers are accurate.

According to the budget documents, the medical service tax provides the fourth-largest source of money from taxes to the government coffers. The number is a staggering $2.271 billion. Can the minister confirm the accuracy not only of the tax increase but of that number?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the member appreciates that I am trying to be as forthcoming as possible about a document that the government is incredibly proud of: a fiscal plan that is balanced — was balanced this year; will be balanced next year and two years out.

I think I just indicated earlier in the discourse…. It probably means that the member can't rely on the script to the extent that she wants to, but I acknowledged a few moments ago that we rely upon MSP premiums to pay for about 12 percent of a health care budget that is over $17 billion and for increases to the health care budget that over the next three years will be $2.5 billion.

At some point during this exchange…. I live in eternal hope that one member of the opposition will say…. I look to this moment with a never-ending feeling of anticipation that they will stand up and do something that they refused to do during an entire four-week campaign and talk about how they would fund the incredible increases in health care costs that have taken place presently and will continue to take place — in the case of this fiscal plan, a 2.6 percent increase and 2.5 billion additional dollars.

Madame Speaker: Member for Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: According to the budget documents, individuals are paying $864 a year in medical premiums — medical service taxes. Families are paying $1,738 a year. In both cases that's double the amount they were paying in 2001. Since the Liberals started, in the Premier's ver-
[ Page 1438 ]
nacular, whacking taxpayers with increases to medical service taxes, British Columbians have paid $6.3 billion more for it. How can the Finance Minister reconcile that with the Premier's broken promise that she would not raise taxes?

Hon. M. de Jong: It must be disconcerting to the hon. member to know, to realize, that in May of last year British Columbians had a detailed, quantified fiscal plan upon which they could rate not just the government's performance but our plans into the future.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member from Columbia, who I'm sure will get an opportunity from his House Leader to stand up and repeat what he just said, will get an opportunity to stand up and say: "It wasn't laid out in the fiscal plan."

[1040]

Madame Speaker, it was in the fiscal plan. It was before British Columbians when they were asked to make a decision about who was going to govern this province. You know what? If they'd had something to compare it to, it might have been a tougher choice for them, but the opposition members didn't put anything in their fiscal plan about what they were going to do with health care spending.

I'm sure it's disconcerting for the hon. member to know that British Columbians looked at the plan, understood it, understood the pressures that exist for health care spending, and they made a choice. They chose a responsible, balanced approach to managing the people's money.

TROPHY HUNTING AND POPULATION
STATUS OF GRIZZLY BEARS

A. Weaver: I just wish to change topic for a second and give the Minister of Finance a break. My question is posed to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

British Columbia is blessed to be home of the world's largest pristine coastal temperate forest, the Great Bear rainforest. Tourists flock there every year from around the world to watch grizzly bears in their natural habitat.

Unfortunately, this iconic species is also subject to trophy killing. Twice a year a few wealthy foreigners, predominantly from the U.S., fly into the forest to shoot bears, cut off their heads and leave the bodies to rot. This so-called sport has been banned by nine coastal First Nations and is opposed by nearly 90 percent of British Columbians and, importantly, 95 percent of hunters.

Can the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations please tell the House precisely how many grizzly bears there are left in the Great Bear rainforest?

Hon. S. Thomson: I acknowledge that the member opposite comes from a different place on this particular issue than we do on this side of the House. Our approach to wildlife management, to hunting in British Columbia, is based on a long history of best available science, based on an approach that hunting is an important part of population management and conservation in British Columbia.

The decisions are based on best available science, are based on conservative estimates of human mortality, are based on conservative estimates — deliberately conservative estimates — of regular mortality for species. That's not just for grizzly bears. That's for all species in the province.

Madame Speaker, 58 percent of the territory of the coastal First Nations is closed to grizzly bear hunting. There are about 2,000 bears in the Great Bear rainforest, of which less than 1 percent, 13, are hunted.

Madame Speaker: Member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: I would argue, as clearly indicated, that we actually have no idea how many grizzly bears there are in the Great Bear rainforest, let alone elsewhere in British Columbia. Fortunately, however, in the case of the former, a coalition of nine First Nations, scientists and environmental groups have been undertaking fieldwork on bear populations, breeding habits and the impacts of trophy killing.

Here's what we do know. In the Great Bear rainforest bear viewing generates 12 times more in visitor spending than bear killing — over 11 times the direct revenue for British Columbia's provincial government. Bear viewing also generates 50 times the number of jobs as trophy killing. And forest companies and environmental groups have reached a historic agreement on the preservation of the Great Bear rainforest.

In light of the evidence I've provided, would the government support an immediate moratorium on trophy killing of grizzly bears in the Great Bear rainforest?

Hon. S. Thomson: Firstly, I want to acknowledge the member opposite's reference to the agreement that's been reached between environmental organizations and the forest industry in the Great Bear rainforest. I think that's something that we can all celebrate — that very, very important step. We look forward to continuing to work with both the industry, those organizations and First Nations in the implementation of that very, very historic, important agreement.

I think the important point to make here is that this is not about either-or. This is about the important contribution that bear viewing and tourism make. It's also
[ Page 1439 ]
about the important contribution that hunting makes to this province — $360 million annually.

[1045]

This is not about one or the other. This is about making sure that we manage populations based on science, as I pointed out, based on conservation principles, to ensure that we create that appropriate balance, and that's what we'll continue to do.

In our population units for grizzly bears, wherever those populations are at risk, we don't allow hunting. That's the case in many of the population units in British Columbia currently. If the populations are at risk, we will not allow hunting in those population units.

TUITION FEES

D. Eby: In the next three years students and their parents will be forced to pay an additional $350 million for tuition fee increases, while young people already struggle to pay for their education. The Finance Minister says that we can't rely on his budget documents. Maybe that would explain why, even though this government said in its throne speech that it was committing to skills training, it's cutting post-secondary funding in this budget.

Can the minister please clarify whether the budget documents are correct, where they outline $350 million more from students for the tuition tax?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope there's no doubt in the minds of this member or members opposite. Not only do we endorse the data — the numbers, the projections, the figures in this document; we're proud of them. We're proud of them.

We're proud of the fact that unlike so many other governments across this country, we have had the discipline and the foresight to make tough decisions that have positioned us to take British Columbia forward into a prosperous future that respects the taxpayer and refuses to download operating debt on future generations. That's what distinguishes us from virtually every other jurisdiction in the country.

Just for the member's information, it's also what allows us to invest billions upon billions of dollars in improving post-secondary education facilities in British Columbia while maintaining a triple-A credit rating.

Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: This minister and his government are proud of making life less affordable for families. In fact, this government has failed for 13 years to help make tuition more affordable for British Columbians. In fact, a student in school today is paying $2,300 more for their education every year than they were in 2001. At the same time, this government is freezing support for student assistance.

To the minister, how does this government expect students and their parents to make ends meet when tuition is going up while post-secondary education is cut?

Hon. M. de Jong: I realize that this member, representing the area he does, living where he does, may not realize or want to acknowledge that one of the steps this government has taken over the last almost 13 years is to expand the number of post-secondary institutions, expand the number of universities that are available to students in British Columbia so that they can go to school where they live.

We have expanded the opportunity that students in British Columbia have to have debt associated with their education written off, if they agree to provide services in certain areas of the province of British Columbia — a loan forgiveness program that has dramatically expanded from where it was in 2001.

BUDGET POLICIES AND FEE INCREASES

J. Horgan: The minister talks about tough decisions. I'm wondering how tough it was to take $2 billion out of people's pockets — individuals, small businesses, large industrial employers, schools, hospitals — for increases in hydro rates, a 28 percent rate increase. That's a tough decision? I don't think so. That's tough for families. That's tough for the people of B.C.

[1050]

My question is a simple one. When she was sworn in as Premier, the Premier said: "Where are we in terms of the total burden of cost that government puts on citizens? When you add in MSP premiums, hydro rates and the many other costs, where are we at?" The Premier had a very good question. We've been posing that question since we started question period today.

Where are we at, Minister, on the "no new taxes," on the hydro rate increases, ferry fare increases, MSP premiums, tuition increases? They keep going up and up, and you're denying it. Tell us the truth.

Hon. M. de Jong: Happily, I can answer the member's question by referring him directly to those same budget documents that he and his colleagues love so much.

First of all, we continue to have the lowest personal income tax rates in the country for anyone earning under $120,000. To the member's specific question, for a single individual earning $80,000, factoring in….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, if the members don't want the answer…. I understand they're hesitant to hear the answer.

When you factor in not just income tax but property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, net carbon tax, health care pre-
[ Page 1440 ]
miums, British Columbians are at No. 1 in terms of competitiveness across Canada. For a senior couple earning $30,000, taking all of those additional cost pressures into account, we are No. 2 in Canada.

I adore the fact that members opposite have accepted the budget document that we've tabled. I urge them to consult it and help us spread the news about how competitive British Columbia is right across Canada.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report on Oversight of Physician Services.

Reports from Committees

Hon. M. de Jong: I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee of Selection for the second session of the 40th parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I ask leave for the House to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Madame Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I'm going to ask the Opposition House Leader…. I normally read the names of the committee members into the record. I'm happy to do so, or we can distribute the report.

J. Horgan: We can distribute it.

Hon. M. de Jong: Very good. I'm content, then.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, continued debate on the budget.

[1055]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

S. Hammell: I rise to respond to the budget. As the Minister of Finance mentioned in his speech introducing this 2014 budget, the years since the 2008 financial meltdown have been very, very difficult for families in this province. It has also been a long 12 years for families, compounded by the financial meltdown.

After that brief acknowledgment of reality, the Finance Minister went on to congratulate himself and his government for their handling of this economic crisis. Since then we have heard the members opposite congratulate themselves ad nauseam.

Congratulations for the government are not what I'm hearing from the families in Surrey–Green Timbers. Instead, I hear about how this government stands in the way of people who are trying to create better lives or rebuild from the effects of the recession.

This budget is making ordinary British Columbian families pay more and get less. Clearly, they're paying more in hydro, in MSP, in ferries, in a whole range of services, and they are getting less.

For the sixth year in a row, the government is hitting British Columbians with an increase in the medical service premiums. This regressive tax hits British Columbians with limited incomes especially hard. Hon. Speaker, if you think about it it's a regressive tax, meaning that a person who has significant wealth or makes a significant income pays the same amount as an ordinary person cashing you out at your drugstore. It is a regressive tax. It takes from ordinary families as viciously as it does from other members of our community.

[1100]

A regressive tax is not a tax that we want to be increasing, and this tax is increasing every single year. Compared to what they paid in 2013 and '14, MSP rates will go up by $66 in '14-15, $132 in 2015 and '16, and $2,002 in 2016 and '17. Over those three years, they'll pay $400 more because of MSP hikes. Over the life of the three-year fiscal plan families will pay and pay and pay for this tax.

The Finance Minister talks about having low personal income tax, but he doesn't talk about the impact that this tax has on people. The tax goes up 4 percent in January 2015 and another 4 percent in January 2016. Yet two factors operate outside that. The Health budget is only going up by 2.6 percent in this budget, and the Premier promised that the increase in the MSPs would not be greater than the increase in the Health budget. Since the Liberals have come into power in 2001, they have doubled MSP premiums, now the fourth-largest source of revenue for the government.

Coming after personal income tax, corporate tax and sales tax, then there's MSP. MSP premiums bring in almost $2.3 billion in revenue to the government from
[ Page 1441 ]
British Columbians, and the government is planning to take another $721 million more from MSP over the next three years — $2.27 billion in 2014-15, $2.39 billion in 2015 and '16, and $2.52 billion in 2016 and '17. When the Liberals took office…. In March 31, 2014, they will have taken $6.3 billion from British Columbia in MSP premiums, medical service taxes, and it will be $7.3 billion by the end of next fiscal year.

B.C. is the only province to have such a tax, as other provinces pay for health care out of general tax revenue. B.C.'s MSP is styled as an individual health care insurance premium, but it's really a regressive head or poll tax, charged at a fixed price regardless of income — except, of course, that there is low-income relief for low-income British Columbians. Alberta eliminated its health care premium on January 1, 2009, and Ontario has a progressive payroll tax–style system.

I think the issue here is actually, at the heart of it, the regressive tax. To think that very ordinary people…. People perhaps on minimum wage or people with dual-income families that are trying to get by, based on low incomes, would pay as much as we pay here in the House or as other people with significant wealth pay. That just isn't fair.

[1105]

Almost $400 more in increases — in fact, $477 more — because of these rate hikes. Sorry. It's $400 in MSPs, but the $477 is hydro. You have $400 in MSP, and you have $477 in hydro. The government says it's not raising taxes, but if you follow the hand in the back pocket, you will see that there is money coming out of ordinary families to the tax man, into government's coffers.

If you look at that and think…. Okay. You've got 4 percent in 2015, 4 percent in 2016. You have an increase in the health budget of 2.6. And you have families not getting a yearly 4 percent increase in their income. So the families are being squeezed. They're being squeezed by hydro, and they're being squeezed by MSP premiums.

The budget in itself will be…. If you call a budget balanced that takes from Peter to pay Paul, then you can be confident that there is a shell game going on here and the budget looks to be balanced.

The budget will also take money thanks to major hikes in B.C. Hydro rates. This year the rates are going up 9 percent. I just heard the Finance Minister say that everyone on that side is proud of this budget. It's going up 9 percent in hydro — 4 percent in premiums, 9 percent in hydro. No one, on the government side anyway…. None of the negotiations that the government is carrying on are giving their workers a 4 percent increase or a 9 percent increase.

Compared to what they paid in 2013-14, the average B.C. Hydro customer will pay $96 more in 2014-15, $166 more in 2015-16 and $215 more in 2016 and '17. So you have a budget that takes money from Hydro and then hikes up the hydro fees for people getting hydro by 9 percent.

You're not being straight up when you take money from Hydro — $477 over the period of three years — put it in the budget…. You hike the prices of hydro for all of the customers, put it in the budget and then say you're not increasing taxes. It doesn't make sense, and it's a sleight of hand.

B.C. Hydro rates are rising to cover the cost of the sweetheart deal the Liberals gave their friends in the private-power industry. They have locked us into contracts where we are buying power from private sources for more than we can sell it.

What a mess. You've got hydro rates rising. You've got the government taking money from Hydro. They've got hidden debts of over $4.8 billion in at least 18 deferral accounts and in accounts that…. The Auditor General concluded that it created the appearance of profitability for Hydro where none actually exists.

You have a Crown corporation that's been raided in terms of deferral accounts. You have a Crown corporation that has gone over budget in terms of a transmission line. You've got a Crown corporation that's had to pay $750 million in another account. Then the government goes back into that Crown corporation and takes money and puts it over in their budget to balance their budget. So they take money from Hydro to balance their budget, and then they increase hydro fees and say they are not increasing taxes. It's unbelievable.

[1110]

It's a classic. You borrow from Peter to pay Paul. You borrow from Hydro, drive them into further debt, to put money in the budget to hide your deficit. Kiting. It's a shell game. It's unbelievable.

How much are we borrowing? We borrow $2 billion, and then we hike up the rates $2 billion.

It's a mess. I mean, anybody looking at Hydro and looking at how Hydro has been managed over the last number of years would say that it's an absolute classic example of mismanagement. More debt. More debt because of a policy of buying private power, cannot sell the power at what we can produce the power, overruns in transmission lines, and on it goes. Then the government says, "We're going to take $2 billion from Hydro, put it over here in our budget and then raise hydro rates $2 billion to the ordinary people of B.C.," and then says: "We're not raising taxes." It's unbelievable.

The list goes on, though. If you go into transportation…. I'm particularly sensitive to transportation, living in Surrey, where often it's gridlocked. But we do have another legacy — a proud legacy, I imagine — from the Premier and the Liberal government. We have new, expensive toll bridges that are not well utilized and are therefore not meeting financial targets. The Golden Ears and the new Port Mann bridges are not meeting revenue targets, the revenue targets needed to cover their construction and the maintenance budgets.
[ Page 1442 ]

What can one expect when most construction budgets of this Liberal government have been massively over budget? I digress. I'll come back.

When the government doubled the tolls on the Port Mann Bridge this year to $3 a trip, drivers avoided those tolls by driving through Surrey to get to the Pattullo Bridge and then through New Westminster neighbourhoods. It's a mess. The trucks on the 70-plus-year-old Pattullo Bridge have increased dramatically as they've left the Port Mann to find a cheaper route.

It may be a foreign concept to this government, but you need the cooperation of the people you are governing to make something work, and you need to consult them, as old-fashioned as that concept may be.

If you take a look at a sister city down just south of us, in Seattle they are in the process over digging a tunnel to replace a roadway in front of their harbour. But they have consulted and consulted and consulted, revised their opinion, gone back to the people and consulted — until they came up with a toll that people accepted and knew they could manage, and one that would not cause rat-running.

But do we do that? No, we just come in with the toll, and whatever we say is good enough. We don't consult. We don't talk to the people who are using the bridge. For the average family to go across that bridge to go to work, it is $1,800 a year in increased taxes.

You can say as much as you want that there is no increase in taxes, but when you've added $400 for MSP premiums, $477 for hydro and now another $1,800 to cross the Port Mann Bridge, then you've got a tax increase. That is a huge amount of money for ordinary people who are trying to just get over this recession, get over some of the taxes and hardships that have been coming to them.

Transit users also faced increases last year. Again, the proud legacy of this Liberal government — what a mess transit is. It has a governance structure that is dysfunctional. It has no elected people clearly responsible. There is now some attempt or foreshadowing of changing that.

[1115]

The whole transit system is locked in gridlock. The governance structure — the way to get through to creating a transit system in the Lower Mainland and throughout this province that works and serves the people that it's supposed to — has proven to be extremely difficult for this government. Now we are frozen, waiting for a referendum that may come this fall or may not come this fall, that may come in the future — a transit governance system that may be changed or may be something different. Perhaps one that actually works would be in order.

I just think it's a tragedy. Twelve years you've had to figure out transit so that you could support building an amazing city and suburbs in the Vancouver area. A key component of it must be a functioning, credible transit system. It's amazing, just amazing. What a mess.

We have a mess at hydro. We have a mess at transit. Every construction project that this government has ever touched has gone overboard.

Interjection.

S. Hammell: Just because we've got your attention, let's…. The Vancouver Convention Centre. Just because you are new, you probably need to remember this. The Vancouver Convention Centre was $341 million over budget. The B.C. Place roof escalated costs by $414 million.

On one hand, $340 million over budget for the convention centre, and $414 million in escalated costs for a roof to go over B.C. Place.

The Port Mann Bridge. The estimate was $1.5 billion. Everybody agreed: "It's $1.5 billion. Build that bridge." The final cost — $3.3 billion, $1.8 billion in overruns. So $1.8 billion.

These are the people that are the magic managers. They know how to do everything. They know how to create overruns. My gosh, $341 million in a convention centre, $414 million in a roof and $1.8 billion overrun in the Port Mann Bridge.

And the south perimeter road, $469 million over budget. The 2006 estimate — $800 million. "We'll build it for $800 million." Final cost — $1.269 billion.

Well done. What a legacy. Everything you build, you run over. It's just astonishing.

Not only do you set a budget and run over it, but you then take money from Hydro to cover your own deficit. Then you jack up the prices in hydro for people. It is actually shocking. You drive up the cost of hydro for people, you put it over here in your budget, and then you say: "We don't raise taxes." Unbelievable.

Deputy Speaker: I remind the member to direct her comments through the Chair, please.

S. Hammell: What a mess. We've got a mess in transit; we've got a mess in hydro; we've got a mess in our transportation system. Hon. Speaker, I'm sure there's something that's great going on, but it's just hard to find.

Education. There's another mess. Two bills. Two bills that were unconstitutional. You put bills in this House that were unconstitutional. One you get, right? Okay, you didn't know. In 2002, you didn't know it was unconstitutional.

Deputy Speaker: I'll remind the member we're currently….

S. Hammell: But my god, you put another one in that was just as unconstitutional, and the courts threw them both out. Shocking.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we're currently debating
[ Page 1443 ]
the budget.

S. Hammell: Pardon?

Deputy Speaker: If you can move your comments back to the budget, please.

[1120]

S. Hammell: I think that the education discussion is actually quite relevant to the budget, because you've had a court case that is suggesting — and it's the talk of the town — that there may be extra money needed for a settlement, in terms of the teachers, because this budget has certainly not anticipated the obligation that this government will have for having put in this House two bills that were unconstitutional. There is a consequence to that, and there's a budgetary consequence to that.

So where we had an education system that had, as its centrepiece, reasonable class sizes with strong support for special needs kids, we now have none of that in this budget. And if that's a legacy you're proud of, well done, because these are the kids of our future, and we are not supporting them in the way they need. And that is a deficit — a deficit that we will see for years to come.

Can you imagine? For ten years, this government has not provided the support that was bargained for in terms of the education system.

Not only is the education system in difficulty…. In Surrey we have a growing population with many families that depend on that public education system.

And it's not only the public education system. We understood from the throne speech that there would be support, money, for skills training. But there has been a cut of $105 million over three years of this fiscal plan. How is that supposed to help young people in Surrey and elsewhere?

No doubt — because of the cuts contained in this budget — those students will have to pay higher tuition fees to continue their education. Higher education has become…. You know, on the other side you can deny, deny, deny, but higher education has become extremely and increasingly unaffordable for average British Columbians.

Not only has it become unaffordable, but it has become inaccessible. The grade point average is so high that it's hard for regular kids to get into post-secondary, because there's a lack of spaces. This government has not kept up, through their budget, to those spaces needed in this province for post-secondary.

Hon. Speaker, this is the next really proud legacy that this government is going to brag about. The compounded increase in tuition fees forecasted over the next fiscal plan is $350 million. The increase in the average tuition fees from 2001-02 to 2013-14 is $2,564. That's an increase of 104 percent. The average student debt in B.C. is the highest in Canada.

You know, you can deny, deny, deny, but these are the facts. This is your legacy: the highest student debt…

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

S. Hammell: …in all of Canada. That's your legacy. That's what you're proud of. That's what this budget is talking about.

The interest rate in this budget is 2.5 percent plus prime. Interest rates on B.C. student loans are the highest in Canada. That's your legacy. That's what you're proud of.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please, Member.

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, through you, that's what the Liberal government is proud of.

It's interesting, also, in that B.C. students are the most stressed about their financial situation in all of Canada — the highest debt in Canada, the highest student loans, the most stressed. No doubt.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the member for Surrey–Green Timbers has the floor.

Proceed, Member.

[1125]

S. Hammell: In Surrey we have a lot of children. In fact, we have more children per capita than any other city in the province. A growing number of our younger children are going to school in portables, and they are trying to learn in larger classes imposed by this government. There is little hope, because in this budget, there is very little change — very little increase in spending for our schools. There is, in effect, a cut to education.

The spending increases for our schools are less than 1 percent a year over the next three years. Even before this budget, B.C. schools have the lowest per-student funding in Canada. The sad fact is that this will continue to be a reality. Again, this is the legacy. I mean, I'm just amazed. The government is proud to be the lowest funding.

For the past 13 years students in schools in B.C. have had to pursue their studies, despite funding cuts, larger classes and the government's conflict with teachers. Again, as I said, despite being admonished twice by the courts for its treatment of students, this government intends to press on with its misguided education policies.

Recently, the Minister of Education announced that he would appeal the recent ruling of the B.C. Supreme Court against this government. Apparently, 12 years of conflict isn't enough. We'll bring on another couple of years. Let's do another couple of years in conflict.

Now, this budget confirms the government will continue their signature education policy — shortchanging students and their families and having conflict with the
[ Page 1444 ]
teachers.

One of the amazing things in Surrey is that….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

S. Hammell: Oh, is time up? Hon. Speaker, thank you very much.

Hon. D. McRae: I am resuming my place in the budget debate. I thank the member opposite for her words. I think her timing is impeccable. She finishes just in time to leave this chamber to watch the overtime with Canada and United States in the gold-medal hockey game. Well done on timing. So cross your fingers. We're doing well.

Now, yesterday I was speaking about how the budget was going to be beneficial for children in my community and focused basically on the Comox Valley. Today I would like to bring it back to the ministry that I'm honoured to serve.

The members in this chamber may remember that last June I was appointed as Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation. I would like to take just a brief second to say thank you to the ministerial office staff in this building who make my job so much easier.

I would like to say thank you to Ina Gjoka, Valerie McKnight, Ed Sem, Lisa Leslie and Joan Dick. They work very, very hard not just for my benefit but for the benefit of all British Columbians. I know they've worked hard for MLAs on both sides of the House when there are questions and concerns that are raised. They try to find answers very quickly, and I'm very impressed with their ability to assist.

Now, in the ten months, I have had many opportunities to learn this file. I think one of the most the most rewarding opportunities I had was in September through November. It was Community Living Month.

My staff tricked me a little bit. They started Community Living Month a couple weeks before and ended it a week later. So their Community Living Month went seven weeks. But it is so important for the government of British Columbia to leave the Lower Mainland, leave Victoria, leave these chambers and make sure we are accessible to all British Columbians.

In Community Living Month I was so pleased to be able to visit communities large and small across this province. I was able to visit places like Prince Rupert, Terrace and Smithers; up north to places like Fort St. John and Dawson Creek; to the east where we had the opportunities to visit Invermere, Cranbrook and Kimberley; and of course, the Okanagan, Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island were visited as well.

[1130]

During those visits we were able to meet with persons with disabilities, their families, advocacy groups, CLBC employees, and Social Development and Social Innovation office staff. I must say that it was very rewarding, and I was most impressed both with the individuals and their advocacy and also with the individuals who work for CLBC and Social Development and Social Innovation. They work very hard on sometimes trying files, and they want to make sure people are treated with the utmost of dignity and respect. They are the strength of this ministry, and I really do appreciate it.

It is within this ministry that we ensure that vulnerable British Columbians are well supported. The government's plan to balance the budget means that we must make tough but reasoned spending choices so that each dollar is directed where it is needed most. I know this is not always easy. I also know that these tough decisions are sometimes necessary to protect the public services so important to all British Columbians.

In these challenging times we know there must be a balance between the interests of taxpayers and the needs of low-income British Columbians. At the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation we remain committed to providing responsive, innovative and integrated social services to British Columbians who need this assistance. That is why we are putting more than $2.5 billion towards providing assistance for individuals and families in need this year.

While the Minister of Finance in his words talked about, basically, making sure that we were returning to a balanced budget, we were able to do so but also have a small budget increase of more than $43 million more than last year, which will help us assist those individuals who are most in need. I am so pleased that we continue to grow this economy to make sure that there are these supports for those individuals who need them the most.

Now, as part of this commitment, we intend to do everything possible to improve services to people receiving assistance. Policy reforms have been well underway since 2012, with the introduction of a suite of balanced changes, and this will continue.

For those who are looking for examples, two examples come to mind and are very well received. I have had nothing but compliments for ministers before me who helped bring it through. For example, they increased earnings exemptions for persons with disabilities to $800 a month. This allows them the opportunity to work a little bit more and make sure there are some moneys in their pockets and to still retain their benefits.

As well, we are piloting a program with annualizing your earnings. For some individuals with disabilities, either employment is not available all year long, or perhaps employment is not something they are able to work at 12 months in a row. There may be circumstances that preclude them from this. So it's an opportunity to make sure that if they are working, there is more money being kept in their pockets.

A responsible budget means that we're sure we're helping improve financial outcomes for the vulnerable individuals and their families while providing the right
[ Page 1445 ]
supports for people who need to get back into the workforce. For people who can work, be self-sufficient and contribute to communities, we are also committed to help. We want to help individuals find and keep a job.

This ministry is committed to investing $310 million in employment and labour market services, of which more than $280 million will be covered by the federal government. We have 85 Work B.C. employment service centres across the province. We have provided employment supports and services to more than 128,000 individuals since launching our new employment program in April of 2012.

Consistently, between 40 and 50 percent of people who have completed case management services have found a job. This is very encouraging. It speaks to the fact that the program is working, that people are finding the supports they need and that they are joining the ranks of taxpaying British Columbians in helping to build the strong economy and secure their tomorrow for themselves and their families.

We are also encouraging other growing possibilities offered by social innovation. We will continue to raise awareness of its potential to make a difference by leveraging resources from business, government and non-profits to take on some of the social challenges of our time. Government understands its role extends beyond raising awareness, and it is working to develop tools this sector can use to do its work.

I was so pleased last summer to see the creation of the community consultation company, a C3, as an example of this such tool. Already 11 companies are registered, and we know more are considering. In this province we know we can be innovative. We also know that we can create partnerships.

Social innovation is a new and growing sector of opportunity for British Columbians, and government fully intends to continue to engage and ensure that it keeps its position as a leader in Canada and its position to be a North American leader in social innovation as well.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware and I'm sure many people in this chamber are aware, for people with a disability and their families, this year is going to be a very significant year in British Columbia. We are currently holding public consultations until March 11. In fact, as we leave this chamber this evening, in Fort St. John there is another community consultation going on.

[1135]

For the two people in British Columbia who are watching my budget response speech instead of the gold-medal hockey overtime game, I do encourage you, if you live in the north, to take the opportunity to participate not only in the public consultation in your community but also to participate either on line, by phone or by mail or to get a workbook and have a group of individuals in their communities come together. Make sure that we have a really robust conversation that actually highlights areas that we can prove support persons with disabilities going forward.

It's an opportunity for people with disabilities, their families and communities to come together and discuss what can be done to remove barriers and increase accessibility in British Columbia. The results from this session, along with the other in-person and on-line results, will be the foundation for a white paper document that will be shared at a provincial summit later this year.

While I don't have yesterday's numbers in front of me, I must say that we are pushing 20,000 people who have visited the site on line. The number of consultations that I have attended in person have been incredibly well-attended. Many times we were at capacity, with a waiting list at the door.

I thank members on both sides of the House who are encouraging members in their community to come out and participate in this consultation. I know the member for Nelson-Creston has been to them. I know on our side of the table that I have had members from the Fraser Valley, and I've had members from Prince George. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour has attended two. It has been an incredibly great opportunity for MLAs on both sides of this House to make sure they are aware of some of the challenges facing persons with disabilities and how we as MLAs and we as government can serve them better.

I do want to say thank you for making time in their schedules to go to these so-important consultations. It means a lot to this ministry, and it definitely means a lot to the persons-with-disabilities community.

In fact, this type of consultation on issues faced by people with disabilities has never been done before in British Columbia. It's a chance for British Columbians to drive the change, and we've had a phenomenal response as we go through the process.

I want to remind individuals in this chamber and beyond that the consultation will end on March 11. It is important, whether it is an in-person consultation or on line, that you make sure your submission is received by Social Innovation and Social Development before March 11.

We'll then use the time afterwards to craft a white paper which we will then release to the public, and we will talk about the results in a summit in June. A lot of hard work is being put forward by persons with disabilities, their families, their advocacy groups, the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation, and I want to be sure that we have as much consultation and input as possible from across all corners of this province.

We are also fully committed to improving supports for people with developmental disabilities and their families. Government and CLBC continue to pursue implementation of the recommendations made in the deputy minister's review.

The ministry recently launched an integrated service model called the services to adults with developmental
[ Page 1446 ]
disabilities initiative to better support people with developmental disabilities as they move through life transitions. This model helps people navigate the system during periods of transition, such as youth to adulthood. There will be four pilot programs around the province of British Columbia.

Later this year we will start a fifth one, where we'll talk about individuals transitioning from what we'll call, say, working or volunteer age to retirement age. It puts the person with a developmental disability at the centre of assessments and planning. The model is being tested at pilot sites around the province for the next 18 months. This process supports a sustainable and long-term strategy to strength supports for people with developmental disabilities and the services they rely on.

As well, I'm sure many of the members opposite and on our side were able to notice in the budget document that Community Living B.C.'s 2014 total operating budget, which includes contributions from the British Columbia government, is $827 million for 2014-2015. This is up from last year's budget of $792 million. This is an investment that's so important to help this group of our society. We can do this because we are growing the economy, and we are looking after those individuals who need our help the most.

Now, by providing temporary help to those who can work and longer-term aid to those who, through disability or other barriers, have a more difficult time working or who cannot work, our government is ensuring the needs of all British Columbians are being respected.

I am so pleased to stand in this chamber and say that I support this budget. It meets the test of helping families and children — like I have, like the Minister of Transportation beside me has — who will one day go off and pursue post-secondary opportunities, who will want to raise their family, will want to work in British Columbia. It will help make sure that the choices we make today will not make sacrifices for those down in the future.

I'm also so pleased to say that this budget recognizes the importance of ministries on the human services side like Social Development and Social Innovation, which provide services and supports for those people who so sorely need them.

It is with great pride that I stand in this chamber and commit to support Budget 2014-2015.

[1140]

D. Eby: It's a privilege to be able to rise in the House today and to speak on behalf of the residents of Vancouver–Point Grey in response to the budget. I'll be addressing the critic area that I have, which is Advanced Education, colleges and universities, and the impact of this budget on that area, as well as specific issues that have been brought forward to me from my constituents — areas that they're concerned about that are not addressed in this budget, and which will explain why I will not be supporting this budget. I won't be supporting the budget that the government is putting forward.

The reasons are, I think, best illustrated in my critic area — why I think that everybody in this House should be questioning the strategy around training the next generation of British Columbians for the jobs of the future. We all know the statistic that 79 percent of those jobs are going to require a certificate, a degree, a diploma, and that the best thing we can do for the next generation of British Columbians is to give them the opportunity to learn the skills they need for the jobs of the future.

I heard the Minister of Advanced Education rise in this House the other day and say that he visited with the presidents of every publicly funded school in British Columbia. If he had, I know he would have heard the same message that I heard from these same presidents when I visited with them. That message was quite simple: if you cut the block funding of universities and colleges again in this budget — which this government has done; $109 million over the next three years — if you cut that budget again, services are going to suffer.

When I talked to students at these schools, they said to me: "We can't even get the courses we require in a four-year program to complete that four-year program in four years because they're not offered, because the schools can't afford to offer the necessary sections to complete a degree in four years. So we have to go for 4½ years." And that is the group of students that can actually afford to pay for school.

I'd like to explain how the impact of increasing tuition fees by $350 million over the next three years and cutting $109 million from the budget of these institutions is going to impact residents of British Columbia. B.C. already lends the least, in our student loan program, of any province in Canada. There is nobody that lends less than us. In fact, we don't even lend enough money anymore to do a first-year general arts program at UBC, which is this cheapest program that school offers.

It's very straightforward math. If you add up tuition, if you add up full-time student fees, if you add up first-year residence and the light-eater meal plan — this is if you don't eat a regular-sized meal — it totals up to $12,447 for the first year. The maximum student loan in B.C. — $10,880. This list of expenses that I just ran through doesn't include books. It doesn't include any kind of incidental expense, like laundry, clothing, transportation. When you look at this, we don't even cover the basic, cheapest degree at the school we put the most into. This is the school that gets the most provincial funding.

It means that B.C. residents aren't able to take advantage of that funding. That is a very serious issue for this government. That is the cheapest program at UBC, but as we all know, most programs at UBC are not at the basic tuition level. When you're talking about law, medicine, dentistry — the professional programs that many parents
[ Page 1447 ]
would hope their children might be able to take advantage of — we're talking about $16,000 a year in tuition. The maximum loan in B.C. — $10,880.

We are rapidly…. Well, we are certainly in the era where the only people who can go to a professional school in B.C. are people who can afford to make up that difference between the student loan gap — the actual cost of education and the student loans that we're willing to provide. And I note that student assistance was flatlined again in this budget. So the government is clearly not concerned about this growing issue in an era of rising tuition rates — 2 percent every year.

[1145]

I'll give you another example — and this is one that the Minister of Advanced Education said on the radio he agreed with me on: the haul truck operator program at College of the Rockies. This is one our government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on to build these simulators at College of the Rockies to train people how to drive those massive trucks that you see in the oil sands and mines. It almost guarantees, if you're willing to travel, high-paid employment.

If you are working at a 7-Eleven and you think to yourself, "I am tired of this minimum-wage life. I would like to get a job that is going to support me and support my future. I'm going to go do the haul truck operator program and get a job in British Columbia," you are going to need to find $7,500 to pay for that program and you're going to need to take five weeks off of work to do that program.

Yet B.C.'s student loan program will not support you at all. You cannot get dollar one from our student loan program to attend that program at College of the Rockies, a program of which this province should justifiably be proud but which is inaccessible to the very people who need that program.

In fact, student loans in this province don't cover distance education. If you're at home with kids or you have a disability and it's difficult for you to get to school — not covered under the student loan program. Short-term upgrade programs that move you into a higher-paid employment bracket, less than 12 weeks — not covered.

Part-time studies. You can't study full-time. You have to work. Less than 60 percent of a full course load is not covered under B.C. student loans.

None of these issues are addressed in this budget, and this is simply to allow people to borrow enough money to invest in themselves to go to school.

What is the impact of this shortsighted policy? B.C. residents are the least likely in Canada to be in school full-time. I'll say that again. When you divide population by full-time enrolments, from Stats Canada, B.C. is tenth of ten for full-time students, and B.C. is No. 1 in Canada for having the most people studying part-time.

I think that the consequence of this is very clear. If you talk to students about why there are so many people studying part-time, it's because they're working two or three part-time jobs or they're working full-time in addition to doing school in small increments at a time.

Other students from other provinces don't have to make this choice. This is a uniquely British Columbian situation, where people cannot access the money they need to go to school.

The second impact of this shortsighted policy and the gap in the budget to fix it is that B.C. students have now set a North American record for debt. You hear often that we have the highest student debt in Canada. It's not just a little bit higher than other provinces. According to the Bank of Montreal, $34,886 is the average debt for a B.C. student. The next-closest provinces are in Atlantic Canada, at $30,000. That's a $4,000 difference on graduation.

But it's not just Canada where we have the highest student debt, and the Advanced Education Minister should know this. The average student debt on graduation in the United States from a private college or a private university — $29,400. So we are now ahead of the United States private colleges and universities for student debt.

This is not a sustainable situation for B.C.'s youth, for our next generation, who we would hope would access this training.

Impact No. 3 of this student loan program. It's a bit paradoxical. Government-held student debt in B.C. skyrocketed past the $1.1 billion mark this year. It crossed the billion-dollar mark just two years ago. In 2001 that student debt was at $74 million. So in just a decade we've gone from $74 million to $1.1 billion in government-held student debt.

Why is this happening? If we lend the least, why is student debt exploding in the government's hands right now? I'll tell you why, and it's also my theory about why the Minister of Advanced Education is not concerned about this. It's because B.C. charges the most interest on our student loan portfolio of any province in Canada. Well, not any province. New Brunswick shares this distinction with us.

We charge a 2½ percent surcharge on the amount of money that it costs government to borrow, which is prime. So we charge prime plus 2½ percent on student debt.

We are in a situation where, if you have to borrow the most — if you are the lowest-income student going to UBC in my constituency and you must borrow the most — you will pay the most for your education, because when you graduate, the interest rate that you will be paying is prime plus 2½ percent. The government takes home to this place that we stand in $30 million a year in interest payments from the student debt in B.C., based on that surcharge.

[1150]

I'll tell you why this government is in no rush to do what the association of B.C. students says it should do, what the Canadian Federation of Students says it should
[ Page 1448 ]
do, which is restore the student grant program for middle-class and low-income students so that they can go to school and not have to borrow as much. If they did, they wouldn't make as much money on student debt, and they'd have to find that money somewhere else.

I think that taking money from the lowest-income, youngest students going to our post-secondary schools is an abysmal policy. This budget not only sustains it; it perpetuates it, apparently, for the next three years.

Impact 4. When I was visiting these schools, I saw something that I had never seen when I was in post-secondary. Those were student food banks. If you can imagine this — at each of the schools I visited, a food bank for students, where they could get food so that they could eat and attend school; at schools in British Columbia students not being able to afford to buy their own food.

That is a very visible problem in the schools, but what is less visible is B.C.'s graduation problem. When you look at Maclean's magazine statistics, they ask: "How many students in first year finish their program within seven years? How many students in first year, within seven years, completed the program that they had initiated?" There were four B.C. schools that reported back: UBC, University of Victoria, SFU and UNBC.

Now, when you compare our schools to the other Canadian schools that reported, UNBC has been last in Canada for four of the last five years in graduation rate. That's last in Canada for graduation rate for four of the last five years.

Three of the four reporting schools in B.C. were in the bottom third for graduation rate. This graduation rate, I submit, is directly related to the financial stress that you heard my colleague speaking about earlier today — B.C. students being the most financially stressed and being unable to complete their program within seven years.

In fact, I submit that many people are completing their program, just not within seven years. The cost to this government….

Interjection.

D. Eby: Mr. Speaker, a justifiable interruption. It is a very short list of the acceptable interruptions, but a gold medal is certainly one. I thank my friends for drawing it to my attention. We will return to our regularly scheduled programming.

We're not taking home, unfortunately, a gold medal in graduation rates in this province as a result of this budget and this government's policies. The fact that B.C. students can't complete their programs within seven years is a cost to this province. It's a very real cost.

If you're working at Starbucks instead of working at an engineering firm, that means less income tax for this province and it means that you are living at a lower standard than you would otherwise necessarily have to do if we just supported students enough so that they could go to school full-time.

The fifth impact. This is the most devastating and the most serious and the most important, so I'm glad the gold medal is out of the way. B.C. has Canada's highest disengagement rate, absolute unemployment rate for youth between 15 and 29.

The rate that economists use…. They call it the NEET rate. That's not in employment, education or training.

In 2006 B.C. had the second most young people in school, employment or training, but now, in 2012, B.C. has the highest number of youth who are not in school, who are not working, who are not in training. The numbers are shocking. One in ten 15- to 19-year-olds in B.C. not working and not in school. One in seven 20- to 24-year-olds not working and not in school. One in five 25- to 29-year-olds not working and not in school in this province. That is absolutely unacceptable.

That human potential, that human cost of one in five 25- to 29-year-olds…. These should be people who are setting themselves out for a career that will last them their lifetime, and instead, they're not in school and they're not working. That is a deficit that we will pay for, for many years.

The flip side of that coin of so many young people not working and not in school is that B.C. is No. 1 for hiring new temporary foreign workers in Canada.

[1155]

While our young people are at home, unable to go to school, on wait-lists for training programs — unable to afford to go to school and therefore not having the skills for the jobs that are available — B.C. employers are telling this government: "We can't find the skills we need among B.C.'s population. We have to bring in temporary foreign workers."

In B.C., among new hires, 29 percent — almost one in three — are temporary foreign workers. In Saskatchewan the number is one in five. In Canada, nationally, the rate is half of B.C.'s.

Why is it that B.C. is hiring so many temporary foreign workers compared with other provinces? Why is it that we have the worst rate of youth unemployment?

I would submit that the reason is very clear, and it falls in the lap of the Minister of Advanced Education, this Premier and this Finance Minister, who have failed to allocate the resources so that B.C. residents can access our schools, which — I will agree with the minister — are top-notch schools. They're wonderful schools, and we need to find ways to get British Columbia residents to those schools. We are not doing that right now.

Failing to train the next generation is also showing up in the welfare rates. Let me tell you. A 50 percent increase in 19- to 24-year-olds on the welfare rolls in this province is a very significant increase. That's from 2006 to 2012 — 50 percent more 19- to 24-year-olds. This is the cohort of people who will be going to college, who will be going to university but instead are on social assistance. That is
[ Page 1449 ]
a very damning statistic indeed.

If you look at the other cohort who've shown a very significant increase in accessing social assistance, it's 55- to 64-year-olds. This number makes sense as well. This is the cohort who, when they lose their job in an economic downturn, generally require some form of retraining in order to be able to get back to work. They, similarly, are going on social assistance instead of going to school and getting the training that they need to get back into work.

Now, you've already heard my colleague the member from Coquitlam up here talking about the number of people leaving this province. This problem is particularly acute among 25- to 29-year-olds. If you look at the number of 25- to 29-year-olds leaving this province, we have the highest number of people leaving this province in this age group for the last three decades. Three decades I have statistics for.

Over 10,000 packed up their bags and left. Some of that is mitigated by immigration. Some of that is made up by people who are coming to this province hoping for a better future. I'm sure the ESL issue…. We'll deal with that.

But to have 25- to 29-year-olds leaving this province and people of retirement age coming into this province, you have to ask the question: how sustainable is this? Who is going to pay for the quality retirement of these people who are coming to British Columbia if the people in the prime of their working years, 25 to 29, are leaving the province? That's another question in terms of the sustainability of what we enjoy in this province that this government should be asking in this budget, and they didn't ask.

Noting the time, I have one last point to make before we break for lunch.

Fortunately, we know what the solution to this problem is, and this budget does not address it. B.C. graduates are three times more likely to be employed than those who have not graduated from a college or university program. So if we want to address the huge number of young people — one in five 25- to 29-year-olds — not in work, not in school, not in training in this province, we need to get them into school and we need to get them graduated from school. This budget fails to do that.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I'd like to move that we adjourn the debate, and I'd like to reserve my place on return.

D. Eby moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone 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 11:58 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 © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada