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)

Monday, March 3, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 2

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

MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2014

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Virk: Today we have in the House the Alliance of British Columbia Students. They are the largest post-secondary advocacy group in British Columbia. They represent 140,000 undergraduate, graduate and trade students at seven institutions across British Columbia. I've met many of these outstanding groups of students all across British Columbia.

Later today I will be meeting with several members from this group, including Colúm Connolly, Tim Krupa, Kristianne Hendricks, Chardaye Beuckert, Miriam Moore and Mike Hansen. They are joined by 20 of their peers from across the province. May the House please welcome these future leaders of British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: Today in the precinct and perhaps arriving in the House during question period, I've got the great pleasure of having a group of students from Royal Roads University. These are not young kids. These are adults who are doing leadership education and other advanced education. I hope the House will make them welcome.

It's the second group of them today from the gorgeous campus at Royal Roads University. Some of you may know it better as the beautiful castle in X-men. I hope the House will make them very welcome when they appear today.

J. Yap: I'm delighted today to introduce two guests who are in the gallery for question period. They are here today for a visit to the Legislature and meetings with some members.

In the gallery today are Michael Weedon and Marnie Plant from the British Columbia Bioenergy Network. Will the House please give them a warm welcome.

H. Bains: In the gallery today we have representatives of Black Top taxi. They are directors Amrik Mahil, Avninder Dhillon, Inderjit Dhillon, Ramendra Sahay, Gurjit Garg and Kamaldeep Bal, along with a gentleman, Saif Ullah.

I just want to say that when a visitor comes to British Columbia and Vancouver, these are the first people they come in contact with. After their visit they go back and they spread the word that B.C. is the best place in the world. I think they have a lot to do with that. So please help me welcome them to this House.

Thank you for the job well done.

N. Letnick: It's indeed my privilege today to introduce His Excellency Thordur Oskarsson, who is the ambassador from Iceland to Canada; also Mrs. Heather Ireland, honorary consul general of Iceland in Vancouver.

They're not currently in the public gallery as they're meeting with the Lieutenant-Governor in Government House. They've also met not only with myself but with several members of this House today and in Vancouver last Friday. His Excellency is on an official visit to Victoria to discuss tourism and trade relationships.

[1340]

It is extremely important, I think — I remind the House and all those who are watching — that now you can fly directly to Iceland from Vancouver. Also, if you want, you can fly directly to Europe through Iceland, take a week off in Iceland and visit Iceland along the way.

Interjection.

N. Letnick: Yes, it is nice in Iceland. That's right. I'm sure everyone around the House, when they're travelling to Europe, will think of that as an opportunity.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure today to welcome to the House members of the Pediatric Cancers Survivorship Society who have come to make their case for a specialized clinic. I would like to welcome all of them, and my colleague from Vancouver-Kensington will welcome some of her constituents.

They are Vikram Bubber, Jennifer Boyle, Dax Brown, Lena Cadogan, Matthew Sunderland, Sharon Ward, Derek Millington, Frankie Balletta, Desiree Beck, Marilyn and Heather Meritt, Wendy and John and Sean Nurcombe, Terry and Brandon Randnai. These are people who have come from all parts of British Columbia to be here with us today. Welcome to the House.

D. Horne: Madame Speaker, it's a pleasure this afternoon on your behalf that I introduce a group of Washington State legislative interns who are visiting from Olympia. They are a part of the annual intern exchange program between Washington State and British Columbia. The exchange is an opportunity to share, learn, observe and compare our two systems of government. We share a border, natural resources and many other things, and it's great for our province and the state to work together.

This exchange is part of a valued program with the B.C. legislative internship program. They visited Olympia recently as well. The interns represent ten universities in Washington and a wide variety of academic pursuits, including urban planning, liberal arts, political science and literature.
[ Page 1740 ]

They are accompanied by two staff, Paula Rehwaldt, the House civic education and intern coordinator, and Judi Best, the Senate civic education and intern coordinator. Judy actually assisted in launching this exchange, and after 21 years of service to her legislature she's now retiring.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to welcome, and I ask everyone to welcome, constituents from Vancouver-Kensington, members of the Pediatric Cancers Survivorship Society: their president, Carolyn Vacheresse, and also Wilf, a husband-and-wife team who've advocated for their daughter Danielle, who has suffered from cancer as a young girl. They're also accompanied by Kathy Zang.

I just want to appreciate their efforts, everyone who has come from across the province, their hard work advocating on behalf of childhood survivors of cancer — children who have really benefitted all of British Columbia, have really led to outcomes today that children and cancer survivors benefit from and are really looking for justice and service for these now adult survivors of childhood cancer.

Please, I ask everyone to make them welcome.

L. Throness: Visiting in the House today is a longtime friend named Dawn Hutchison. She comes from Ottawa. She works for Revenue Canada. She's here working today, and she is still welcome in this House. Would you welcome her.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is my sister-in-law Shirley Ackland. She is a councillor and deputy mayor in Port McNeill and, sadly, is married to my much, much, much, much, much older brother. Would the House please make her very, very welcome.

Hon. S. Anton: I'd like to join with the member opposite in welcoming the representatives from Black Top Cabs who I had the pleasure of meeting with this morning and, indeed, have met with many times over the years. In particular, I'd like to welcome my constituent from Vancouver-Fraserview, Mr. Ravi Dhillon.

J. Rice: I have the rare occasion of actually introducing someone from my constituency, North Coast. I'd like to welcome Cheryl Paavola, who's stuck in Victoria, snowed in on her way home to Prince Rupert. Cheryl is a great community contributor in Prince Rupert. She's part of a dragon boat team that is dedicated to supporting those that have faced and are facing breast cancer.

[1345]

She's also a science instructor at Northwest Community College. She's here at a masters swim meet. I just would like the House to welcome Cheryl Paavola from Prince Rupert.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — JUSTICE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. S. Anton presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014.

Hon. S. Anton: Madame Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 14, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014.

This bill amends the following statutes: the Adult Guardianship Act, the Family Law Act, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, the Patients Property Act, the Police Act, the Provincial Court Act and the Wills, Estates and Succession Act. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2009; the Power of Attorney Act; and the Public Guardian and Trustee Act.

Madame Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

TED LORENZ

J. Yap: I rise today to honour Ted Lorenz, an iconic figure in my community of Steveston. Ted passed away recently, and I was honoured to attend his celebration of life this past Saturday with about 800 members of the Steveston community.

Ted had three pillars in his life: his family, his community and the fire department. His wife of 59 years, Frances, survives Ted; with siblings Ed, Ruth, Jerry and Ken; four children; eight grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. Ted became a Richmond city firefighter at 18. He rose up the ranks, made Richmond fire chief in 1979 and served in this position until his retirement in 1993.

However, his legacy in the community extends beyond the bravery and dedication he exhibited during his 42 years as a firefighter. Ted was a devoted and enthusiastic
[ Page 1741 ]
volunteer. He played a critical role in most of Steveston's community assets, including the Steveston Martial Arts Centre, several seniors homes, ANAF Veterans Steveston Unit 284, Britannia Heritage Shipyard, Fisherman's Memorial Needle and the Steveston Community Centre. He was one of the founding leaders of the Steveston salmon parade.

Ted was actively involved in the Steveston Community Centre for 67 years. He was so passionate about the Steveston Community Centre that in his early years he mortgaged his own home to ensure that the centre was established.

Ted's legacy includes many institutions that are used and enjoyed every day by my constituents. Ted inspired a new generation of Stevestonites by personally demonstrating the timeless values of volunteerism, compassion and tenacity.

Madame Speaker and all Members of this House, please join me in extending our condolences to the family of Ted Lorenz and expressing our gratitude for his lifetime of contributions to making Steveston, Richmond and, indeed, British Columbia a better place.

LITERACY ALBERNI SOCIETY
AND DECODA LITERACY SOLUTIONS

S. Fraser: Literacy Alberni is a non-profit society focused on the programming and support of those with literacy needs in the Alberni Valley and beyond. Literacy Alberni encompasses a broad spectrum of literacy needs, including English as a second language, settlement assistance, computer skills, adult grade 12 graduation diploma, nutrition, cooking, reading, writing, numeracy and much, much more.

I recently toured Literacy Alberni, and it felt like a true community hub, both welcoming and comfortable. I have a strong suspicion that that has a lot to do with the strong spirit, personality and passionate enthusiasm of executive director Charmead Schella.

Charmead introduced me to an English-as-a-second-language class in progress. To a person, the students were engaged, improving in their abilities, thankful for what they were receiving through Literacy Alberni and thankful for how it was delivered.

[1350]

There are many challenges facing not just Literacy Alberni but all literacy societies in the province. One organization that helps hold all of them together is a provincial non-profit known as Decoda Literacy Solutions. Decoda has been described as the glue for literacy programs and experiences across B.C. — a guiding light, if you will. Decoda acts as a provincial overseer for literacy organizations and programs, and they help to find and distribute necessary funding that makes much of what they do possible.

We, as provincial legislators, need to recognize the obvious. Our continued support for these programs is essential. The value of enabling people to kick-start a fresh literacy path and better themselves also benefits all of us in this province, and it's one of the best investments that we can make.

I want to thank Charmead and all of the friendly and knowledgable staff and volunteers that make life better for so many people in the Alberni Valley. I have become one of their biggest fans.

COMMONWEALTH DAY

Moira Stilwell: Today I would like to speak to the House about the royal Commonwealth Day. The Commonwealth of Nations celebrates Commonwealth Day every year on the second Monday in March. The countries in the Commonwealth are connected through shared culture, expressed through literary heritage and political and legal structures. On this day we take the opportunity to celebrate the strong bonds of cooperation, friendship and loyalty that exist among the 54 countries that form the Commonwealth.

On Commonwealth Day our federal government will fly the Royal Union flag alongside Canadian flags at the Canadian federal institutions around the world. There will be a multifaith service at Westminster Abbey, where the Queen will deliver an address. Here in Canada the Prime Minister and other federal ministers will make statements as well.

They will recognize how our historical Commonwealth relationships have provided Canada with many of the fundamental values that are at the foundation of our society, such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law. In my constituency of Vancouver-Langara we will celebrate Commonwealth Day this Sunday at the Marpole-Oakridge Community Centre. This year's theme is Team Commonwealth, and what better way to celebrate this team than by joining us as we celebrate the teamwork and unity of the Commonwealth?

I invite all of you to join us in a celebration of music, culture and reflection. Overall, the day is observed to mark the contribution of the Commonwealth of Nations to the creation of a harmonious global environment.

DOUG EVANS

R. Chouhan: Today I rise to pay tribute to my friend Doug Evans. Doug was a great mentor and a leader. Doug was born in 1929 and raised in North Vancouver. After leaving school, he started working in the forest industry at Western Plywood in 1951. He also worked as a logger in Kamloops and as a brakeman for the Canadian railways. In 1954 he moved to Burnaby and got married. He started working at Evans Products — no relation — and became involved in the union as shop steward and shortly thereafter became the plant chairman.
[ Page 1742 ]

In 1961, with members of the International Woodworkers of America, he attended the founding convention of the New Democratic Party and became a lifelong member of the NDP. In 1980 Doug was elected president of IWA Local 1-217, a position he held uncontested for ten years. He also served as president of the Vancouver and District Labour Council. Upon his retirement from the IWA in 1990, he was elected as a city councillor in Burnaby.

I first met Doug in 1979 when I was organizing farmworkers to have their employment rights in British Columbia. He was a strong supporter of farmworkers in their struggle to get justice. All his life, Doug worked tirelessly to improve the wages and working conditions of the workers. As a city councillor, he worked passionately to build a safe and family-oriented community. He passed away on January 9 of this year. He will be greatly missed by friends and family.

MEDICAL INCIDENT AT
B.C. WINTER GAMES IN MISSION

M. Dalton: A little over a week ago Mission hosted a very successful B.C. Winter Games. These games could have ended on a tragic note. As directors and volunteers were preparing for the closing ceremonies, Mark Sutherland dropped to the floor, in mid-sentence, from a heart attack.

[1355]

Games director Grant Mottershead, a paramedic by profession, immediately sprang into action. Determining that there was no pulse or breathing, he ripped open Mark's shirt and commenced CPR, all the while calling out for a defibrillator and clearing the area of inquisitive teenagers.

Medical services director Dr. Peter Robson and Grant's wife, Bronwen, joined him in compression rotations — a rotation generally being a two-minute cycle. Eventually, a defibrillator arrived, several shocks were applied, and Mark began to show signs of life again.

Soon he had a solid pulse and was breathing on his own. An ambulance arrived and transferred him to the Royal Columbian Hospital. After receiving two stents in his heart, he is now recovering well. In short, Grant, Peter and Bronwyn saved Mark's life last week. Their quick thinking and action demonstrate once again the value of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or CPR.

CPR is a life-saving technique. It is done by applying external chest compressions and rescue breathing. CPR keeps blood and oxygen flowing through the body of the victim when the heartbeat and breathing have stopped. CPR done within the first six minutes of the heart stopping can keep someone alive until medical attention arrives.

I encourage all British Columbians to take the time to receive this invaluable training. For many, it truly can make the difference between life and death, whether it be a loved one, a co-worker or a stranger.

Would the House please join me in recognizing the actions of Grant and Bronwyn Mottershead and Peter Robson.

ACHIEVEMENTS OF KITSILANO
BLUE DEMONS BASKETBALL TEAM

D. Eby: At my height, I'm often asked if I'm good at basketball. I, unfortunately, have to tell people who ask me that: "No, that's why I went to law school." It's why I appreciate so much the people who are talented at the sport and why we're so fortunate in Kitsilano to have the Kitsilano Blue Demons.

In 2013 the Kits Blue Demons won their second consecutive Vancouver senior boys basketball championship, and we were all incredibly proud. This season the team is poised to do just as well, and they have their eyes on the top prize within the province.

In fact, not only do the Kits Blue Demons represent us well at home; they travel internationally. Most recently they were in China — in Shanghai, Nanjing and Beijing — where they played basketball against the locals there and, by all accounts, did us proud.

The Vancouver Courier reported that they were very warmly welcomed, that they were, in fact, treated like rock stars and that they felt like NBA players. Certainly, as far as Kitsilano is concerned, they are rock stars, and we're incredibly proud of them. I'd like to say, "Good luck, Kitsilano Blue Devils, and if pro basketball doesn't work out for you, there's always law school."

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF
FERRY SERVICES REDUCTIONS ON
ECONOMY AND TOURISM INDUSTRY

A. Dix: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries.

Leonard Ellis, president of Bella Coola Valley Tourism, has this to say about the Transportation Minister's decision to cut the Discovery ferry route and his proposal to use the Nimpkish vessel as a substitute for the Queen of Chilliwack: "His blatant disconcern for the tourism businesses and people in this region and the logistics he is proposing with this tiny Nimpkish prove his incompetence, based on his lack of knowledge and geographical logistics of the area and weather."

Clearly the minister didn't talk to tourism operators before he made this decision. Whose advice did he take in the region before deciding to stop this route?

Hon. T. Stone: As I have said consistently, here in the House and outside the House, we are a government that
[ Page 1743 ]
is prepared to make the tough decisions when it comes to B.C. Ferries. Indeed, this is why we have recently brought in our second consecutive balanced budget.

[1400]

There have been extensive rounds of consultations with coastal communities and, indeed, with industry. The Ferry Commissioner was out in 2011, B.C. Ferries was out in 2012, and indeed, we were out again in 2013.

Throughout the last eight months I've had many meetings with members of local governments in coastal communities. I have met with chamber of commerce representatives. I indeed have met with tourism industry officials, like Ian Robertson, only a couple of months ago. I will continue to meet with officials within the tourism industry so that we can do everything in our power to ensure the tourism experiences that people in Canada, North America and the world have come to expect. They will continue to be able to enjoy those on B.C. Ferries.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, it seems impossible to believe that the Transportation Minister was doing any listening at all. Mr. Ellis has said about this decision, "A long, exposed, eight-hour nautical journey from Bella Bella to Bella Coola alone, with lack of creature comforts and facilities, will lead to poor tourism reviews that will destroy potential business," to which the minister seems to have replied: "Well, we'll have potable water."

The fact of the matter is that the damage being done to the tourism industry and the damage being done to the north coast region by this decision is incalculable. Will he review his decision to downgrade this route?

Hon. T. Stone: Indeed, we are absolutely willing to continue to meet with representatives of the tourism industry and other organizations. In fact, just this afternoon there are representatives of tourism throughout a number of coastal communities, but in particular from Bella Coola through the Cariboo-Chilcotin, that will be sitting down with the Minister of Tourism and Small Business, with the Minister of Jobs and with myself, and we will be looking to the tourism industry to provide us with their thoughts on the plan that we've put in front of them.

But I think it's again worth mentioning the difference between this side of the House and the opposition members. The Discovery coast circle tour remains intact. It is a different service — we have made no bones about that — but it is a service nonetheless. We are making these changes because this government is not prepared to see a loss on this route go from $7.35 million per year to at least $14 million per year for a 13-week service which moves about 500 vehicles each way. That's a taxpayer subsidy of over $2,500 per vehicle, and that, in our opinion, is not acceptable.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: I will remind all members that the Chair needs to hear the answer and the question.

The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Yes, on the Liberal side "it's a service nonetheless" will replace "let them eat cake" in future. What we have is a decision made without a business plan and without serious consultation by a minister who seems unaware of the conditions in the region. And what does the industry get back? What does the region get back? They get a meeting with the Minister of Tourism.

Let's face it: this was a bad decision. It was made without consultation, without a business plan. Why won't the minister freeze this decision for this year and review it and get a business plan so that we can understand the impact on businesses around British Columbia?

[1405]

Hon. T. Stone: For the past three years this government has been honest with the people in coastal communities. We have been honest with the people of British Columbia in saying there are some very significant challenges at B.C. Ferries. We have said consistently for the last three years, including in the run-up and through the last election, that there were going to need to be some reductions in service. In fact, we put a specific number out there — $18.9 million in service reductions.

Now, those service reductions are part of an overall package that we believe is necessary for B.C. Ferries to get to a place of sustainability and affordability for the long term.

I think it's important to remind the members opposite that this government has increased the overall taxpayer contribution to B.C. Ferries through this performance term by almost $90 million. This brings the total contribution this fiscal to just under $200 million.

We've also heard that fares cannot continue to increase as they have. There is no more room for additional taxpayer contribution. We believe on this side of the floor that we are obliged and intend to continue to be honest with the public about the challenges facing B.C. Ferries, and that is indeed what we will continue to do as we make these tough decisions.

C. Trevena: I'd like to remind the minister when he's looking at things honestly that the users of B.C. Ferries, the users alone, have contributed $5 billion to keep the ferries running.

Going back to route 40, given this government's penchant for pricey ad campaigns, I can just see the government's new ads for the Discovery coast route. Bold type — picture this: "Coming soon, drinkable water."
[ Page 1744 ]

The fix the minister is considering for the problems he's created and his government has created isn't a fix. It's an embarrassment. They're taking a vessel that's not appropriate for the route and giving it the appearance of doing something.

People on the central coast who depend on the route for their business are legitimately irate. One has said it will "eviscerate the tourist trade."

Anahim Lake, Nimpo Lake and Tatla Lake guest ranches, bed-and-breakfasts and trading posts are all fearful they're going to go out of business. That's to say nothing of the impact on Port Hardy and Bella Coola.

To the minister, will he admit that his decision was a case of colossal mismanagement by his government and restore the original service, or is he prepared to watch as the devastation of the tourist industry occurs on the central coast?

Hon. T. Stone: I think if we recall back to another time in this province, the ads that we would have seen at B.C. Ferries under the NDP would have gone something like this: "Coming soon to you, a ferry that may or may not work." I'm going to resist the temptation today to regale the House with the facts of the fast ferry program.

But back to the route….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Minister, please take your seat.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Stone: Let's get the facts clear again. Obviously, the member for North Island is confused on these facts. The current utilization of the Queen of Chilliwack, which is the ferry that serves route 40 from Port Hardy to Bella Coola, is only running at a capacity, a utilization, of about 25 to 30 percent. That works out to about 500 vehicles in each direction.

The replacement service, which, again, I've said is not exactly the same as what has been there with the Chilliwack but which we are actually going to run…. The Nimpkish is going to run from Bella Bella to Bella Coola four days a week instead of one. The actual capacity that that will provide on this route is 640 vehicles over that 13-week period.

What we're doing here is making the tough decisions to better match the capacity with the utilization, all the while continuing to provide a service for the tourists who come here to enjoy British Columbia.

[1410]

Madame Speaker: The member for North Island on a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I don't think even the minister believes himself. Not exactly the same — a 16-vehicle vessel that has no amenities on it at the moment, can take 16 vehicles and goes four times a week, and a vessel that carries 115 vehicles and has just had a $17 million refit that's being sidelined.

I've got to say it's hard to think there is anything more embarrassing than the government saying they are going to try to make sure there is potable water for the tourists who are coming on this 16-vehicle vessel on a nine-hour run on the smallest vessel in the fleet. But there is something a bit more embarrassing than that and more embarrassing than the minister's own performance, and that's his lack of response to the justifiably worried international tourism operators.

They've been booking under the assumption that they're going to have a product to sell. They've been booking thinking that their clientele are going to be able to get from Port Hardy to Bella Coola in one sailing. German tour operators have written to the minister. They say: "We sent more letters to him and gave him the numbers but so far haven't heard a single word."

Will the Minister of Transportation admit that the plan he clearly doesn't believe in was a mistake and reverse it before it causes British Columbia even more embarrassment with international businesses and international travellers?

Hon. T. Stone: What's actually embarrassing, and what certainly doesn't help in the face of promoting British Columbia to the world market, to tourists from around the world, is the member for North Island — day in, day out — trashing B.C. Ferries and trashing the vacation packages that are available. The rhetoric from the opposition is absolutely unhelpful. But I come back to the MV Nimpkish….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue, Minister.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I come back to the MV Nimpkish, which is the vessel that would be serving this route from Bella Coola to Bella Bella. This is a vessel that we believe is a much better match. The capacity is a much better match for the utilization.

I met with the president and CEO of B.C. Ferries just last week. He reiterated firm commitments to us again that they are going to refit the Nimpkish so that it is as comfortable as it possibly can be. There will be food. There will be refreshments. There will be all of the amenities that tourists come to expect.

Let British Columbians hear loud and clear that while the government does not support a $2,500-per-vehicle subsidy, the members opposite do. That will come directly out of health care and education.
[ Page 1745 ]

CLINIC FOR LATE EFFECTS
OF CHILDHOOD CANCER TREATMENT

J. Darcy: A few moments ago we welcomed to this House 20 childhood cancer survivors and their families from across B.C. These young adults are experiencing devastating late effects as a direct result of the treatment they received that saved their lives — secondary cancers, heart disease, physical and cognitive disabilities, infertility, early menopause and many other complications. We must do more to help survivors of childhood cancer get the coordinated care they need.

Will the Minister of Health commit today to take steps to set up a specialized multidisciplinary clinic to help survivors of childhood cancer deal with the late effects of the treatment that they received as children?

[1415]

Hon. T. Lake: I think everyone in the House has great empathy for those who have survived cancer, particularly those who have had to deal with cancer as a young person and deal with the effects throughout their life. We are fortunate in British Columbia to have the health care system with Children's Hospital and the B.C. Cancer Agency, two leading institutions that provide excellent care.

We also have a system in place to transition young people from their experience as a young person into adulthood and make sure their treatment continues. We have ensured, through the GP for Me program, that physicians have incentives in place to take on patients with complex problems — spend more time with them to ensure they are having their issues dealt with in a responsive way from a health care system that we believe is providing excellent care to the people of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: These childhood cancer survivors and their families would not be here today, pressing for a specialized clinic, if their needs today were being met by any of the programs that the Minister of Health referred to. These childhood cancer survivors and their families…. I'm sure they appreciate the empathy from both sides of this House, but they need more than empathy. They need action now.

These childhood cancer survivors are suffering severe late effects because they were exposed to aggressive radiation and chemotherapy at a time when their bodies and their organs were still at the formative stages.

Madame Speaker: Posing your question?

J. Darcy: An estimated 3,500 childhood cancer survivors are living in British Columbia today and not getting the help that they need. They fought childhood cancer. They have to fight again for support. They should not have to fight alone.

My question to the Minister of Health, again, is: will he commit today to move forward with a specialized clinic, which is what these pediatric cancer survivors and their families are calling for and desperately need?

Hon. T. Lake: I think all of us have expressed our empathy.

There will be a day, through personalized medicine and through some of the great work that's happening here in British Columbia, where we can actually define the genotype of the type of cancer that someone is suffering; be able to develop tailored, personalized treatment to prevent side effects and to have greater efficacy. That will be the future.

In the meantime, we understand that there are people facing challenges. Unfortunately, I find it somewhat, well, I guess, distasteful that we didn't hear about this in the NDP's election platform. Yet they use the opportunity when the survivorship group is here to bring this up.

I am happy to report that the Minister of Children and Family Development has met with this group. We have had them talk with staff. The B.C. Cancer Agency and Children's Hospital are talking with this group.

We have indicated a willingness to look, as we did with PKU and as we did with diabetes…. We are always willing to look at opportunities — opportunities that only come when you have a balanced budget, and then you can take next steps forward. We look forward to working with this group and ensuring that their health care needs are met.

REVIEW OF DRIVEABLE PROGRAM

K. Corrigan: Well, with that classy response, I think I'll turn to something else.

Seniors driving testing must be fair and must be effective in keeping our roads safe. In March of 2012 we asked this government for "scientifically, independently validated evidence" that suggests the DriveABLE test system they brought in to test seniors' ability to drive is fair and effective. The former Justice Minister did not answer the question. However, one week later she put out a press release claiming that "DriveABLE is in the process of being peer-reviewed."

A simple question to the current Minister of Justice: has that scientific, independently validated peer review been completed, and if so, will she release it to the public today?

[1420]

Hon. S. Anton: Road safety is indeed a priority of this government and of RoadSafe B.C., the superintendent of motor vehicles.

It is important that we achieve that balance between ensuring that people who can drive are able to drive but
[ Page 1746 ]
that people who are no longer capable of driving are measured in some way so that there's a proper process for taking the licences away in that unfortunate time that comes when sometimes that needs to happen.

That's the DriveABLE program. It's a robust program. It's done through family doctors, who evaluate the drivers. It's done through testing, through the superintendent of motor vehicles. We have worked hard to expand the number of DriveABLE sites around British Columbia so that people, for the most part, can have a test fairly close to their home.

As I said, this program is an important one in being able to evaluate drivers — mainly seniors — who, unfortunately, for one reason or another cannot drive anymore or need to be evaluated in a scientific way.

Madame Speaker: The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: I was asking about the peer review that was supposed to have been done and which we have not received an answer to. We filed a freedom-of-information request regarding the previous Justice Minister's claim that DriveABLE "is in the process of being peer-reviewed," and all we got back from the Liberal government was a link to the so-called peer review.

That review was conducted by Allen R. Dobbs. Yet according to his bio in that so-called peer review, Mr. Dobbs "formed the DriveABLE assessment centres as a University of Alberta spinoff company and now serves as chief scientific officer" — and, I would suggest, has made a pretty penny from the contract with this government. This is obviously not a peer review, as the previous minister claimed.

To the current minister: one review, conducted by the same person who created a for-profit program whose validity has been repeatedly questioned. Will the minister acknowledge that there is no scientific, independently validated evidence that the B.C. Liberals' DriveABLE test is either fair or effective and either get rid of it or fix it?

Hon. S. Anton: If the member opposite is suggesting we get rid of it, I would suggest that that would be very unwise. There does come a time in some drivers' driving lives that they are not able to drive any longer. That's why we have in place the DriveABLE program whereby, generally through a family doctor, a driver is referred to the program. The driver is tested, and it is determined whether or not the driver should be able to continue driving.

It is a terrible time in a driver's life. I'm sure many people in the room, this chamber, will have known a member of their family who can't drive anymore. It's a very tough decision that needs to be properly made.

We do evaluate the DriveABLE program. It's a relatively new program, but it is fundamentally a good program. And there does need to be a way of evaluating drivers, mainly seniors, who either should not be driving or do need to be tested as to whether or not they should be able to continue driving.

N. Simons: A group of eight medical and scientific experts, with support from many universities as well as the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, published an article in a reputable journal which contradicts the company's findings. Using the company's own data, they said that the DriveABLE testing regime is approximately 50 percent accurate — 50.4 percent accurate, to be precise.

It's like flipping a coin. Half of the good drivers are taken off the road, and half of the bad drivers are left on the road. Why is this government using a system of testing for seniors that's both unfair and unscientifically tested?

[1425]

Hon. S. Anton: Road safety in British Columbia, which is a goal of this government — to keep our roads safe — does require that drivers, when necessary, are assessed for their continued ability to drive. That is the goal of the DriveABLE program. That's why it was put in place.

As I said, it's a system that depends on family doctors, with their reference to the superintendent of motor vehicles, and on subsequent testing of the driver. There needs to be a way of assessing drivers. That's what DriveABLE does.

I don't know if the members opposite are suggesting that we should abandon a program that evaluates whether or not drivers should be able to continue driving, because that is not the intention of this government. DriveABLE takes drivers off the road, unfortunately, when there comes a time in their driving lives when they should no longer have their licence.

Madame Speaker: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a supplemental.

N. Simons: Indeed, I do have a number of supplemental questions. I get one.

Tests should not leave bad drivers on the road, nor should they take good drivers off the road. What the studies are showing us is that the tests implemented by this government, written into policy, with a medical test and a computer test and an on-road test designed by a husband-and-wife team and given a sole-source contract….

Tests should be fair. We're not questioning whether there should be tests. The tests in question are not. The previous claim that peer reviews were taking place is simply not true. The system is unfair, it's unscientific, and it's ineffective. So will the Attorney General do what is right — either fix it or scrap it?

Hon. S. Anton: As a government committed to road
[ Page 1747 ]
safety and ensuring that our roads are as safe as they can be — which, by the way, was confirmed by the Court of Appeal today as being a fundamental responsibility and ability of government to manage our roads and look after public safety on our roads….

I find it fascinating that the members opposite think we should get rid of a program that assesses, through both cognitive testing and driving testing, whether or not a person may continue to drive. That is an important part of maintaining drivers' licences and maintaining road safety in British Columbia. That's a commitment of government. That will be a commitment of government.

N. Macdonald: I'll just quote from an article, "Failure to Predict On-Road Results." It's in Canadian Family Physician, July 2013. It says: "We do not agree with Dobbs's" — that's the owner, the creator, of DriveABLE — "conclusion that these findings provide the evidence physicians need to be competent in using the recommendation from the DriveABLE in-office cognitive evaluation to assist them in making accurate, evidence-based decisions about their patients' fitness to drive."

You see, I can quote from the study that is a real peer review. The question I have for this minister: what evidence can the minister point to that actually proves that DriveABLE works?

Hon. S. Anton: Government is committed to road safety. Government is committed to fair process.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members.

Please continue.

Hon. S. Anton: Government is committed to this program but to continuing review of this program.

[1430]

As I said, the family doctors, which I think the member opposite was referring to, can rely on a number of cognitive tests. Sometimes they rely on whether or not their patient can find their way back to their own vehicle. They can rely on any number of things that have them refer the person to the superintendent of motor vehicles for both a cognitive test and a road test. That's the DriveABLE program. It helps keep our roads safe in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. Yap: I'm delighted to take my place again in the debate, following up from where I left off at the last sitting of the House.

I want to first of all start by saying it is an honour and a privilege to be here on behalf of the good people of Richmond-Steveston, to speak on their behalf and to speak in favour of their interests. I would state from the outset that balanced budget 2014 is very much in the interests of the people of Richmond-Steveston. I'm enthusiastically in support of balanced budget 2014, and I'll spend the next few minutes explaining why in this debate.

First of all, balanced budget 2014 is really promise made, promise kept. About this time a year ago, members will recall that we were talking to British Columbians to start preparing for the coming selection that British Columbians would make in May of last year. We made a very firm commitment that if the voters would give our government a fresh mandate, which they did in May 2013, we would deliver a second consecutive balanced budget.

I want to thank the Minister of Finance for his deep commitment to delivering this prudent budget, this fiscally responsible budget, which cannot be easy because, as we all know, it is so easy to say yes to so many worthwhile projects and programs. It is easy to say yes, very difficult to exercise discipline and to make the tough choices which this government has, which this Minister of Finance has. I am grateful to the minister and our government for exercising this fiscal prudence.

Budget 2014 projects surpluses of $184 million in 2014-15, $206 million in '15-16 and $451 million in 2016-17 — in other words, surpluses over the next three years totalling $841 million. Now, on the scale of the total budget of the province, these are admittedly modest surpluses, but they are surpluses.

[1435]

The fiscal plan includes contingencies of $300 million in 2014-15, $400 million in '15-16 and $575 million in '16-17 to help manage unexpected costs and priority initiatives, including the 2014 public sector compensation mandate and LNG development. I'll have a bit more to say about the promise of LNG later on in my remarks.

Establishing and executing a budget plan is the essence of fiscal responsibility. We have, as a government, stayed true to the principle that government should not spend more than it takes in, than the taxpayers provide. After all, there's only one source of funding for the province, and that is the taxpayer.

We said last year when we went to the people for their permission to continue that we would exercise fiscal discipline. This budget affirms that we have lived up to that commitment. Budget 2014 will foster growth in jobs and investment, will help families plan and build for the
[ Page 1748 ]
future and will strengthen support for individuals and families most in need.

I want to spend a little time talking about debt and debt management, because in the back-and-forth debate in this House between members from one side and the other we've focused on debt. It is a very important issue. It's an issue that I know is of concern to my constituents.

As I talked to constituents, it was made very clear to me that the majority of them are very concerned that we prudently manage our finances, that we control spending, that we ensure that the debt is manageable and that eventually it will be retired. All of us want to leave a better world for our children and their children. One way to do it is to leave them a fiscally sound and fiscally well-managed provincial budget.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The total provincial debt is forecast to be $64.7 billion in 2014-15, $66.9 billion in '15-16 and $68.9 billion in '16-17, reflecting important, major capital investments in the infrastructure which British Columbians require.

Now, taxpayer-supported debt is forecast to be $43.1 billion in 2014-15, $44.5 billion in '15-16 and $45.5 billion in 2016-17. By eliminating the deficit and reducing the government's need to borrow, Budget 2014 forecasts that we will peak out at a taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio of 18.5 percent in 2013-14. This will decline to 17.8 percent in 2016-17.

Taxpayer-supported interest costs continue to be at manageable levels: just over four cents per dollar of revenue over the three-year fiscal plan. This ensures that B.C. maintains its leading position in fiscally prudent debt management.

At a peak of 18.5 percent, taxpayer-supported debt to GDP is among the lowest of the provinces. As we have heard, British Columbia, at 18.5 percent, compares so positively to some other jurisdictions. For example, in Quebec debt-to-GDP is 55.7 percent. In Ontario it's 37.4 percent; Canada, 33 percent. Again, here in British Columbia it's 18.5 percent and forecasted to begin declining from this peak.

To put it another way, if British Columbia were to have Ontario's debt-servicing burden, which is about nine cents per dollar of revenue, we would, as a province, have to pay about $2.2 billion more in debt-servicing.

[1440]

That's $2.2 billion more that would have to come from some worthwhile programs, from some important expenditures. This alone dramatically illustrates the relevance, the importance, of sound fiscal management, maintaining the debt load at reasonable levels.

As a consequence of this government's fiscal prudence, controls over spending and the elimination of the deficit, we have been, as a province, affirmed at the triple-A credit rating. This is something that is special because it signifies to potential investors — to the financial world, to those who make important economic decisions — that B.C. is a safe place to invest. Now, we have heard — and it's worth mentioning again — that it is a rarity to have a triple-A credit rating as a jurisdiction, in part because of the tough economic times which we've come through as a province, as a nation, as a continent.

We've heard the comparisons, but it's worth noting again that with our triple-A credit rating, we are in a very, very small group. In fact, only two provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, have a triple-A credit rating, and the federal government has. When you look at the comparison to other provinces in Canada, they do not have at this time, as we have in British Columbia, the triple-A credit rating designation. Our government's commitment to balancing the budget, to keeping taxes low and competitive, to promoting B.C. to investors will mean continued steady growth in our economy.

Part of this economic future will involve the promise of a brand-new LNG industry. This is a great opportunity, a generational opportunity for British Columbia, one which our government is pursuing with great vigour. We've heard members talk about the opportunities that LNG will provide in terms of investment, in terms of job creation and in terms of revenues to government that will help us eventually retire the provincial debt and to have the funds that would allow us to really provide the kinds of programs and supports to British Columbians that we can today only envision.

This is a budget, Budget 2014, which will position B.C. for continued economic growth and prosperity for British Columbians, and this budget has been well received by those whose job it is to look at economic indicators and the performance of complex organizations like provincial jurisdictions.

Let's not just take my word for it. Let's see what others who are experts have said. For example, in a news release the Investment Industry Association of Canada…. This is a group that represents financial advisers and investment advisers, people who know a thing or two about the value of good financial management. In their release of February 18, 2014, they say:

"IIAC recognizes the difficult domestic and international economic conditions the province has been forced to navigate over the past five years. The IIAC commends the government for managing its public finances prudently in the period following the 2008 financial crash and extended weak recovery."

They go on to say in their release:

"Success in achieving budget balance and a falling debt burden — together with steady reductions in spending from 6 percent to 2.5 percent in the recent economic downturn and holding the line on taxes — signals to domestic and foreign investors that the competitive business climate will remain in place in British Columbia. This will instil investor confidence and draw job-creating investment to the province.

"British Columbia — with its abundant resources, skilled workforce and evolving opportunities in LNG production — has a bright economic future."

That's what the experts say.
[ Page 1749 ]

[1445]

I found another really strong affirmation of the work that is reflected in our budget. This is a quote from the Business Council of British Columbia — again, a group that reflects people who are very knowledgable about what it takes to be a place to attract investment and create jobs.

Here's a quote from the Business Council of B.C.: "A sound fiscal framework is an important foundation to support long-term economic growth. It must be noted that British Columbia has been more successful than other provinces in effectively managing its costs." This is a quote from Mr. Jock Finlayson, executive vice-president with the Business Council of British Columbia, on February 18, 2014.

Because we fulfilled our promise to be fiscally prudent and we have delivered our second consecutive balanced budget, British Columbia can start to make targeted sustainable investments in our social infrastructure. I'd like to highlight some examples.

Community Living B.C. will receive incremental funding of over $240 million over three years, maintaining services for adults with developmental disabilities and their families. That's very important. I know of the very good work that members of the Community Living B.C. community do in my riding, in Richmond-Steveston. I want to commend the Richmond Society for Community Living for the great work they do, day in and day out. This budget will provide additional incremental funding to help provide those needed services.

More examples: an additional $15 million over three years for children and youth with special needs, an additional $15 million over three years for increased policing costs and $6 million for legal aid–related services.

Health care — important to all British Columbians and which we debated in this House just today, and frequently — remains our single most important commitment. Budget 2014 will see the health budget increase by $2½ billion over three years. Total health spending will reach $19.6 billion, over 42 percent of all government expenditures by 2016-17. Again, this is possible because of prudent fiscal management, strong economy and a clear focus on making tough decisions.

After health care, the next most important commitment is education. Budget 2014 maintains funding for K-to-12 and post-secondary systems at already record Budget 2013 levels. Some examples are $2.3 billion for capital spending by post-secondary institutions across B.C. and $1.5 billion to maintain, replace, renovate or expand K-to-12 facilities.

Government will continue to work with employers, educators and communities so that British Columbians can get the training that they need for the jobs of the future. The budget includes investments in skills training, such as the NorKam trades centre of excellence in Kamloops; the new trades-training facilities in Camosun College and Okanagan College; a new state-of-the-art campus for Emily Carr University, for visual media design arts in Vancouver; and, in my community in Richmond, a new school of design at Kwantlen Polytechnic University will be built.

Balanced budget 2014 will also support our future learners with the B.C. training and education savings grant, which will benefit 40,000 children who are eligible each year — those born after January 1, 2007. Families can use this grant along with a modest savings plan to help to create an education fund for their children, to help pay for their post-secondary education when they graduate from high school.

[1450]

Budget 2014 also sets the stage for implementation of the B.C. early childhood tax benefit. Starting April 2015 the benefit will provide up to $146 million to 180,000 families with children under six at the rate of $55 per month per eligible child. About 90 percent of B.C.'s families with young children will be eligible for this tax benefit.

Home ownership is a goal which most British Columbians share. Budget 2014 supports new homebuyers with the increase in the first-time homebuyers property transfer tax exemption threshold to $475,000 from $425,000. This will save first-time-homebuyers up to $7,500 on the purchase of their homes.

Now, I'd like to highlight the good work that's been done and that's reflected in this budget in the area of taxes. Budget 2014 ensures that B.C. families will continue to have among the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada, including income taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, health care premiums and payroll taxes.

B.C. currently has the lowest provincial personal income taxes in Canada for individuals earning up to $121,000 per year, and that's a lot of people. Provincial personal income taxes for most taxpayers have been reduced by 37 percent or more since 2001. Today an additional 400,000 people no longer pay any B.C. income tax.

Let me quickly share some examples. An individual earning $20,000 a year pays $650 less in provincial income taxes than he did in 2001. A senior couple earning $40,000 a year pay $791 less in provincial income taxes than they did in 2001. An individual earning $50,000 a year pays $1,340 less in provincial income taxes than they did in 2001. We want British Columbia to continue to be a place where people know we have a competitive tax regime, where people can come to work, contribute, raise a family and recreate.

B.C.'s LNG future is something we can all look forward to. Budget 2014 provides funding of $29 million over three years to support the development of our new LNG industry in British Columbia, including attracting investments to B.C., supporting a stable environment for investment decisions, facilitating timely processing for regulatory and permitting requirements and ensur-
[ Page 1750 ]
ing ongoing environmental protection management and stewardship.

A proposed new income tax on liquefaction at LNG facilities will help ensure that B.C. is competitive in attracting investment and earns a fair share of revenue for British Columbians. This is very important. We need to be competitive, because this is a competition. As has been referred to, there are other jurisdictions in the world that are competing for LNG investment. British Columbia is well positioned to be successful in this, but we have to be competitive.

Again, people whose business it is to review investment factors have looked at our approach, and some have taken the step of making known their views — for example: "We are pleased that the government is moving forward with announcing a liquefied natural gas tax strategy, which was also included in our recommendations in October 2013.

This is a first step in providing the certainty investors need, and major investments in the sector will hopefully proceed as planned." This is a quote from Richard Rees, the CEO of the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia, CPABC, on February 18, 2014.

[1455]

We also received kudos from the Business Council of British Columbia, whose CEO, Greg D'Avignon, said: "We support the province's considerable efforts to realize a globally competitive LNG industry. This is an unprecedented potential investment opportunity for the province." This was in a news release on February 18, 2014.

LNG will provide incredible opportunities, not just for big businesses directly involved in liquefied natural gas but also small and medium-sized businesses. I'm very pleased that our government will be focusing to support small businesses to continue to flourish in British Columbia. As we know, small business is the backbone of our provincial economy, and our government will continue to facilitate opportunities for small business.

How do we do this? Continue to reduce red tape and unnecessary regulations that hinder economic growth; partner with local federal and other provincial governments to reduce the overall regulatory burden for British Columbia businesses; support efforts to bundle government services across sectors to make it easier for businesses and citizens to interact with government and create new jobs; and continue to take a citizen-centred and plain-language approach to government forms, which I know for many small business people is the bane of their existence sometimes.

Small business plays such an important role in British Columbia. In terms of exports, they account for 42 percent of merchandise shipped abroad. I'm pleased that a continued focus of our government with this budget will be to continue to reduce red tape and support small business, medium-sized business, so that we can truly be the most business-friendly jurisdiction in Canada.

In fact, we have made great progress, as you know, and the business community has expressed their appreciation for the work and the results achieved in making B.C. business-friendly. For the third year in a row, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has awarded British Columbia an A rating for its continuing program to slash red tape. We are, in fact, the only province in Canada to achieve that designation. This is a remarkable achievement. We cannot rest on our laurels. We have to keep working hard to continue to make B.C. that business-friendly environment.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business on February 18, 2014, said this: "Small businesses are pleased the government has balanced the budget for the second year in a row. The government deserves praise for restraining spending growth and for holding the line on the small business corporate tax rate at 2½ percent. Efforts at reducing red tape by the B.C. government were recently rewarded by CFIB with an A letter grade, the highest in Canada."

As I look forward with the great promise provided by this second consecutive balanced budget for British Columbia, I'm truly optimistic, and I believe that British Columbians can be optimistic.

I know that many members, certainly on this side of the House, are very optimistic about the great opportunities that present themselves to British Columbia, opportunities for continued economic growth that are provided by our very important sectors, whether it's the natural resource sector, whether it's the tourism sector, whether it's the film sector or whether it's looking at our service sector and LNG that is just developing — and which we look forward to providing the tremendous generational opportunity for continued economic development in our province.

[1500]

Let me conclude my remarks with one more quote from another leading business representative, who said Budget 2014 is what investors want. "People are calling this a triple-B." That's for balanced, boring budget. "But to me, boring means stability and predictability, which is exactly what investors want. British Columbians want no surprises in budgeting anymore, so I think it strikes the right balance." This is a quote from Phil Hochstein, the president of the Independent Contractors Association of B.C., in the Times Colonist on February 19, 2014.

On behalf of the citizens of Richmond-Steveston, I'm delighted and I'm enthusiastically in support of this balanced budget 2014, which is another important step that our government has made in order to ensure a strong economy and a secure tomorrow for British Columbia.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm not quite as enthusiastic as the member opposite about this budget, but I am pleased to rise and make some comments on it. I have to say from
[ Page 1751 ]
the outset that this is not a budget presented by the B.C. Liberal government that I can support.

The B.C. Liberals claim to have provided a balanced budget, but I would say that it's anything but balanced. I'm not talking about the fact that in order to have the bottom line that they present….

I'm not talking about the fact that there has been a fire sale of assets, although there has been. I'm not talking about the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, have been siphoned off from B.C. Hydro, which is adding a massive future debt load to the people of this province, my kids and my kids' kids' kids. I'm not talking about the fact that the only way this budget could be claimed to be balanced is by driving up things like B.C. Hydro rates.

I'm not talking about that when I say that this is not a balanced budget. What I'm talking about is the fact that there is no balance to this budget. Balance, if you look in the dictionary, is described as…. One description is "an even distribution of weight enabling someone or something to remain upright and steady." Or a condition "in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions." Balance is also described as fairness, justice, impartiality, even-handedness, egalitarianism and even equal opportunity.

The very last quality in the world that I would attribute to this budget presented by the B.C. Liberals is balance. There is no balance. There is no fairness. There's no even-handedness, no even distribution of weight enabling this province to remain upright and steady. The B.C. Liberal approach to this province is not balanced.

What has been happening under the B.C. Liberal mismanagement of this province is that there has been something that I think is very fundamentally unfair. There has been a steady and intentional move away from the types of taxes where the very wealthy pay more, and those that are less wealthy pay less.

Taxes like income taxes — those are fair taxes. If you make $300,000 or $400,000 a year, you pay substantially more than somebody who makes less. I think that's a fair way to go — the more you earn, the more you pay. That's a balanced approach.

This government, the B.C. Liberal government, has moved away from those types of taxes. When you look at the change in the tax regime over the last 12, almost 13 years now, increasingly what has happened is the taxes where you pay more when you are wealthier are being replaced by taxes and fees and costs that are killing the middle class far more than they are killing the wealthy. It's a deliberate and calculated decision to make it easier on the richest individuals, the richest corporations and to hit the middle class.

The taxes that have gone up under this government, the fees that have gone up under this government, the ones you are getting whacked with, as the Premier described it when she was a radio show host — those are the ones where the middle class pay just as much as the rich, despite having far lower incomes.

[1505]

We're talking about things like MSP, about things like hydro rates. We're not talking about things like income tax. With MSP, the family of four living on $40,000 a year or even $30,001 pays the same as a family of three making $300,000 or $400,000 a year. I just don't think that's a fair way to look at taxation. It's a flat tax. They are regressive taxes as opposed to progressive taxes, which are much more fair.

HST is a good example of where this government tried, several years ago, to impose a tax that would have cost consumers $1.9 billion more in order to give a major tax break to, largely, the largest corporations in this province. That was the tax imposed by this government, by the Liberal government, where the rich and the middle class would have to pay exactly the same amount of tax on purchases as somebody who has a lower income, again reducing taxes for the rich and powerful and increasing taxes to the middle class.

The average person in B.C. is certainly aware that they're getting hit, that they're getting whacked. They know that their fees for MSP and B.C. Hydro are going up. They know. They know because they have to balance their books. The members opposite have talked often about balancing the books. Well, I'll tell you, the people who have to balance the books in this province that it's getting harder and harder for are the average person and the average worker in this province.

It's getting harder and harder to maintain and achieve what they thought they were going to have, which is a reasonable job, a nice home or a reasonable home, money enough to raise their families and even a little bit left over to spend on entertainment and maybe the odd vacation. It's getting harder and harder for people to be able to live like that, despite working, in some families, two or three or four jobs, when you add up all the jobs of the people in some of those homes.

B.C. Hydro is another great example of where tax cuts for the rich are being transferred over to fees that are being paid by the middle class. In fact, between 2007 and 2016 the projections are that the fastest-growing area of government revenue will be from B.C. Hydro, with revenue rising by an average of 7.4 percent per year. These costs are being passed on to hydro customers. The costs of this incompetently managed system are being passed on to hydro customers, and that's 7.4 percent revenue. That is coming out of the pockets of the average British Columbian and businesses as well.

Our competitiveness as a province…. Unfortunately, one of our great competitive assets has been B.C. Hydro, which has served companies and served our public so well over the years. Now that is being squandered away, we're going to be losing — we are losing — one of our main competitive advantages.
[ Page 1752 ]

It's entirely, entirely a result of Liberal incompetence and mismanagement. The removal of independent oversight by the B.C. Utilities Commission…. This government gave special deals to their private power friends that forced the province to buy power that we don't need at exorbitantly high rates and to sell it at peak periods for far less. This is not good management.

Not only are we paying far more for power than we should have to, at the same time, B.C. Hydro is raking hundreds of millions of dollars out of B.C. Hydro, calling it a dividend, supposedly balancing the books with that and leaving it in a deep and growing debt. We once again….

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: The members opposite find it so hard to get into the 21st century. It's really quite amazing.

What is happening is that hundreds of millions of dollars, as I said, is being pulled out of B.C. Hydro, putting it further and further into debt, once again mortgaging my kids' future and my kids' kids' future and, as I said, taking away the business competitiveness of this province. That's bad management.

[1510]

They're mortgaging our future, and at the same time, they're picking our pockets. Government is going to take an additional $2 billion right out of our pockets over the next three years in increased Hydro hikes. Again, that's going directly to the middle class and those of us who are trying to heat our homes and do our laundry and all the other things that we have to do in order to survive.

I wanted to talk about another area which is unfairly hitting the middle class, and that's MSP, medical services premiums. That's another tax that has gone up, whacking the middle class to pay for the reduction in income taxes to the wealthiest.

In fact, again, I talked about the B.C. Hydro rates being one of the largest increases over the next several years in terms of revenue that's going to go to the province. Another fastest-growing source of revenue for the provincial government is MSP premiums, with an average annual increase since 2007 of 5.5 percent. That is far more than the cost of living has increased, but it's hitting average families in British Columbia.

I was surprised that the Premier in question period, when asked about the increasing MSP premium, boasted about the fact that one million people in B.C. pay reduced MSP premiums and 800,000 pay no MSP premiums whatsoever. I've got to say I listened to that, and I thought that, well, that's a pretty good thing. I went and took a look at what the premium rates are and how much you have to be making in order to get those breaks. If you are a family of three and you make $30,001, you have to pay the full freight. You have to pay $138.50 per month.

I don't think the Premier should be proud of the fact that if you are somebody who is making $30,000 or more, you have to pay the full freight on MSP premiums. What it really means when she says that is that the ones that are paying no premiums, the 800,000 people in this province, are making less than $22,000 a year for a family, and then another million people in this province are making less than $30,000 a year for a family. I think that's actually a pretty pathetic record that the Premier shouldn't really be bragging about.

Overall, if you put together just the MSP premiums and the Hydro premiums, we know that the average family is going to be paying $900 more over the next three years. You know, to some people in this House, that may not sound like a lot of money. But for a lot of people living in homes all over this province, that's really hard to take, and that's going to be very difficult.

For B.C. Hydro customers, the average customer is going to pay $96 more this fiscal year, $166 in 2015-2016 and $215 more in 2016-2017. So over those three years they're going to pay almost $500 more because of the rate hikes.

For MSP premiums it's $66 more in 2014-15, then $132 and then $202. That's a total of about $400 more that families are going to have to pay in the future, each and every year — not to mention whatever future premium hikes this government imposes. That's the predilection: to increase the cost for things that are flat taxes and to reduce the cost for those that are the very wealthy.

I want to talk about post-secondary tuition fees, another area that has become punishing for families and for students. In my community and throughout this province I hear students saying — more and more student representatives, student federations and individual students — that it is getting more and more difficult for students to attend university.

We know what that means. What it means is that we lose equity. What we have is we have families that can help to support….

[1515]

It's great when families can help support students attend post-secondary institutions. I think it's great when they do that. I've helped my four children, all of them, at some time or another with their tuition, with the costs of education. But there are lots of families who can't do that, and there is not a system in place in British Columbia that helps students, makes it easier for students to attend university. So what we end up finding is that the children of the wealthier have more of a tendency to attend university, and the children in families that are not wealthy, are middle-class or are struggling tend less to attend university. It's just too expensive.

Students in B.C. have the highest level of debt of any province in Canada. Being number one in that category is not something that we should be proud of, and being number one in that category does not, I don't believe, indicate that this is a balanced government.
[ Page 1753 ]

I love the institutions in our community as well. I'm really proud that in Burnaby we have Simon Fraser University and the B.C. Institute of Technology. It's these organizations that we should be supporting fully. We should be making sure that we have opportunity and that we have access and that we support the programs that these institutions provide. Yet what we have been doing…. Funding transfers to post-secondary institutions were cut by $70 million — if you go back, starting with the 2012 budget.

This is a government that talks about the importance of skills training. It talks about the importance of post-secondary education. Boy, I bet if you went back and you did a little comparison of the throne speeches and the pre-election speeches and the pre-election comments and compared it to what's actually in the budgets, you wouldn't even think you were in the same province.

Skills training, another area that we should be significantly investing in. It's something that was talked about in the throne speech, something that we, certainly, on this side of the House were pleading with the government about over the last several years — to do something about skills training. We have a deficit of skilled workers, and it is an obvious way for us to increase the talent, to increase the opportunity, to improve business so that businesses have that skilled talent pool that they need. Instead, what are we doing? We're importing temporary foreign workers, and I think it's a shame.

We had a skills training system, an apprenticeship system, that was dismantled by this government almost immediately or very shortly after it came into power in 2001. We had completion rates that were strong completion rates. Now students that are entering the apprenticeship program…. Only about a third of the students are completing, and I think that's shameful.

We're not putting money into skills training. We're reducing money to the post-secondary institutions, and students have the highest level of debt in the country. I think that's shameful. It's not good for our populace, and it's not good for our economy. Again, poor decision-making and mismanagement.

I want to say that this shift of taxes, this shift of burden, this…. Well, I was going to say slow, but it's not very slow. It's continual. It's increasing. This shift of burden for responsibility for paying for public services to the middle class and even those that are lower middle class has a disproportional impact on women, and that really concerns me. At the same time, we have a government that basically ignores investment in child care. It's not concerned about child care.

We also have all of these other impacts that are disproportionately hurting women. The numbers in terms of the number of women who are single parents and the number of people in poverty is increasing at a shocking rate from year to year. Those are kids. I care more about…. Anything else, I guess, is…. It's our future generations.

[1520]

When we're talking about skills training and we're talking about post-secondary education and we're talking about income levels, we have to remember the children — and nobody would disagree.

I know we all agree in this House that what happens with our children is the most important thing, but this government is not acting. It's not putting its money…. It's not putting the resources to the places that will help those kids and give them a healthy start in life.

We know that — I can't remember the number exactly — a large proportion, about 20 to 25 percent, of children who go into kindergarten have a deficit in terms of their preparedness. It's linked, definitely linked, with the income levels of those families. Families in poverty are not good for those kids, obviously. It doesn't give them a fair start. It predicts future problems in education. It predicts future problems in terms of involvement in high-risk behaviour.

Yet we seem to be languishing and not concerned. I hear members from the other side repeating the mantra that we're just going to someday — 12, 15 years in the future — solve all of this because we're going to have some magical billions of dollars, trillions of dollars, that are going to come to us.

Well, even if those claims were based in reality, that doesn't help the kids that are going through the system now, the kids that are languishing, the kids that are being put in a position where they don't have as good a chance at life simply because their parents can't get jobs or they can't get jobs when they hit their teen and 20 years. We know that the unemployment rate of young people is ridiculously high, disproportionately high.

I'm concerned about asset sales. The budget documents report sales of another $423 million worth of government property in 2013-14, with plans for sale of another $200 million in 2014-15, including some properties I know on the list. I don't know if it's going to be in the ones in 2014-15 — I believe it is — but that's including some gems of property in my community, including a property that the city had rezoned for social housing. The plans were there, and the government simply sold off the property.

What's happening, I think, in the short term is that the books are being balanced by — to use a term that is used — selling the family silverware. I think that's an irresponsible way to supposedly balance the budget.

I don't have a problem with government strategically buying and selling property in order to better serve the aims of the province. But I do have a real concern in this case, because that's not what has happened.

Land is being sold out without regard to future need or future potential. Again, assets paid for by the taxpayers of this province are sold off in a fire sale. I wonder how many times the province is selling off property that they
[ Page 1754 ]
will now have to lease back, saddling future budgets and future generations with increased debt.

Speaking of debt, I find the B.C. Liberal slogans pretty rich. "Debt-free B.C." is one of the best, a real interesting slogan, an election slogan. The fact is, the reality is, that the debt has gone up more under this Premier than at any time in B.C.'s history.

In 2011 B.C.'s debt was $45 billion. In 2012 that rose to $50 billion — over a 10 percent increase in just one year. Another 10 percent increase in 2013 to about $56 billion, $62 billion in 2014, then $65 billion and then $67 billion. So the debt is going up, up and up under the B.C. Liberals.

That's apart from the astounding $100 billion in contractual obligations. The B.C. Liberals have locked up taxpayers into long-term contracts — sometimes 40- or 50-year contracts — that offer absolutely no flexibility. Those are P3s and other contracts that lock this province into contracts that will last for generations into the future, whether or not we need those services.

[1525]

You know, I'm doing all right, but I really worry about the impact that this increased debt and this $100 billion in contractual obligationsare going to do to my kids and my kids' kids.

We have debt increasing faster than at any time in our province's history. We have $100 billion worth of contracts for things like the Golden Ears Bridge, which taxpayers are subsidizing for millions of dollars a year; for privatized power projects where we signed up to buy power, whether we need it or not, at crippling prices; and for things like some of the…. I think it's $3.5 billion of overruns that we have for things like the northwest transmission line, 85 percent higher than the 2011 cost estimate; the Vancouver Convention Centre, $341 million over budget; B.C. Place roof, gone up by $414 million.

The Port Mann Bridge went from $1.5 billion to $3.3 billion. The South Fraser Perimeter Road. The Basi-Virk settlement — that was only $6 million. The Boss Power settlement, where the government settled at $30 million, was $21.3 million higher than recommended by the report because the government didn't follow the law while banning uranium mining in B.C. and because they wanted to keep it quiet. BCeSIS, integrated case management system, Maximus — the list goes on and on, $3.5 billion of waste.

I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about a few areas that are of particular concern to my constituents in Burnaby–Deer Lake. I've talked to a lot of constituents, and one of the things they're telling me is that they're very concerned about the public education system. This is another area where we have to invest, and we have to invest properly in order to make sure that every student, every child, has a good chance to succeed in the world. Public education is definitely the great equalizer.

Last week we were outside, participating in Bullying Awareness Day. Wearing pink, many of us were out there, and we were joined by hundreds of students. Those students participated in good faith, and their teachers participated in good faith, showing that they believe in fair and respectful behaviour.

Unfortunately, those students are going back into classrooms, back to a school system where balance, where respect and where good faith have been destroyed by the B.C. Liberal government. They're going back to a system where "balance" has a very narrow definition, according to this government. It's not balanced.

What has happened with the teachers of this province and with the school system is that — as everybody now knows, because the facts got out there — the B.C. Liberal government had a deliberate strategy to provoke the teachers of this province into a full-scale strike so that they could turn the public against the teachers and gain support to impose legislation that turned out to be illegal — just as the essentially identical legislation that had been struck down had done before that.

I find it astounding. I go into the schools quite often because I used to be a school trustee. I know I talk about that, but I love the school system. I love the public school system. With this deliberate attempt to alienate teachers, to provoke them into a strike, I actually find it quite amazing that the teachers are still so dedicated. What I fear is that, essentially, the system is running on the goodwill of teachers, the goodwill of parents and of support staff and administrators.

On one side you have dedicated teachers who are continuing on a day-to-day basis to say, "We're going to make this work as long as we can" and, on the other side, versus the bad faith of government.

I see that I only have a couple of minutes left. I would love to have talked more about the education system.

I'm sorry that I'm not going to get a chance to talk more about an issue of real concern in my constituency — Burnaby Hospital, which was unfortunately used by the B.C. Liberal government in order to try to have political gain when there was absolutely no intention to do what they promised to do in the platform. In the Liberal platform they said that it was a project underway or in planning, but there's nothing in this budget.

[1530]

There is no commitment whatsoever, despite the fact that the B.C. Liberals knew that 84 people had died as a result, as the doctors say, of a hospital that has old infrastructure.

We've known since 2001, from a government report, that Burnaby Hospital needs to be rebuilt. Yet here we have promises before the election, a bogus committee set up to listen to the people, and in fact, after the election we get the typical thing, which is that there's not a penny for Burnaby Hospital.

It's time that Burnaby Hospital gets some attention. It's time for the government to work cooperatively with the city of Burnaby to make sure that this happens, that
[ Page 1755 ]
we get our hospital. It's time that the B.C. Liberals stop thinking of this and other issues merely as political pluses or minuses but actually take action.

I'm not going to get a chance to speak much about my critic area, which is Justice — my concerns about lack of investment in domestic violence, despite the fact that there's a lot of talk about a violence-free B.C., and other issues.

With that, I will take my seat.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'm very delighted and grateful to be able to rise today and respond to the second balanced budget in the history of this province. I know that members on this side recognize the effort and the amount of work that went into developing that budget, not just as a document but as a new philosophy on how governments need to govern and not only in British Columbia but in Canada and around the world.

Before I get into my specific comments, I do want to say that I am absolutely humbled and honoured to be representing the people of Surrey-Fleetwood, a community that I know has a very strong sense of community. Really, because of our passion on this side of the House for a secure tomorrow, they know that they, their children, their grandchildren and future generations are going to continue to be able to see their community thrive and grow.

I also want to thank the team that supports me in my office — I introduced my two constituency assistants, Brittany Comrie and Preet Parhar, the other day — and my staff here in Victoria. As we move forward trying to balance the competing challenges that we face, without that support, I wouldn't be able to do what I need to do as a member of this government and an MLA for Surrey-Fleetwood.

I also want to thank my wife, Charlene, who was in the House two weeks ago. She has always been a great supporter of mine. As we serve either in our corporate lives or our public lives, our partners and our families are absolutely critical to that.

I also want to recognize a lady that I know is watching today. That is my mother-in-law, Dorothy Chevalier, who is 97 years old and who reads every single newspaper that comes across her apartment in a care facility that she's in. She also watches question period and the debates on budget.

She is someone who has shown what has built our province to what it is, and that is the seniors of our communities who contributed in very tough times, who saw depressions because of bad choices made by governments. I know that my mother-in-law — and this will get me points, I know — is very passionate about us having a balanced budget, about building a legacy for her great-grandchildren, not only her grandchildren.

I also know that in Surrey we've got a great team of MLAs. I look at the members for Surrey–White Rock, Surrey-Cloverdale, Surrey-Tynehead and Surrey-Panorama, who I was fortunate to join by winning a seat that was not deemed to be winnable. I joined a team in Surrey that has a clear vision for that community and for the future of that community in so many different areas.

[1535]

Surrey is one of the fastest-growing communities throughout British Columbia and even in Canada. It is doing that because of sound fiscal planning that that community has done, in partnership with this government, and by making some of the tough decisions.

I know that the city of Surrey and their team on council and their management team, working with the Surrey school district, have done some really innovative things as we face the pressures of growth but do not want to hamstring future generations by making unwise decisions or decisions that don't look to the future.

There've been lots of facts and figures that have been used on both sides of the House as we've debated the budget. I think some really key things are….

When people talk about deficits and debt, I'm amazed how the members opposite don't know the difference between the two. Debt, properly brought in and properly managed, helps to lay a sound economic plan for the future. That is based on our debt-to-GDP ratio. We've heard that number, at 18.4, and we're looking at reducing that.

We are one of the few provinces in this country that is managing that effectively as part of our overall fiscal plan. That is why we have a balanced budget. That is why we have a triple-A credit rating.

I'm finding it interesting. As things change on the other side of the House, we now have a member from Coquitlam who is talking about a new approach by the members opposite to the economic future of this province. I find that very interesting.

Things like: "We're going to move from no to yes." It's amazing how that's been picked up from our platform as the B.C. government in managing our budget and laying that out for the people of British Columbia and the fact that this government was re-elected on a platform of fiscal prudence, of clear vision for the future.

When I see that now there is someone talking about trying to develop a vision, I think that's a good thing. Even then, when you compare that vision to the one that this government has consistently laid in front of the people of British Columbia in two balanced budgets….

Our Minister of Finance has stood up on two separate occasions and the first time was accused of not having a balanced budget, of fudging the figures. The proof of the pudding now is that the economic experts around the world are looking at British Columbia for having a strong fiscal plan, for living up to that fiscal plan, for casting a vision for the future.

I'm amazed that people who talk about fiscal prudence have continued to add to their previous spend-o-meter and continued to talk about spending more here, more
[ Page 1756 ]
there, but with no clear vision as to how to pay for that and how to ensure that the people of British Columbia's long-term interests are also protected at the same time.

I listened to both my colleague on this side of the House from Richmond-Steveston and then the speaker from Burnaby–Deer Lake on the opposite side of the House talking about different approaches. We do have the lowest taxes in this country as a government, and that is because we have a strong fiscal plan and a budget that takes into account every single opportunity we have to manage the fiscal environment.

I hear comments like: "We are a fire sale on assets." It is absolutely true that anyone who manages a budget has to look at their assets and their expenditures. You have to sometimes make prudent decisions in order to balance those two.

Our Minister of Finance and his team and the members on this side of the House have worked very hard to look at those balances and make sure that we lay those out in a way that is both fiscally prudent and also manageable — not just in the short term, to win favour, but in the long term, to ensure fiscal responsibility and sustainability.

[1540]

When I look at all of the things that this government has done over the years, I also know that we have worked very hard to build the fastest-growing economy in country.

When I look at that performance and look at the confidence not just in things like LNG, which we know is a huge opportunity for this province…. I find it interesting, again, that I heard members opposite not that long ago, prior to the election, talking about — I use their term — "pipedreams" on LNG. Now they're saying, "Yes, LNG is an opportunity. We need to do it right," and so on. It's amazing to see the flip-flop that happens every time it fits their particular purpose in criticizing our fiscal policy and our direction.

That's the nature of the political environment. But for the people of British Columbia, I urge them to look at the budget documents, to look at the fiscal plan, to look at the content of where we're going as a province. I ask them to look at our jobs plan and the significant steps that we are making in government to develop programs that provide the skills opportunity and training with a long-term view not just for LNG but for every economic sector of this province's economy.

We know LNG is a great opportunity, but so is mining, so is forestry, so is tourism. All of these things contribute to a healthy economy, and our jobs plan and our training plan look to each of those sectors. Over the coming months and the coming years this province and the people of this province are going to see a clear plan that is going to deliver capable young people into a job market. The minister responsible for jobs has said clearly — and I will repeat it clearly, and this is the fact: jobs for British Columbians first. Then we will look to other places where we need additional support.

It's clear on this side of the House that the opportunities we have will not be filled by solely British Columbians. Our policy clearly is British Columbians first, and then we will work with the federal government and with the corporations and industry to make sure that we bring in the right people, who not only are going to be filling jobs but will bring their expertise to help mentor those young people that are coming into the job market in our province and will be able to contribute to the growth as we move forward.

For me, that is absolutely significant, again, to a balanced and a realistic approach to creating a strong economy and jobs in this province of British Columbia.

I want to speak about some of the things that are brought up by members opposite. This government has made major investments. I hear the comment "over budget" and so on. I'm not going to try and argue numbers, but I do know this. B.C. Place and Vancouver Convention Centre are investments in this province that are reaping dividends not just in Vancouver but in every part of this province.

When I hear that conferences like the TED Conference, the leading conference in the world for the greatest thinkers about the future, are coming to Vancouver and making a decision to come here because, one, we have the facilities to accommodate them, but two, they see this as a province that has a vision that they're excited about…. They know where the future is, and the future is not in the status quo. It's about stepping out and looking at innovative opportunities like that.

South perimeter road. I leave this House every day, and I put on my overcoat. I have a pin on it that says No. 17. People say to me: "What's that all about?" I love that opportunity to tell them, because what it is…. It's about investing in economic growth, moving goods and services, and relieving congestion in a region that has been choked for too long. We've made strategic investments.

The same thing with the Port Mann Bridge upgrades and all of the work that's been done there. Those investments….

[1545]

I remember the debate, as a local government official at the time, from the official opposition here in this House, who said it was a waste. "Why put money into infrastructure? It's not going to do anything to relieve congestion. It's not going to do anything for the economy."

Number 1, it created a lot of well-paying jobs while they were being built, but No. 2, it is creating the opportunity for continued economic growth in goods-movement strategy that is going to continue to provide benefits for this province into the future — a wise investment for the future and one that is going to ensure that the businesses that need infrastructure to move their goods and services will have them there.
[ Page 1757 ]

When I drive on that road and I pay the toll, I have no problem with it. I know that what I'm saving, because of the lack of congestion because of that, is providing benefits. That is what investments are all about.

I'm also very proud of the many projects that this government has undertaken in my community, Surrey. You know, when everyone of us gets up, we say that we live in the best community in the province, and we need to be proud.

I'm proud of Kamloops. I'm proud of the Cowichan Valley. I'm proud of Prince George, because I've been able to visit them. I'm proud of the Okanagan. I'm proud of the north. I'm proud of every community in this province. You know why? Because as a province, we work together. We find solutions to problems. We don't look at the problems; we look at the solutions. On this side of the House, that's what we're all about — solutions. In the city of Surrey we've done a number of things, and some of them don't make huge headlines.

Let me just talk about one small thing. You know, we hear from the other side of the House about our issues around the agricultural land reserve and all of those things and all of the supposition that we're trying to destroy it and so on, which is absolutely not true.

In Surrey this government has supported things like the White Rock Farmers Market through the Buy Local program — to a number of about $492 million this government has invested in the Buy Local program. That has meant that our agriculture industry, the farmers, large and small, have been able to see investments in things like Surrey Memorial Hospital — $492 million invested in the city of Surrey in a facility that is state of the art and is going to meet the needs of that community for many years to come.

It's a world-class medical facility, and I know that the doctors and nurses and the patients who go into that facility are proud to know that this government has made that investment.

There is also the Surrey emergency critical care tower — $194 million investment that's going to expand the delivery of vital emergency care services for people throughout the region. That is innovative and forward-thinking.

I mentioned the Port Mann Bridge — $3.3 billion invested in the future of this province and in the city of Surrey, and jobs that were created. We're going to see the ability of goods and services to move through the region because of that in a way that we've never seen in the past.

We're improving energy infrastructure and the delivery of electricity through projects such as the Surrey Area Substation project, a $94 million investment in energy security, not just for the city of Surrey but the entire province.

We are innovating. We're going to continue to do that. Again, one of the smaller things, but a recognition of our government having a vision for the future, is the electric vehicle fast-charging station that we've just recently put in at Surrey Museum. Not a big deal in some people's minds, but it is saying to people in our community that we recognize that we need to look at alternative energy sources, that we need to continue to invest so that people can avail themselves of new technology for their transportation, again contributing to the reduction of GHGs and so on.

[1550]

We are, I believe, one of the first provinces in that has provided things like vehicle drivers with a network of 13 fast-charging stations. We're going to see that program expand to communities throughout the province, because we know it's going to be one of those suite of elements that we add to an overall strategy to benefit every single citizen.

We also worked with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and we're providing grants of up to 20,000 to communities for projects that provide a variety of initiatives for active seniors. I spoke of my mother-in-law. I know that the best health care outcomes we can have is prevention, not fixing problems after they've happened.

This government's policy and the Minister of Health and his team and the health authorities throughout the province are putting significant effort and investment into prevention programs that will ensure that we reduce the cost of health care by having people live healthier lifestyles. I think that that is, again, part of a very significant and innovative vision in our province and in our country.

We've also distributed approximately $18 million in compensation for property taxes to 63 communities throughout B.C. That is an increase of over $1.3 million over last year. So while we are managing our fiscal environment, while we are finding ways through core review to be more efficient, we have not stopped investing in those things that we know are critical to the future.

We also have worked with municipal governments and signed agreements to expand French collections at various public libraries throughout the province of British Columbia — again, not a megaproject, not a huge project by any stretch, but important to the balanced approach that we take in this province to language and providing opportunities for exposure to people, to materials and libraries in the French language. We equally recognize we are a bilingual country, and this government supports that.

We've also seen the opening of a new $90 million Surrey Pretrial Services Centre, the largest provincial correctional facility in B.C. Again, as we developed it, we developed it to the highest LEED standards to show that the government is taking a leadership role in that area and investing in things that we know speak to the future as it comes to GHG emissions, and so on.

I've heard lots of talk from the other side of the House about education. This government since 2001 has invested an additional $1 billion a year in education in the
[ Page 1758 ]
province of British Columbia. We have maintained funding for school districts at $4.7 billion in direct transfers.

We've invested in a number of innovative programs. Our learning improvement fund of $210 million that we put in was purely identified as a means to meet the unique needs that may exist in districts throughout the province.

I'm delighted to say that school districts have worked with us. We hope that the BCTF in the future will continue to work with us to find innovative ways to meet the needs — without necessarily, again, bankrupting our budget in order to keep adding more and more when we've seen declining enrolments and the fact that education is going through a significant transformation. The classrooms of tomorrow are going to look very different than the classrooms of yesterday and today.

[1555]

Our job as a government is to cast that vision with those professionals. Any suggestion by members opposite that this government does not care about teachers and the great job that they do in this province is bordering, in my opinion, on a huge misrepresentation of the motives of this government.

I clearly stated in this House on a number of occasions that we did not — we did not — attempt to provoke a strike. We negotiated. We worked hard. We brought in a cooling-off period to find a negotiated settlement. We'll continue with that as our philosophy so that we have stability, and long-term stability, in our classrooms for the benefit of every single student — special needs, gifted students, every one of the students — for their future and their education.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We are also doing that for the benefit of the teachers. As I travel across this province I know that every teacher that is in a classroom wants a stable environment. They want to know that from September till June they can take their students on their educational journey to success. One of the ways of getting there is stability and a long-term agreement.

I do not believe that that is an impossible goal. I believe it's achievable if both parties sit down and work through what it would take to put the ingredients into an agreement that is long term, that protects the rights of teachers but that also protects the rights and responsibilities for taxpayers. That is this government's goal, it has been our goal, and it will continue to be our goal. We are prepared to find a way to negotiate that and to work together.

We also are prepared to work with the B.C. School Trustees, our co-governance partner, to find ways to reshape the way we deliver education not only in the classroom but in the back office, where we can find efficiencies by working together to identify areas of duplication and then putting the dollars that we realize from that into the classroom where they should be, not in duplication and extra administration.

That is again a goal that this government has been clear on. We spoke about it in the election, we stand by that platform commitment, and we're going make sure that we deliver.

I am coming to the end of my remarks.

There are a number of investments in every riding in this province that this government has invested in. I will give you an example. In Victoria–Swan Lake, my critic's riding, this government has seen a declining enrolment of 12.3 percent, yet we've seen a per-pupil funding increase in that riding of 27.4 percent. That relates to $1,756 of investment in that riding. I notice that the member from Coquitlam is in the House. We've seen a decline of 3.2 percent and an increase in per-pupil funding of 37.2 percent, or $2,143.

When we're criticized for cutting back on education, I think members in this House should know that when you look at the facts, that is not true. With declining enrolments we've held funding where it is, we've increased it where we need to, and we've made the investments where they need to be.

Those are the facts, and I have many more, but I don't have enough time to give them all to the members opposite. I will say this. I am proud to be a member of this government. I am proud of balanced budget 2014. I'm proud of our fiscal discipline and our willingness to work hard as a team to find solutions.

[1600]

I'm proud that the future of the province of British Columbia is in good hands with the government and our plans and our fiscal outlook for the future. When I look at the members on this side of the House, I see people with a vision, with a plan. I do hope that as the days evolve in the future across the House, when we start to see the reality of talking about the future, we'll see some real plans instead of negativity.

J. Shin: I do want to start off with taking this opportunity to first express my gratitude and my thanks to the people in my life. Like it is for every member taking a seat in this chamber, I, too, was raised, elected and supported by a community, an army of people.

Assisting our residents in Burnaby-Lougheed is vital work that I do in my community office, and that wouldn't be possible without the incredible team of staff and volunteers that are serving at the front line. I would like to mention Krystal Smith, Emma Lee, Katrina Kang, Joseph Lee, Eva Prkachin, Lyn Lee, Sophie Jeon and Tiffany Kim. Those are the amazing people that are working in our office.

Public service is not a job where one clocks in and out. I carry this work with me 24-7, as do all the members in this House, and so often my team will also go well beyond their call of duty, texting and e-mailing with me all
[ Page 1759 ]
around the clock, making themselves available on weeknights, weekends and holidays included. Over the last half a year we've become the kind of family that I know, without a shadow of a doubt, serves our community well.

I would also like to acknowledge the dedication and commitment of my constituency association, led by our president, Glen Porter, and executives. These are the people that I think are first to break a sweat and last on the list of accolades. Too often these nameless and faceless people are the ones that are unsung heroes in the background that quietly make history and change our world for the better.

I do want to say my thanks and express my sincere gratitude to Duc Tran, Victoria Banham, Gary Wong, Lil Cameron, Sage Aaron, Yeonhee Park, Jin Na, Paul Dayson, Craig Langston, Jason Hjalmarson — happy birthday, by the way; it's his birthday today — Harman Pandher, Lisa Park, Graham Hallson, Dolores Myles, Jeff Zurek and Iain Macanulty.

There are 53,000 of our Burnaby-Lougheed residents, community stakeholders, as well as business leaders, many of whom I have gotten to know over the years, both on the campaign trail and since the election. I must thank them for sharing with me their ideas, concerns, suggestions and dreams, from trophy hunting of the great bears to the opt-out of monthly fees for smart meters, from the liquor policy review to the Kinder Morgan pipeline project, from B.C. films and TV to food safety inspections.

The issues in Burnaby-Lougheed, as I'm sure it is for many communities, are just as diverse as our population. It is their passion and their care that continue to humble and inspire me, and I thank each and every one of them for fueling my fire to continue on in this job.

Lastly, I do want to thank my family, who, I'm sure, are stalking me on Hansard right now as we speak, praying with their worry-filled hearts that I may serve the mandate of this office to my very best.

With all of that said, it is with a great sense of responsibility that I do rise in this House today to respond to the government's 2014 budget on behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed.

Now, I've thought this many times over how I can best articulate the concerns of Burnaby-Lougheed in a manner that's respectful and constructive, because my interest to be here is so that I can bring the voices and bring perspectives that perhaps members opposite wouldn't hear from their circles of influence. That's how I'm coming into this discussion. I understand that all the members in this House have the best interests of the residents that they represent in mind.

That is the piece that I would like to say out front, that I'm not here to heckle or snicker — and all the little things that I see we partake in that I'm not necessarily proud of.

[1605]

With that said, despite the fact that I now realize, since having seen the culture of the chamber and what takes place here or the kinds of conversations that do happen or actually don't occur at all sometimes in this House…. I do understand that for the most part, I am talking to the camera. I thought I would be discussing with and chatting with 84 members from across the province, but I have seen over and over that that's not necessarily what happens here.

With that said, though, I still painstakingly craft every sentence of every speech I have gotten up to deliver here, with the intention that if I can make it as thoughtful as I can possibly make it, maybe, just maybe, it might cross these invisible party lines and register on the other side. Maybe it's the political innocence in me that hasn't been beaten down dead yet, that I'm still going to hope.

I'm still going to hope, because before I am a member for Burnaby-Lougheed, I'm also a citizen, a citizen who does care for British Columbia, like all of you. I share many of the concerns with my fellow residents in Burnaby-Lougheed, in my community.

What I'm going to do is…. This is where my script actually stops.

Interjection.

J. Shin: Uh oh. I know.

I'm going to put my script away. I want to converse with you, or at least attempt to, in the midst of all the heckling and snickering that I hope is going to be minimal, at least for me.

My response to the budget, finally, is that I do want to applaud the government when it comes to their strong sense of fiscal discipline and prudence. It completely resonates with me. That's my upbringing. I come from an immigrant family who understood how to balance our books. This is something that I fully support as far as the government's claim goes.

With that said, though, when I do put on my critical-thinking hat in the midst of all the numbers and facts that are thrown — and some of them used selectively, I think, by both sides of the House — I do have to ask certain questions. It's not from a place of criticism but from a place of genuine inquiry, as a citizen, as a representative that has the same questions that I'm sure every member in this House asks at some point.

There is a claim that this government won't seek more from its citizens through tax increases. I support that. Who wouldn't agree with that? But there are fees upon fees upon fees, and I'm not coming from a place where everything should be free for all. Obviously, that's not possible. With that said, though, there are the MSPs. I know everybody's heard it over and over. It has doubled. MSP is something that….

I've had the fortune of having great jobs that always covered my MSP. I never really paid attention to the kind of burden that this is for the lower-middle-income
[ Page 1760 ]
families who are making too much to qualify for the subsidies and exemptions yet are at jobs or are entrepreneurs and end up paying these incredible amounts — $70, $80 for a single and easily into the hundreds for a family of three or more. This number is going up and up and up every year. This is the only province that has this so-called fee. Our side of the House mentions it as a tax, which I think is a legitimate criticism. I really think so.

The tuition has increased. It has. It's averaging $5,000. Ten years ago, when I was at UBC, I remember paying barely $2,000, $2,500. The number has gone up. It has doubled over the last decade. It's well past the inflation rate on an annual basis. We know that this number is in fact double what the students in Quebec and Newfoundland pay.

And there is the ferries cost. There are the PSA fees. There are the wheelchair fees. There is the ICBC. For my car insurance as a new driver, I'm paying $360 for my little Fiat, per month. That's a lot of money. It's not easy on our families. Of course, there's the hydro that's going up. The list goes on — fees upon fees upon fees.

Yes, I do agree, and I hear loud and clear, that the taxes may not have increased on that front. But what about all the user fees all across the board? These are real numbers that do dig into the pockets of our families. I'm not sure how to square that with the government's claim that affordability for our average families in our province hasn't changed. I can't make that math work in my head.

[1610]

With that, there's a second claim. There's a claim in the budget that moneys won't be taken from elsewhere in the fiscal plan that would hurt any services nor programs. Again, I can't square that when every day I'm getting phone calls and e-mails from desperate community stakeholders.

I'm sure the members opposite hear from them too. I'm not the only one that's getting solicited. Groups like Pacific Postpartum Support Society and Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion are just a few from my own riding in my community that are crippled by a funding cut. They're looking at their demands. Their call volumes are doubling, tripling over the last few years while the funding has remained stagnant.

Understandably, times are tough, but the funding has decreased or it has been cut flat out in certain instances. In those cases it's hard for me to just nod my head along. Even though it sounds great and I want to believe it, it's hard for me to just accept the fact that this government hasn't hurt services and programs. I can't square that.

The reality of this budget is that my families, the families that I represent in Burnaby-Lougheed, will be putting out more and will be getting less. I think that is the bottom line. I'm stating that not in a spirit of criticism, but that is the observation that I'm collecting.

Also, at the same time, there are things that I hear. Members opposite say that times are tough. Absolutely, I get it. We're all in this together, and everyone means well. We are working very hard, looking for opportunities where we can create more income — LNG or resource sector.

I know that we are pinching everywhere we can to make the numbers work or balance the budget. I understand that we are in this together, and we are going to ride out or toughen through this storm together. Everyone has to tighten their belts just a little bit more, put out a little bit more, and I'm all for that. Of course, we get that.

But again, I am struck with the reality that I get inquiries from — not just me — my angry residents that were devastated that there was a pay increase for the Liberal staff just right after the election. One of the rationales that I heard was, I think it was the chief of staff, that she will be effectively assuming two jobs and therefore deserved double the pay.

In fact, the stakeholders in my community, the organizations in my community, are pinched to the point that when somebody goes on a maternity leave, they don't fill that position. If one person takes on another opportunity, leaves the province, goes to Alberta or wherever, they don't fill those positions. They ask somebody else to take on those extra tasks.

I understand tightening belts and everybody putting out more, but it feels like those rules only apply to the most desperate and the least privileged of us. That's where, again, I can't make the math work, and I can't square that argument. And there is the increased size in cabinet.

I don't think anybody on our side of the House is asking the government to just keep spending. "Spend more. Spend more." How are we going to spend when we don't have the income coming in to match that? Of course, but if $10 is coming in and we are spending $10 to make the numbers balanced….

It's not that we're asking the government to take that $10 and spend $15 we don't have or $20 we don't have. I think what we are asking is: "Can we have a closer look at where we are spending that $10, at how we are spending that $10?"

At a time where it's tough…. I get my briefing notes. When I read stuff like Vancouver Convention Centre, the B.C. Place roof…. We've all heard this, but the numbers of the overruns are incredible. I mean, we are talking about cost overruns that are easily double. Sometimes, in some instances…. B.C. Place roof — the original projection was to spend $100 million in that project, and the final price tag for the taxpayers was $514 million. That's $414 million in overrun.

It's not that this was a bad project. These are all great infrastructure renovations and investments that I think make our province stronger, attract businesses, open up opportunities, create jobs.

[1615]

I get all of that, but how do I explain the $414 mil-
[ Page 1761 ]
lion that we didn't need to spend that could have gone elsewhere?

I met with the Dental Association that mentioned that if we can just find $500,000 — we are not talking $500 million but just $500,000 — the number of dental surgeries that we can provide for those who need it the most means that they don't end up with an emergency situation at our emergency rooms in the hospital, again costing and weighing more on our health care system that's already heavily burdened.

When I look at these numbers, that's where I think our questions are coming from, not in a spirit of criticism but in the spirit of accountability and just simply seeking answers. Could we have done better on some of these projects?

There's a list of them. There's the northwest transmission line, $332 million over budget; Vancouver Convention Centre, $341 million over budget; B.C. Place roof, a $414 million overrun; and Port Mann Bridge and highway, a $1.8 billion overrun.

These numbers are so big in my mind it's mind-boggling. These are the numbers that we throw around, and I've heard arguments from both sides of the House. But at the end of the day, could this money have been better spent on the social services and programs that our families are deprived of?

Those are the questions that I'm getting from my constituents. Those are the questions that I thought I can ask here and get some legitimate answers. But that's not how it takes place here, and I get that.

Now, one of the things that I wanted to do in response to the budget today is share just a very brief summary of all the inquiries that have come through my office just in the last few months. I think some of these are very quote-worthy for me to share.

Most people in my community sometimes don't even know the difference between a government and opposition. So when they ask me a question — there's something that they read in the newspaper — saying, "What happened there, Jane?" I try to answer it from the government's perspective. If I was a member opposite, what would I say in response to that? My intention is to walk a mile in your shoes. But then I get a question like this, dated February 13:

"Jane, I dropped into your office the other day to express my deep disgust with the Liberals' decision to challenge, once again, the courts over class size in our education system. This offends me greatly, to say the least. The cost to the taxpayers already of the two previous legal challenges is appalling, but to add more legal costs is very serious.

"Indeed, I urge your party to challenge this decision and to the fullest degree possible."

These are the e-mails that are coming through my office day in and day out.

My staff are working their hardest to seek answers, find answers, so that we can produce legitimate, accurate answers. And I can't find them. I have heard the messages that our minister has put out in response to allegations of this nature, but how can I ignore the court rulings that have spoken loud and clear that this was, in fact, what happened?

For me, amongst many other issues that come through my community, that is what I was hoping to voice in this House today in response to the budget. But I'll move on to some other pressing issues in my community.

I think that all of the issues that occur can be collectively summed into a theme of affordability in B.C. Under that category there's child care, early learning and what's happening with housing. In Burnaby, if you were to get a one-bedroom — just a tiny little one-bedroom apartment — you'd be spending $250,000. You'd be hard-pressed to find anything for less than $400,000 for a decent two-bedroom apartment to raise a family in.

So there's a real housing crisis. I didn't see anything in the budget that would provide me with answers that I can go back to my constituents and be able to explain how their tax dollars are being spent by this government to provide relief for some of these real challenges that our families are facing today.

There's the ever-rising cost of transportation, and there's the health care. As members know, Burnaby Hospital is an aging hospital that's desperately in need of repair.

[1620]

There was a glimmer of hope during the election campaign. The Liberal government promised that there is an active plan that's being developed to make sure that the Burnaby Hospital sees the renovations that it needs.

Since the election, of course, we haven't heard on that front. Again, I understand that money is always going to be an issue. There's no unlimited source of money that's going to fix all of our problems and make them go away. I appreciate the government's efforts to try and look for those answers, whether it's LNG or another resource industry. But also, at the same time, we do have an aging hospital that needs to be looked at. What can I do, as the member for Burnaby-Lougheed, to make sure this gets tabled and is considered? It's one of those questions that I'm still trying to figure out.

The overall care in our health care system. Yes, we can look at it as a glass half-full, but it's hard not to look at what we are missing. The funding to health care has not kept up to the demand that we need to meet the demands of our population as it stands right now.

These are some of the things that I'm hearing. I'm hearing that because of the staffing challenges and the funding shortage, we're looking at morning staff being creative to look for solutions. They're desperate. They're trying to keep up with the workload by negotiating with the night staff to do the morning care for their residents before the night staff goes home. "Let's divvy up the work."

What that means is that night staff, before they leave in the morning, start to perform morning care. This means
[ Page 1762 ]
wake people up, strip them down, put them on the toilet, dress them up, put their shoes on, prop them up on the chair so that they can wait for their breakfast time, as early as 4:30 or 5 a.m.

You're waking up seniors in the middle of the night — where sleep is the only real quality of life that they can fully enjoy, especially when they have dementia or any other issues. You're waking people up at those hours, to be propped on their chair for two or three hours until it's their breakfast time in the morning. That's the kind of creativity that our organizations — institutions, hospitals, schools — are resorting to, to make their numbers work at their end.

Of course, residents — when you're being woken up like that — will complain. They'll go back to their families, and they'll complain: "Look, I'm being woken up at 4 a.m., 5 a.m. With my socks on, I sit on the chair until it's my breakfast time at 7 a.m., 8 a.m." They will complain.

What are care providers supposed to do? They go after people with dementia. They go after people who can't speak for themselves. So it's the most vulnerable in our society that continue to get exploited. I think these are the people that all the members in the House, I know, have the heart to serve — those people. And I wonder sometimes if we are paying close enough attention to those, if we are really trying our hardest.

If we are being really fiscally responsible and frugal, are we going after every penny in every way possible? Or are we being extremely generous to certain groups of people and expecting others to cough up the dough? Those are my questions. Those are legitimate questions that residents of Burnaby-Lougheed and residents, I think, throughout B.C. have. And they expect to get these answered from their government.

On that note, there is an aspect of education, skills training and advanced education that I would like to touch on. There's no disagreement in the House, I'm sure, that investing in skills training and advanced education is critical for a strong economy. There have been some investments that I saw in the budget going towards, again, a very carved-out, special sector that will feed the LNG industry. But what of the rest?

When you're looking at that $10 that came in and you're spending that $10 and you're prioritizing, when you put money into a certain area, that means you automatically have to take it out of some other areas in order to make the numbers work, in order to balance that budget — which is a good thing. Balancing the budget is a good thing, and I agree with that. But how were the priorities, how did the decisions come to be, to funnel that money and those resources to the LNG industry? And what are some other sectors that have been grossly starved in the process?

[1625]

That's a conversation that I was never a part of. That's a conversation that I don't think any of us over on this side had a full chance to participate in. That's, again, another aspect of this democracy that we have in B.C. that I'm starting to discover, and it's a surprise every time.

On that, there are a few things that I would like to propose for the members' consideration, especially for those ministers that are in cabinet.

On the environmental note, I absolutely do believe that we can have strong developments that are done responsibly using sustainable measures and practices. But I hope the government, in their next budget, in the future — because I certainly didn't see it this time around — does put some money and puts some focus onto those green technologies that will take us in the right direction for the future — not just LNG but the green technologies, such as the one that's being pursued by the engineers that are in Burnaby.

It's a group called G4, and I had the pleasure of meeting that particular group and introducing them to some of the members in this House. G4 is a group that came up with a patented technology. It's a great technology where they're able to convert the existing biomass in the forest and funnel it through their machine, and then out comes LNG in a clean, sustainable way.

This is an incredible project that has garnered some international attention. But what is sad for me is that this group came asking for help because the interest that they were able to get from our government to help push this project forward was so minimal — to the point that the group that is sponsoring and commissioning the G4 initiatives is California.

The fact is we have our own scientists, our own inventors, our own technology that is Canadian, that is British Columbian, that's coming out of Burnaby, but we are not the ones pushing and supporting this project. In fact, it's our neighbours south of the border, again, commissioning this project. That is something that was devastating for me to find out. Again, I urge the government to consider sponsoring and really supporting some of the science and technology that's being developed right here on our local soil.

On the small business and tourism side, I do want to point out groups of people that I think our system is not catching, that are falling through the cracks. This is the group of people that I have as owner-operated businesses. A lot of our ethnic community, our immigrant community falls into that group of people. They come in, and foreign credentials are not recognized. They come in with some stipulation on their immigration to start a business, make capital investments.

A lot of these people are those mom-and-pop shops. They don't have many employees. They're microbusinesses with less than five employees. In fact, that makes up over 80 percent of our small business landscape. These are the people that, when MSP does increase, are the ones that are paying. When the hydro goes up for an average laundromat that's paying thousands of dollars
[ Page 1763 ]
on the electricity to keep their business going…. When the hydro goes up 28 percent with a single decision that rolls out like that, those are the businesses that get hurt.

When the cost of operations — from transportation to their utility bills, the bank surcharges…. Those are all real costs of operation that are keeping the growth of these businesses from what it could be. All the while, these entrepreneurs, some of the hardest-working entrepreneurs…. I'm the daughter of two such people. They're the ones that are struggling with all the other affordability challenges that we just talked about — housing costs, transportation costs, health care costs, education costs, child care costs.

These are the people that I think our system, as it stands right now…. There's nothing in the budget that would really help these people get the hand they need in order to grow their business into a sustainable practice, where they can have the kind of life that they deserve and also be able to go on beyond and establish themselves as medium-sized businesses.

On that note, there is also a thing on tourism that I think is worthwhile for the members of the House to pay attention to, which is the fact that, largely due to the quickly changing federal policies with immigration, the number of tourists, especially from East Asia, has gone down drastically.

[1630]

What that means is that as the number of international students from Korea, which has decreased by half, and from Japan, from China…. As those numbers dwindle or they become very volatile, you're looking at businesses right here, locally, in my constituency especially — where you have ethnic cuisine restaurants, you have the tourism sector — that specifically feeds and caters to that tourist traffic that British Columbia attracts.

We are looking for a government which, again, can push a little harder to make sure that our tourism sector continues to survive in this.

R. Lee: I am honoured to rise again to respond to the budget.

First of all, I would like to thank all my staff for helping me to serve the riding of Burnaby North as MLA. In my constituency office in Burnaby North Gary Begin, a former Burnaby school trustee for 15 years and a Burnaby city councillor for 12 years, is working full-time as a constituency assistant. Winney Xin, who is fluent in Mandarin, and Suzane Wei, who is fluent in Portuguese, are working as part-time constituency assistants.

In my Victoria office Kadagn Klepsch and Fatima Siddiqui are sharing their time with me and my colleagues.

The riding of Burnaby North is located basically between Boundary Road and Sperling Avenue, from the west to the east, south of Burrard Inlet and north of Canada Way or Deer Lake Parkway.

BCIT, three secondary schools, ten public elementary schools and three independent schools are located in the riding of Burnaby North. You may have heard about the Heights, Capitol Hill, Confederation Park, Kensington Park, Brentwood Town Centre and the Chevron refinery. They are all in the riding of Burnaby North.

About 60,000 people live in the riding of Burnaby North today. We have many students of various ages, so education is very important. We have many parents working hard to raise their families, so keeping tax low is also very important.

Talking about keeping tax low, I heard the members in opposition and what they said about the tax fees being too high, maybe. In fact, for our tax rate, including all those fees — I can just look it up in our budget document. For a two-income family of four earning $90,000, all those fees, including all the tax — for example, the provincial income tax, net of the child benefits, the property tax, the sales tax, the fuel tax, the net carbon tax, the provincial direct tax, the income tax, and the health care premium — that's the MSP premium….

And the payroll tax…. We don't have the payroll tax. But some other provinces have the payroll tax. For example, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec have the payroll tax.

This total tax, all added together, our provincial tax…. That family of four is actually paying the second-lowest in Canada. I think this is the number that we should remember, including all those MSP premiums, carbon tax, fuel tax, etc.

I think, also, the payroll tax in Quebec, for example, is $4,134. We don't have that kind of tax imposed, on average, on our employees. So those are some of the tax numbers.

[1635]

I'm very pleased to see that low taxes actually encourage investment, so we encourage people to come here to do investment — a better environment for business. This is also why we continue to attract investment to B.C., to Canada and, especially, to Burnaby.

This low level of tax also enables us to do some more. With a balanced budget, we have more labour stability because right now we have actually encouraged more settlements. In the public service, for example, over 51,000 hard-working members of the public service have reached tentative deals already. This is good news.

Low tax also is fundamental for a competitive economy and attracts investment, as I said. B.C. currently has the lowest personal income taxes in Canada for those earning up to $121,000 per year. In fact, we have reduced income tax by 37 percent since 2001. I gave an example of the family of four already.

Another, I think, criticism, probably, from the members opposite is about B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro actually invested a lot of capital already and will in the future.

The number I have in this budget document tells a
[ Page 1764 ]
good story. It's about $6.896 billion invested or going to be invested in the future, including all this maintenance of these transmission lines, all this meters maintenance.

For example, the Interior-Lower Mainland transmission line. We need that power transmitted from the Interior to the Lower Mainland, so those lines have had to be upgraded. It costs a lot of money. It's about $272 million.

Another, the northwest transmission line — that cost is, of course, for our northern resource sector, especially, and aboriginal communities. That's about $746 million — so altogether an investment of close to $7 billion. I think, somehow, we are the user and had to pay for this.

Those kinds of investments are necessary because during the NDP era, the ten years, not much infrastructure investment had been invested. I think we have to play some catch-up, so this is the B.C. Hydro thing.

We also heard the criticism about selling off some assets, surplus assets. I would like to remind the House that all governments naturally start clearing out assets at some point.

I looked up the document, the three-year fiscal plan, page 44. It outlines the history of selling off assets. I can quote you a few numbers in the '80s — okay? Since 1981 almost 1,500 surplus government properties had been sold in B.C., and 616 properties were sold in the 1980s.

Between 1991 and 2001 surplus government properties were sold, with a value in excess of $500 million. That's excluding the SUCH sector — it means some property, probably, like old hospitals — so that's not the number here. In today's dollars that is $1.2 billion — okay? So $1.2 billion sold during the NDP era.

During the last 12 years we have been selling those properties — only $381 million. That's a small number. Three years ago.... There will be more properties to be sold in B.C.

[1640]

That's normal management of our assets. I think this is something that the members of the opposition should take note of — those numbers.

I would like to continue on my speech.

I am very pleased with this budget that was presented in the House two weeks ago. Thanks to the fiscal discipline exercised by the government, for the second year in a row this budget is balanced. I remember when Budget 2013 was presented in this House before the election last year. Many people said at that time that the government was not realistic, that we were not being realistic. I think that probably the members opposite said that.

Many members of the opposition said that Budget 2013 was a bogus budget. Someone said that, I remember: "Not a genuine budget." But the fact that our province now is forecast to end this fiscal year 2013-14 with a surplus of $170 million surprised the members of the opposition. It shows that the government is indeed realistic in delivering a balanced budget for 2013.

The voters in last year's election believed that controlling spending and balancing the budget could be done, and they trusted us. They were right. Budget 2013 is genuine. British Columbians elected us to control spending and balance the budget. They chose fiscal responsibility over deficit spending to restore the economy.

We can't just spend our way out of an economic downturn and hope that some day our financial problems will go away. You cannot just spend it and hope that the problem will go away.

Budget 2014 indicates that we continue to keep the promise of making tough decisions and have the courage to follow through with spending discipline — very important. Larger surpluses are forecast in the fiscal plan for the next three years. It's now projected $184 million in 2014-15, $206 million in 2015-16 and $451 million in 2016-17.

After the financial crisis in 2008 many governments across Canada — actually, all over the world — didn't have the spending discipline, and they spent more and more in operating programs. In fact, if you look at the other provinces, it seems that only Saskatchewan will have a balanced budget this year, not even Alberta. Alberta couldn't make the rank.

I think the question is…. Canada has a triple-A rating, and B.C. has triple-A rating. Compared to other provinces, who has the triple-A credit rating? I think that Alberta has one, and of course, Saskatchewan has one too.

Compared to other countries, I think we are doing quite well. The United States is a lower grade than our triple-A rating. Japan is lower, and France is lower — not to mention Greece, of course.

I think that this is a tribute to our discipline on how to control the budget. We are proud of that. We have a balanced budget. Are we proud of that? Yes. A balanced budget is actually the first step to make sure that we are able to make sustainable investments into the programs that matter to British Columbians like health care, education and people who require additional supports.

[1645]

I am pleased to see that the total taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio for our province is kept around 18.5 percent. It's much less than Ontario's 37.4 percent, Quebec's 35.7 percent and Canada's 33 percent. That is good news indeed.

The total taxpayer-supported debt has two components. A lot of people probably aren't aware of that. The total taxpayer-supported debt is the sum of the provincial government direct operating debt plus the mainly capital debt. One is capital; one is operating.

On page 35, if you have the book, you can see that the three-year fiscal plan in this budget document clearly shows that the provincial government's direct operating debt is estimated in this budget to be $9.828 billion, which includes the cumulative operating debt plus some general capital spending.
[ Page 1765 ]

The other taxpayer-supported capital debt is about $33 billion, which includes capital investment in education, health care, highways and public transit, etc. This is called good debt.

I would like to remind the House that during the NDP era….

Interjection.

R. Lee: Of course, the member doesn't want to listen to that, I think.

Under the NDP, the provincial government direct operating debt increased from $4.726 billion in 1991 to — what's the number? — $12.069 billion in 2001. What's the increase? How many times?

An Hon. Member: I didn't hear the first part.

R. Lee: The first time is in 1991, when you formed the government, the direct operating debt accumulating over so many years — all the governments accumulating. When you took over, it was $4.726 billion, less than $5 billion. Ten years later it's more than $12 billion. Not only that, because of the spending obligation immediately following, that pushed the provincial government operating debt to over $15 billion.

Interjection.

R. Lee: Why? Because the obligated spending was still there, carried. When you have a ship going, going, almost hitting something, it takes time to turn that around. It took the government three years to turn that ship around — three years for the new government to do that.

Since then the Liberal government has been trying hard to pay down this operating debt incurred by the NDP. At one point in 2009, it was reduced to $5.744 billion — close to almost paying down all the operating debt incurred by the NDP in their ten years. Unfortunately, we know that the financial crisis around that time made it impossible to reduce this accumulated operating debt further.

In this budget we can see that the government is trying again to pay down this operating debt in the next three years to under $8 billion, because the government is committed to spending, overall, less than the taxpayers are providing us in operating programs. This is good leadership, plain and simple.

It's the reason why the Conference Board of Canada has singled out British Columbia as the province to lead the country in economic growth in 2015. The Conference Board recognizes that B.C. is getting the fundamentals right and creating favourable conditions for the private sector to flourish.

[1650]

Because we are fiscally responsible, British Columbians will continue to have a low debt-to-GDP ratio, which will allow our province to keep our triple-A credit rating, saving billions and billions of dollars in interest payments. This big savings can be used to build schools, roads and hospitals. It also gives us more opportunities to advance key priorities, including job growth, skills training, helping families build for the future and providing additional resources for individuals and families in need.

In balanced budget 2014 the government continues to invest in taxpayer-supported capital projects over the next three years in the order of $11 billion. We are going to invest $1.5 billion to maintain, replace and renovate or expand the K-to-12 facilities. Who doesn't want that? Burnaby would certainly benefit from this investment.

In Burnaby continuing the seismic upgrade, renovation or replacement of Alpha Secondary, Burnaby North Secondary School and a new elementary school in the rapidly populated Brentwood area may not be all possible immediately, but it's encouraging to see the will of the government to continue to invest in school infrastructures. It may increase the taxpayer-supported capital debt, but this is considered good debt. As long as the total taxpayer-supported debt to GDP ratio remains low, with the help of the global economy, it should be manageable, very manageable.

The same can also be said for the $2.3 billion for capital spending by post-secondary institutions across B.C., $2.6 billion on health sector infrastructure and the $3.4 billion for transportation investments. The institutes like BCIT and Burnaby Hospital would benefit from more investment in the future.

Since 2001 the B.C. government has spent or committed $2.2 billion in seismic upgrades or replacement of 213 schools, including $192 million to complete 16 capital and seismic projects in the Burnaby school district. Of Burnaby's 49 secondary and elementary schools, eight have already undergone seismic upgrades.

In the riding of Burnaby North, Kitchener, Parkcrest and Rosser Elementary are on the list for renovation. Alpha Secondary and Burnaby North Secondary are supported to proceed with upgrades. Douglas Road, Capitol Hill and Gilmore Community Elementary have completed their seismic upgrades, and we have a new Burnaby Central Secondary School which has been completed, built.

A few years ago our government also helped parent advisory councils, in addition to the annual gaming grants, by reimbursing the funds they raised to purchase playground equipment. Schools like Brentwood Park, Confederation Park and Gilmore Community Elementary benefited. Schools like Kitchener Elementary also got some funding to plant trees in its playground. Our government also continues to support independent schools like Holy Cross and St. Helen's elementary in my riding.

For the British Columbia Institute of Technology,
[ Page 1766 ]
BCIT, the investment in skills training is very much welcome by the students, faculty and the industries. It was announced recently that BCIT receives funding to fill more student spaces at its automotive refinishing program at its Burnaby campus. Of course, the recently completed $2.7 million of welding facility upgrades will definitely help more professional welders to work in industries like shipbuilding, mining and natural gas transportation.

Talking about natural gas, our Premier should be congratulated for taking leadership on the LNG file, making a concerted effort to diversify B.C.'s economy. Economies in China, India, Japan, Korea and Taiwan will continue their demand for natural gas in the future.

[1655]

The action to harness our abundant reserves of natural gas and become a world-class LNG exporter will benefit British Columbians tremendously, including hundreds of millions of new investment dollars, thousands of construction jobs, growth in local and regional economies, higher government revenues and many, many spinoff benefits.

Natural resource development in energy, mining and forests has been very important to our economy, and these sectors will continue to play major roles in the future. But the nature of B.C.'s economy is changing — actually, quite rapidly. In 2001 almost 70 percent of our exports actually went to the United States. In the last year, 2013, that number dropped to 46 percent, while trade with Asia has expanded substantially.

By comparison, 88 percent of Alberta's exports and 80 percent of Ontario's exports are dependent on the U.S. market. Alberta, 88 percent; Ontario, 80 percent; and for B.C., only 46 percent dependent on the U.S. Diversification also helps shelter B.C. from the downturns in the U.S., obviously, and enables us to take advantage of rapidly growing markets such as China and India.

In 2001 less than 2.4 percent of our B.C. exports went to China — 2.4 percent 13 years ago — and Japan was our largest customer in Asia. Last year, in 2013, the situation completely turned around, and now China is our largest market in Asia at 19.5 percent of the total exports. In fact, B.C.'s exports to China have risen by nearly 600 percent in the past ten years. India is a fast-growing market too, and exports to that country totalled $471 million in 2013. That represents about a 43.6 percent increase over 2012. Overall, international exports of B.C.-made goods and resources increased over 7 percent over 2012.

We are, in fact, the only province in Canada to receive the designation of an A rating for cutting in red tape.

We are helping small business as well, because small business is very important. In 2011, 42 percent of our merchandise shipped abroad was actually from small businesses. For that reason, the government of B.C. is making a concerted effort to assist small business by slashing red tape

Excessive paperwork and making businesses jump through too many hoops creates a drag on the economy and, ultimately, costs jobs. Our goal is to become the most business-friendly jurisdiction in Canada. This is a noble goal. The business community also knows that we are working in their best interest.

As I mentioned, for the third year in a row the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has awarded B.C. an A rating for its continuing program to slash red tape. We are the only province in Canada to get that.

Our effort to help small businesses has paid off. For the third straight month, small business optimism in B.C. ran the highest in Canada. CFIB B.C. policy analyst Kimball Kastelen said: "The past three months have seen B.C. solidify its position as the high-water mark for small business optimism across Canada. It now seems clear that the surge in confidence first observed last summer has developed into a sustained shift in outlook for B.C.'s entrepreneurs."

[1700]

To diversify our economy, government policy will help the high-tech innovation sector as well. I am pleased to see the extension of the scientific research and experimental development tax credit. It's budgeted to be $99 million in the next fiscal year and $180 million a year later. Another $65 million is in the budget for specialized equipment for TRIUMF.

One of the greatest advantages of a balanced budget is having the fiscal freedom to make strategic investments that help B.C. families — for example, the B.C. training and education savings grant, a one-time, $1,200 contribution towards a child's RESP following their sixth birthday. These are good programs.

I don't have too much time, but I'm very pleased to see balanced budget 2014. The new, additional funding of $350 million available for communities….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

R. Lee: I will vote for balanced budget 2014.

J. Rice: I rise today to offer my thoughts on Budget 2014. Firstly, I'd like to thank the voters of North Coast for allowing me this opportunity to speak on their behalf in this House. It's a great honour and privilege that I am awarded such opportunity.

I'd also like to acknowledge a new addition to my constituency office in Prince Rupert, Sarah Nickerson, who has filled in on short notice and has proven herself to be an extremely worthy contribution to the office. I also welcome her three children, Eric, Hayley and Kira, who are often lifting the spirits of my office with their smiling faces.

The members opposite have been referring to their own budget as boring — boring budget 2014. But boring budget 2014 is being touted as the right thing to do,
[ Page 1767 ]
as if a status quo budget is the responsible thing to do and something to be proud of — this so-called boring budget that doesn't leave future generations with the burden of our debt.

I beg to differ. A boring budget lacks the needed boldness that will tackle uncomfortable issues such as growing industrial development and habitat destruction; LNG development while also maintaining our own climate change targets; and the issue of needed skills training, while at the same time we have the use of temporary foreign workers. Not to mention growing inequality and poverty amongst our citizenry.

The budget is indeed boring. It's as if the goal is to meagrely survive. It surely lacks the boldness needed to allow our province to actually thrive. Time and time again we've heard how LNG is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and we must act quickly or we'll lose out to other jurisdictions such as Australia. And yet we still have no real, concrete plan, no idea what this panacea is going to look like.

There is no funding for communities such as mine in Prince Rupert to prepare for its first boom in over a decade. We still have wooden water pipes, and we lack primary sewage treatment in a marine area known for its global ecological significance.

Where is the plan in the budget to prepare northern and small communities for the added pressures industrial development will bring? We currently have a shortage of doctors and medical professionals, particularly mental health workers, in northern B.C. to serve our current population. What is the plan to deal with an influx of workers and population pressures to our health system? It's as if LNG is going to save the world. In fact, I think it's going to cure cancer and AIDS in Africa. And yet, like I mentioned, we still don't have sewage treatment in Prince Rupert.

An Hon. Member: Or Victoria.

J. Rice: Or Victoria, someone has just mentioned.

Recently, in my constituency office I've had two visits on two different occasions where people were talking about renovictions. It is something that is currently experienced in Terrace and Kitimat, which has experienced the industrial pressures I was just speaking of, and Prince Rupert is coming on board with the same sort of path of cumulative impacts of industrial development.

[1705]

I talked to a property manager in Prince Rupert recently. She said that in over 20 years of doing property management in Prince Rupert she has, for the first time ever, a zero percent vacancy rate. In fact, you can get a slum apartment for $1,200, which is a burden just unfeasible for the majority of the population in the north coast.

One of the biggest issues that I receive e-mails and phone calls about is the cuts to B.C. Ferries and the lack of an economic impact study on how route 40, particularly the route 40 circle tour, will impact from Bella Bella all the way to Bella Coola to the Chilcotin.

It's been pointed out that the Nimpkish, which was discussed in the….

Interjections.

J. Rice: One to talk, rookie. It's just interesting. We're talking about rookie MLAs here — rookie MLA to rookie MLA. I'm trying to do my speech, and I can't help but listen to the heckling here.

Route 40 — the economic impacts have not been studied on the cuts to this route. The Nimpkish doesn't provide any alternative solution. In fact, it cannot take the mammogram truck that comes up and visits the central coast every summer.

Last summer 95 women in Bella Coola were able to get mammograms because the truck was able to fit on the ferry. The current mammogram truck doesn't fit on the Nimpkish. It can't take route 20 because the road is so rough, as we all know. It's notorious and infamous. The equipment is so sensitive that it can't take the vibrations of that road.

I'm concerned about the fact that women in the central coast won't receive adequate health care. In fact, currently, with the way B.C. Ferries is structured, people in the central coast and Haida Gwaii have a hard time getting to specialist appointments because of the limited service and the costs.

The costs aren't necessarily the ferry rates, which are increasing and are problematic, but just the fact that someone from the central coast would have to take an entire week off work to go for a one-hour appointment in the Lower Mainland — or, if you're not working, providing child care or child care for your grandchildren.

Currently in the north we have shortages of doctors and medical professionals. I was perusing the human resources section of the Northern Health website today. There are many positions that are basically open until filled. A couple of those positions are mental health and addictions workers, which have gone vacant for over a year now. It doesn't seem like, on the horizon, there will be any opportunity to fill these positions. There's no strategy to deal with the issues of rural health.

The whole panacea of LNG seems to have been at the cost of the forestry and the tourism sectors. I think it's really risky to put all our eggs in the LNG basket, particularly as that industry is saying one thing and the provincial government is saying another. Industry seems to be more realistic, talking about one or two projects maybe coming to fruition, yet there are nine to 12 that are proposed for the north coast.

People in my communities, such as Prince Rupert, are very anxious for the jobs that these industries will supposedly bring. Many need skills training and upgrading,
[ Page 1768 ]
yet we've seen a cut to those parts of the budget.

As far as paramedics in the north go, we actually have people going to the hospital on the back of a flatbed truck, on a door being used as a stretcher. We don't have a strategy for rural paramedics. The current system is organized around the needs of the urban environment, and I would be anxious to see in the budget some sort of strategy that deals with the issue in rural communities.

At Northwest Community College last year we had a 40 percent cut in faculty positions. One of those positions was at Northwest Community College in Prince Rupert.

[1710]

I was speaking with an instructor who was subject to those cuts. His job is to help people get the necessary math skills so that they can do a trade. He was one of those people that lost his job, in Prince Rupert. So I'm kind of confused about the identification of skills training being relevant and important, yet on the ground….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, any comments, please, from your own chairs.

Continue, Member.

J. Rice: If I could just summarize, there's no question that we have a skills shortage, yet we have no strategy to deal with the skills shortage. I'm particularly interested in this because people are anxious in North Coast, with high unemployment, to actually embrace these LNG jobs that are supposed to be our panacea. Yet we don't really seem to have a strategy of getting those people on the ground.

It's been mentioned time and time again by my colleagues — the fact that the members on the other side are proud of the fact that taxes have not gone up but yet MSP premiums, ICBC premiums and B.C. Ferries fares are skyrocketing. This is hugely challenging for the people in the North Coast constituency. In fact, it's a dire circumstance for many people on a fixed income, for the working poor and low- and middle-class workers.

There's no doubt that in North Coast 44 percent of my constituents are aboriginal. Yet there is very little in the budget to talk about, with these increasing pressures that are going to be put on northern communities, a real strategy for dealing with aboriginal land claims or even just aboriginal issues in general. I don't see how we can have the LNG panacea without a real strategy around aboriginal needs, particularly in the northern part of our province.

The coastal First Nations have asked for a halt on the trophy hunt in the Great Bear rainforest. We all know the Great Bear rainforest is a renowned area of significance. I think this is an example of an easy issue that the members opposite could address and take on — and actually show, in good faith, their willingness to relationship-build with First Nations in North Coast.

Again I'll repeat what many of my colleagues have mentioned, which is the plan for a poverty-reduction strategy. We're one of the few provinces that lack an actual formal strategy, yet we have some of the highest poverty rates and the highest child poverty rates in the country. It has been the case for over a decade. I think it's dismal.

There is no support for youth mental health, children with special needs. Like I said, in Prince Rupert there's been a vacancy for well over a year for a youth mental health worker. These are real issues. These are real problems that need attention.

I guess, lastly, I'll talk about an issue that I seem to be beating my head against. I seem to be repeating myself: "Where's the bus?"

In this year's throne speech the government committed to move towards a violence-free B.C. and ensure that women, including aboriginal and vulnerable women, have the supports they need to help prevent violence, to escape from violent situations and to recover if they have been victims of crime.

Contrary to the rhetoric, the members opposite have failed to implement the majority of the recommendations from the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry and have even failed to reappoint the champion for the recommendations….

Oh, I can't say that.

We haven't moved forward, and we continuously get e-mails from the women's coalition on taking action on this important issue.

In the north we've had a record number of deaths on Highway 16. Many people believe that this is due to the fact that more people are driving on Highway 16 because they can't afford ferries to attend their medical appointments and specialist appointments in the Lower Mainland or Vancouver Island.

[1715]

You know, it is a treacherous highway. It's actually a beautiful highway. It's just wilderness. It's rivers and rocks, the Skeena River and beautiful forest.

In fact, it makes me think of a story. I drove out to Prince Rupert from Ottawa when I moved to the north coast a decade ago. My father was dropping me off to attend Northwest Community College. We'd driven from Ottawa, and we had this great bonding experience and got to know each other.

We talked more than we'd ever talked, yet the silence between Terrace and Prince Rupert kind of grew. It was the fact that we basically had left civilization, in his mind. It was just wilderness and river after river.

Finally, near Prince Rupert he blurted out: "Where the bleep am I taking you?" He just couldn't understand, heading to Prince Rupert, that I was actually going to some community, because there appeared to be no community.

It's a scary, vast wilderness, and it's a dangerous place
[ Page 1769 ]
for women to hitchhike. Yet off that highway are so many small First Nations communities that have no transportation options, so women…. Well, people hitchhike in general. I've spoken to a woman on the side of the highway who had her daughter with her, and she basically said to me she had no choice.

I think this is an easy thing that could be implemented, and I wish it was implemented — a shuttle bus or some sorts of transportation options, where in fact we've seen cuts to Greyhound Bus service. We've seen a reduction in options for women travelling along the Highway of Tears. As everyone knows, we recently lost a woman who was studying the murdered and missing women along the Highway of Tears. I think it's long overdue that this is an issue that we address.

I guess, in conclusion, I'll just say that I think the budget is really lacking. I'll agree with the members opposite that it's boring, that it lacks the boldness needed to lead us into the 21st century. It's boring. Quite frankly, it's boring, and I will not be voting in favour of it.

Moira Stilwell: It's a pleasure to rise in the House today and offer my support for Budget 2014.

Last May British Columbians, including those who work and live and raise their families in my riding of Vancouver-Langara, made a real choice about the future of our province. You see, last May when our Premier asked British Columbians to choose between big government and big deficits or efficient government and balanced budgets, she was asking for a mandate from British Columbians that would keep this province on the road to continued prosperity.

The decisions made by British Columbians in last May's election gave the Premier and our government exactly that mandate. Today this budget delivers on that promise. The budget before this House today is committed to fiscal discipline, committed to respecting hard-earned taxpayer dollars and committed to not spending more than we can afford.

This is why our government put forward a budget that, while not popular on parts of this side of the House, certainly hit home for working families because it deals with something other governments are often too afraid to face up to and to implement. That's called fiscal restraint and getting your house in order.

That sense of fiscal discipline, and the problems that are caused when it's not in place, was certainly evident during the panel sessions at this year's Surrey regional economic summit, where our Minister of Finance gave a budget update to a full house of business and community leaders from across the Lower Mainland.

After Minister de Jong spoke, the audience heard from three former Prime Ministers — from Israel, Australia and Greece — who detailed how their economies had been impacted by the international recession of 2008. Prime Ministers Ehud Barak of Israel, Julia Gillard of Australia and George Papandreou of Greece were candid and blunt about the need to have a well-managed economy — and, importantly, the interconnection between the world's economies and the benefits of having a diverse economy — and the real value of a government that has its fiscal house in order.

[1720]

Prime Minister Papandreou was particularly candid about the Greek experience as he talked about inheriting a mismanaged economy and the toll it has taken on his country and its people.

The lesson for all of us is an easy one. Quite often the right thing to do is also the hardest thing to do, particularly for politicians. In this case the right thing to do for British Columbians is to control spending, and that's what we're going to do. Reining in spending is the best thing we can do to ensure that we aren't passing our debt onto our children.

It is the first step in getting to a debt-free B.C. Is there a jurisdiction or government in Canada or anywhere in the world that wouldn't like to be debt-free and have that costly monkey off its back so it could plan and build a better future for its citizens without being burdened by so much debt that it cripples ambition and opportunities?

Together as British Columbians we've had to take a hard look at where we can tighten our belts and tackle financial problems every possible way we can. If this sounds familiar, it's because it is. It's the same discussion heard at every working family's table in this province as they look to their own family finances, and it works. It works for families, and it works for governments.

Reduced spending across government has freed up more than $1 billion over the government's fiscal plan. About half the savings are helping to balance the budget, while the remaining half is being invested to improve family affordability, support jobs and, hopefully, increase economic growth.

Last week when the Minister of Finance rose to deliver his budget, we delivered on that election commitment. Now this balanced budget is the first step to creating a debt-free British Columbia, a strong economy and unprecedented opportunities for our children and grandchildren.

Canada is comprised, as you know, of ten provinces, three territories and the federal government in Ottawa. That's 14 jurisdictions. Of those 14, only two claim to be balancing their budget this year: Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Of those two, B.C. is the only province with a positive outlook for more than three balanced budgets, further demonstrating that this government has employed a solid fiscal plan that provides economic certainty.

It is the reason why the Conference Board of Canada has singled out British Columbia as the province that will lead the country in economic growth in 2015. The Conference Board recognizes that B.C. is getting the fun-
[ Page 1770 ]
damentals right and that we have created a foundation with favourable conditions for the private sector to flourish. Balanced budgets also provide risk-averse investors with the certainty they require, and that is a precious commodity in a fragile global economy.

Labour stability lends itself well to economic certainty. Last December the government announced it had reached tentative deals with three public sector unions, representing 51,000 hard-working members of the public service. These innovative agreements include growth-sharing increases, so when the economic growth exceeds projected forecasts public servants will share in the benefits that flow from a growing economy. By reaching long-term labour agreements, the government is promoting greater economic certainty and a more predictable business environment.

Naturally, global investment gravitates towards stable and predictable business environments. With a balanced budget and a stable workforce, British Columbia continues to be an attractive destination for that investment. Prudent and responsible management of public finances means British Columbia holds onto its triple-A credit rating, the highest standard available. A triple-A credit rating is important for two reasons.

It reduces the cost of servicing our debt. If we had, for example, a double-A-minus credit rating like they do in Ontario, we would have to spend an additional $2 billion a year servicing our debt, but since we don't, we can now utilize that money elsewhere on vital programs and services for British Columbians.

Secondly, by lowering the government's borrowing costs, B.C. has the fiscal freedom to make significant capital investment in provincial infrastructure projects like roads, bridges and improvements to health care facilities, schools and post-secondary institutions. Over the next three years alone we have estimated $11 billion in taxpayer-supported capital spending, in provincial infrastructure spending, including $1.5 billion to maintain, replace, renovate or expand K-to-12 facilities; $2.3 billion for capital spending on post-secondary institutions; $2.6 billion on health care infrastructure; and $3.4 billion on transportation infrastructure.

[1725]

Our triple-A credit rating has helped keep hard-earned money that belongs to British Columbians here in British Columbia. Our government has also had the foresight to realize early on that the temperament of B.C.'s economy is changing rapidly. We've worked hard to diversify our economy. In 2001 almost 70 percent of B.C. exports went to the United States. By 2012 that number had dropped to less than 45 percent, while trade with Asia had expanded enormously. By comparison, however, 86 percent of Alberta's exports and 78 percent of Ontario's exports are dependent on U.S. markets.

Through diversifying and cultivating strong relationships, we're able to shelter B.C. from downturns in the U.S. economy — also enabling us to take advantage of rapidly growing markets, such as those in China and India. The increase in exports in these countries in just over a decade has been staggering. In 2001 less than 3 percent of B.C. exports went to China, and Japan was our leading customer in Southeast Asia. By 2012 the situation completely turned around, and China is now our largest market in Asia, with 18 percent of total exports. In fact, B.C.'s exports to China have risen by over 600 percent in the past ten years.

India is also a fast-growing market, as you know. Exports totalled $467 million in 2013, and that represents a 45 percent increase since this time just last year.

Overall, international exports of B.C.-made goods and resources increased nearly 7 percent in 2013 over 2012. In total, we exported $33.6 billion worth of goods in 2013, up from $31.5 billion.

This government is working tirelessly to create more opportunity for exporting B.C.-made goods through the expansion of LNG in B.C. I want to congratulate the Premier for taking leadership on the LNG file while making a concerted effort to diversify our economy.

Emerging economies in China, India and other parts of Asia are also significantly increasing their demand, of course, for natural gas. Recognizing the competitive landscape to fill market demand in Asia, the government of British Columbia is taking action to harness our abundant reserves of natural gas and become a world-class LNG exporter.

British Columbians will enjoy significant benefits, including hundreds of millions of new investment dollars, thousands of construction jobs, growth in local and regional economies, higher government revenues and untold spinoff benefits. After ten years of production, estimates are that one single LNG plant could generate up to $1.4 billion in LNG income tax alone.

We also need to recognize the emphasis that this government has put on helping small businesses. Small business plays a pivotal role in British Columbia's exports, accounting for 42 percent of all merchandise shipped abroad in 2011. For that reason, this government is making a concerted effort to assist small business at slashing red tape. We know that excessive paperwork and making businesses jump through too many hoops ultimately costs British Columbians jobs, which is why we continue to work in the best interest of small businesses.

It's our goal to become the most business-friendly jurisdiction in Canada. This is a goal that's well known in the business community, as for the third year in a row the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses has awarded British Columbia an A rating for its continuing program to slash red tape. We are, in fact, the only province in Canada to receive that designation this year.

It's impossible to talk about our economy without talking about the kind of infrastructure that keeps it moving. Whether it's goods and services or people and products,
[ Page 1771 ]
transportation is absolutely key to our economic future and the way we shape and build our communities. Right now in the Lower Mainland we are embarking on a transportation discussion that will have far-reaching implications not just for the people and businesses of the Lower Mainland but for the entire province. Whether it's roads, bridges, tunnels or rapid transit lines, finding a viable, fair and long-term funding solution is vital if we're going to tap into the potential of this province.

I know that transportation solutions in Metro Vancouver might seem a world away from other cities in the province, but they're not. The fact is, if the Lower Mainland economy gets stalled in gridlock, we will all be negatively impacted, and the repercussions are provincewide, particularly for an export and services economy like our own.

I'm looking forward to working with our Minister of Transportation, my Lower Mainland colleagues and all the mayors of communities across the region to make sure we find a transportation formula and funding solution that keeps our B.C. economy moving.

[1730]

This government also understands that a strong economy is one that attracts investment. That's why the government has taken significant steps to reduce personal and corporate income taxes, because a low-tax regime is fundamental to a competitive economy and to attracting more investment. B.C. currently has the lowest personal taxes in Canada for those earning up to $121,000 per year. In fact, personal income taxes for most taxpayers have reduced by 37 percent or more since 2001, and many low-income British Columbians don't pay any provincial income tax at all.

British Columbians enjoy one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada. The accomplishments of this balanced budget illustrate that, with how we have held the line on spending, diversified and increased investments and stimulated our growing demand for B.C.-made products. This budget, however, also simultaneously gives cash back to those who need it most.

The greatest advantage of a balanced budget is having the fiscal freedom to make strategic investments that help B.C. families — for example, the B.C. training and education savings grant, a one-time $1,200 grant contribution towards a child's RESP following their sixth birthday. In just the past year alone the number of B.C. families with RESPs has increased by 10 percent, and we look forward to begin making payments to as many as 40,000 eligible families in British Columbia every year.

Starting April 2015, the B.C. early childhood tax benefit will provide $146 million to approximately 180,000 families with children under six. Families will receive $55 a month for each child under the age of six, and as we all know, for young families starting out, every single dollar counts. B.C.'s early-years strategy will invest $76 million over three years to support the creation of new child care spaces and improve the quality of child care and early-years services.

The government will also be providing incremental funding of $243 million over three years to Community Living B.C. to maintain services for adults with developmental disabilities and their families.

In May of last year the Premier and our party put forward a bold vision for B.C.'s future. It was a vision that said big government is no substitute for a strong private sector economy. We took a strong platform to the people of British Columbia, and when they were given the choice, they gave us a strong mandate to get down to work to build a better British Columbia.

Budget 2014 is part of that work. It provides a realistic, comprehensive plan to guide us to a future where families keep more of what they earn, young people get the training they need for tomorrow's jobs, and our economy is strong, diversified and growing.

Like each of my colleagues on this side of the House, I am more determined than ever to hold the line on spending. I conclude by saying I support balanced budget 2014.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the opportunity to take my place in this debate, on a Monday afternoon a couple of weeks after the budget was first introduced. I know that members on both sides of the House have had much to say to the budget thus far. I hope that I can add at least my perspective to that this afternoon.

I think, first of all, that the Minister of Finance has been far, far too modest in describing Budget 2014 as a boring document. He's correct, of course, in that in positioning an advanced economy like British Columbia on a strategic path that would protect our existing advantages and diversify our economy, this is a completely underwhelming, complacent and boring budget. I will give the Minister of Finance that.

It is a budget that utterly fails to invest in people and neglects the human capital, the social capital, that powers our economy today and in the future. That much is true as well.

But to give the minister credit, this is not a boring budget in this sense. This is a bold budget in one way, and there are other "b" words that describe it as well. What is bold about this budget is that it trumpets itself as being a document about no new tax increases. We still hear it from members on the other side, although it has become a little bit more muted since introduction.

[1735]

This isn't a budget about no new taxes. This is a budget completely about tax increases that are going to hit ordinary middle-class families in British Columbia. This is a budget with hidden taxes that will take $900 per year out of those families' household incomes. How does it accomplish this? A 28 percent hydro rate increase. Every British Columbian that pays for electricity or is heating their home through the winter that we're living through
[ Page 1772 ]
right now will pay $400 more per customer in the future. That's what this budget accomplishes.

There's a medical services tax hike to MSP rates of 4 percent per year for every year of this budget, costing the average family $400 more per year. The medical services tax, or MSP as the government prefers to call it, is now a $2.3 billion….

Interjection.

R. Fleming: I hear the Health Minister objecting to my characterization of it as a tax increase, but let me tell you. British Columbians in every part of the province, including Kamloops, regard this as a tax increase.

This is a tax that now earns more than $2.3 billion for the treasury every year. It's more significant, if you can believe it, than corporate taxes. Throughout the entire land of British Columbia MSP earns more and takes more out of people's pockets than the corporate sector pays in total combination to the treasury of B.C. That's where we're at. This budget adds to that imbalance in our tax system.

ICBC rates — climbing again so that huge dividends can be taken out of our insurer so that it can give the illusion of balancing the budget but taking that money into the treasury from ratepayers in ICBC.

Ferry fare hikes. Let me say this as a coastal MLA: thirty-two bucks more per round trip for British Columbians at the same time that service is being cut. We've already seen a decline in ridership in British Columbia. The chamber of commerce in my region has studied this well. They blame it on soaring out-of-control surtaxes and ferry fare increases coming to the Island.

It is having a negative economic impact in this region and elsewhere on the Island. It continues and it expands and it accelerates again in this budget by taking more money out of those who ride the ferries and visit this place.

Post-secondary tuition fees — up again. Let's just dwell for a minute on how much tuition has gone up in British Columbia — $2,300 per student per year since this government came to power. It has more than doubled. It is why British Columbia has gone from having the lowest student debt levels in the country 12 years ago to having the distinction of the highest student debt levels in the entire country.

That is not a recipe for opportunity and advancement. That is not a recipe for skills and knowledge to be acquired that will attract investment long term. It's having an impact now. It's having a negative impact on consumer spending, and it continues in this budget. Middle-class families paying more for tuition fees in British Columbia, amongst the highest in Canada now, and the highest student debt levels — that's what this budget is about.

To say that this budget somehow features no tax increases and for the Minister of Finance to have his lips moving while the sleight of hand reaches into the back pocket and pulls out the wallet of British Columbians, I have to say, is amongst the boldest feats I've ever seen in my time in this place.

Now, let's deal with the disconnect between the so-called jobs plan and those kinds of investments that one would expect would be linked to employment creation and opportunity in the economy. This is bold again — the government's so-called jobs plan.

They spent 15 million bucks out of contingency funding to advertise it to the hilt last year in the run-up to the election. They used contingency funds for that spending. Now we find out that this so-called jobs plan boasts the weakest private sector job growth in the entire country. It's a so-called plan where B.C.'s employment numbers in this budget aren't projected to improve; they're projected to get worse in 2014 and again in 2015.

[1740]

The unemployment rate goes up during the course of this jobs plan for its entire duration. That's a jobs plan that is best described as a bold failure, with a net result that projects an increase in the unemployment rate to climb over the three years of this budget. Now, how can these results be so disastrous yet somehow be part of a government plan?

It's a plan that is likely to get worse, because in this budget employment programs are targeted for a cut of 46 percent; $25½ million in funding ripped out of employment programs in my community and communities that members on the government side represent, that all sides of the House represent. These are programs that assist people to find long-term work in identified labour market niches that provide stable jobs.

How can you have a government that says it has a jobs plan and then takes money out of those employment programs that help people get into paid work? That's an absurd jobs plan, if you can even call it that, but that's what's in this budget for British Columbians who've read it.

This budget cuts the Ministry of Advanced Education and the higher education institutions that are supported by that ministry's budget by some $110 million over the next three years. Annual funding for post-secondary education in British Columbia — unique in Confederation, I might add, right now, amongst all the provinces — will decrease from $1.865 billion in the current fiscal year to $1.821 billion in fiscal 2016-2017.

Unbelievable. The institutions that actually train and educate workers for the knowledge economy in all sectors in our economy, all the regional labour markets where there are colleges and university colleges and universities, are seeing their budgets cut. That is completely at odds with any government that has the pretense of having a jobs plan.

To cut the job trainers and the employment programs of this province and have your jobs plan trying to align with this budget is an absurdity. There are real examples
[ Page 1773 ]
here that back this up.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

In my own neck of the woods, here at Camosun College, there's a $5 million threatened operating deficit at this institution. Now, how does Camosun College align with a Ministry of Advanced Education budget that cuts deeper when it's already in a very fiscally difficult position? It's already cutting programs that are directly linked to employment, and they're going to have to do more cutting because of this budget.

BCIT, the premier training institution provincewide, with a provincewide mandate for every British Columbian, is facing a shortfall right now of $8 million a year. Can you imagine how much worse that will grow over the three fiscal years of this budget plan? That is a disaster.

The shipbuilding programs that are sustained by BCIT that are part of Seaspan and other operators trying to expand capacity to fulfil federal contracts — those are the kinds of things that are at risk.

The government has announcements and press releases and confetti to try and link itself with federally announced programs and private sector investors who rely on provincially administered training programs. They come to the party for the announcement, and then, when it comes to their budget, they completely undercut the ability to fulfil the terms of partnership with the private sector and the federal government.

That's what this budget is about. That is a jobs plan that is self-sabotaging. It's a jobs plan that defies the proven economic growth strategies of other jurisdictions in North America and around the world. It defies the advice actually given to this government, to this government's policy-makers, by the B.C. Business Council, who told the government that budgets should invest more in education, skills and human capital, not less, going forward.

Now, this government has a history of shooting every messenger it doesn't like, even its own messengers that it creates. They did that recently to the Jobs and Investment Board, which issued a report on, I think, January 8 of this year, just a couple of months ago.

[1745]

The conclusions of this report told government, which funded it and appointed this board, that there was a growing skills shortage that risked high costs in the labour market. This was especially acute in remote sites within…. Agrifoods, mining, forestry, natural gas, LNG and marine transport were at acute risk.

It warned government that increasing electricity costs were a threat to the growth of the mining sector that may chase away capital. It warned government that lengthy permit approvals were also threatening the mining sector. It warned the government that there was a decline in ESL enrolment and that this was a risk to the successful integration of immigrants who've settled here in British Columbia and to the skills they have to contribute. And it talked about a number of specific challenges to the forestry sector.

These are serious issues. This is a serious analysis of the facts of the labour market development situation in British Columbia, and for their objective assessment, the Jobs and Investment report was shelved, and the committee, the board, was disbanded in December.

There's a pattern here too. This is exactly what happened to the B.C. Progress Board, which issued a report that is not too old — just about 18 months old — on human capital and productivity in B.C. They cited four areas of government policy failure. The first was the underutilization of the skills of recent immigrants — again, same findings as the Jobs and Investment Board report that I just referenced.

They talked about the poor educational outcomes of aboriginal people in B.C., they talked about the below-average production of human capital through graduate training in our universities, and they talked about a persistent problem around high school non-completion in B.C.

For their labors and for their insights into some of the challenges that are long term and that, admittedly, can't be fixed in one budget year but require a strategy and require some discipline and commitment by government, for being the canary that told government that these are serious risks to the medium-term and long-term health of B.C.'s economy and our ability to compete, the Progress Board was disbanded.

The Jobs and Investment Board gives a message to government that the jobs plan isn't working. They're fired. The B.C. Progress Board gives objective economic analysis to the B.C. government that appointed them, and they're fired. How can you believe anything that this government says in its so-called jobs plan when the objective, economic-based information and the sources that provide them to government get fired for their troubles, for giving them the facts? You can't. You can't trust this government on these issues.

There's another important input in the run-up to this budget that I think I want to mention that was ignored, and that is the bipartisan Standing Committee on Finance of this Legislature. They did some great work, it has to be said, and I want to thank all the members that participated in that committee, on both sides of the House.

They did try and influence and persuade the Finance Minister and the Treasury Board about some things that needed to be included in the budget. For their troubles, they were completely ignored. For going out in British Columbia, hearing from experts and communities in every part of this province of ours and providing thoughtful recommendations, which, as I said, were crafted on a bipartisan basis — they set aside any polit-
[ Page 1774 ]
ical differences and came together to recommend some commonsense ideas — they were completely ignored by cabinet and by the Finance Minister.

This committee unanimously recommended to this government — and I want to quote it — that the budget "ensure that the post-secondary education and training system is adequately funded to meet the rising demand for educated and skilled workers." Now, I bet the MLAs on both sides of the House are deeply unhappy that their thoughtful advice, based on input they heard around the province, was completely ignored and that the Minister of Advanced Education signed off on a budget that cuts post-secondary education, in defiance of that recommendation. I'm sure that is true.

The problem with it is that that action by this government that is one of the key facets of this budget makes absolutely no sense for the economic well-being of our province. It already is the case that close to eight in ten new jobs today require some form of post-secondary accreditation, and that trend will only continue.

[1750]

This is a budget that utterly fails to understand where B.C.'s economy sits today vis-à-vis the need to invest in people, and it will not position us to meet the increasingly competitive challenges in the future.

Developing the talent, the skills base and the knowledge of our people is what attracts investment and gives us an edge in a very competitive world. This budget, by any measure, fails to meet that challenge that we know we face in British Columbia.

A recent KPMG study, which was dubbed a technology report card, compared B.C. to a number of other jurisdictions. These conclusions are well known to folks in the ministry and ought to be in the briefing notes to ministers that touch upon this area of responsibility in their files. The conclusions in this report — and it's only a 2012 report — are shocking to B.C., because they represent real threats to our well-being in the future.

B.C.'s tech contribution in this important economic sector is lower than Ontario, Quebec and the U.S., and B.C. tech jobs are lower, again, than Ontario and Quebec. That costs our economy a great deal, because technology jobs typically pay something like 50, 55 percent more than the B.C. average.

B.C.'s ranking in this KPMG study was 33rd of 38 jurisdictions in issuing tech-related degrees. You need to do significantly better when you're ranked 33 out of 38. We have a budget that will in no way enable advanced education institutions in B.C. to pull themselves up and be able to develop and issue new technology degrees. It's not going to happen. In fact, the risk is contraction, and it will sink even further.

B.C. today ranks 29th out of 42 jurisdictions that were compared in research-and-development expenditure. When your R-and-D rankings are that bad, you are in an economy that risks decline long term.

That's why, perhaps, KPMG also concluded that B.C. generates fewer patents per capita than Ontario and Quebec, who are our most competitive provinces, and generates far fewer patents than most OECD countries do.

Even without government focus, the tech industry in B.C., it must be said, has still emerged as a pretty strong and dynamic sector. It employs something like 85,000 people, which is more than forestry, mining, and oil and gas combined together. It's the third-largest contributor to B.C.'s GDP. It contributes greatly to our mix of exports in terms of goods and services.

Instead of having a budget that looks at the tech sector…. I'll continue to use this example, because I think it's a good one. Instead of having some focus in this budget on growing that sector of economy which is already No. 3 in GDP, we've got an all-eggs-in-one-basket, LNG-or-bust strategy in the government.

You know what? Both sides of the House support the responsible development of the LNG in this province. It's an opportunity for B.C. We all agree on that point. It may be an opportunity that has been ludicrously overpromised by the B.C. Liberals, but I'll set that aside for a moment.

Let's look at how this budget actually…. Even though it has all its economic eggs in one basket on LNG, isn't it remarkable how it throttles it back from the promises that were made just eight months ago in the context of an election? Remember, this government was promising a terminal and a pipeline to be on line by 2015. Does anyone on that side of the House believe that anymore? This budget is certainly silent on that being achievable.

The government promised an LNG tax regime that would be completed last year, and now we know that's not happening. They promised British Columbians $100 billion in revenue to the treasury, minimum. This would make B.C. debt-free within 15 years.

[1755]

It was so true, this promise of a debt-free B.C., that was it painted next to the Premier's face on the side of a giant bus that drove around the province. So it must be true, right? The bus wouldn't lie. Does anyone on that side of the House really believe that LNG is synonymous with a debt-free B.C.? I haven't heard that in too many of the budget responses in favour of this document. Yet they said, "You can take that pledge to the bank," just eight months ago.

The reality on LNG — it's a complex file; there's no question about it — is that this government is at risk of committing some of the same mistakes that we have seen in U.S. jurisdictions, and the Australians, on LNG development. A critical mistake in the Australian experience is the way that they mismanaged rising labour costs through poor labour market planning. This made Australia the highest-cost LNG jurisdiction on the planet, and it led to private sector projects soaring over budget
[ Page 1775 ]
and many of them actually being scrapped.

That is a risk to British Columbia today because of this budget, because of its failure to address some of the key challenges around rolling out LNG in an orderly way where the labour market challenges are met.

We've recently heard from a number of LNG proponents in this province — Chevron, Brit Gas and others — that in the run-up to a final investment decision-making process for those companies, they have had a look, from their HR specialists, at what's going on in the province of British Columbia. They're saying: "Where is government?" They want us to provide a social licence and benefits to the province of B.C., and the companies don't disagree with that.

Communities want local employment so that money is earned and taxes are paid and communities are built in the north — the northwest and the northeast. We have a 50 percent graduation rate in some of the school districts in northern B.C., even lower for aboriginal communities. You can't fault the companies for coming to the table for social licence discussions with British Columbians and saying: "Where's government?"

Education is clearly their responsibility, in the constitution and otherwise. That's their area of expertise. These existing situations, where half of students in some of those areas never complete high school, are a recipe for disaster. We're not going to get the social benefits that we ought to from the LNG opportunity. You would think that government would have realized that by now and that they would have used this budget opportunity to address it. But they didn't.

If we're going to break deep-seated cycles of unemployment, if we're going to secure good jobs and paycheques in those communities, if we're going to have discussions and conclude agreements that build renewable energy infrastructure that is going to sustain communities and allow for community dividends to further invest in the economic and social well-being of those communities, we're going to need a different budget than the one that's before us, because this budget isn't going to do it. It's going to squander those opportunities.

Now let's look at K-to-12 education in my remaining time. In this budget, funding is flat. At the very time when enrolment is set to grow for the first time in perhaps a decade in British Columbia…. Some of us are doing our part. I look to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. We're all doing our part to increase the school-aged population here. It's happening now, and I congratulate him and his wife on that recent announcement.

It's actually here. For the first fiscal year, 2014-2015, we're talking about a situation where enrolment…. Sorry, the following fiscal year we're talking about enrolment being set to grow, and at that exact same time, we are seeing funding flatline.

Now, the backdrop is incredible here. This is perhaps the greatest time in the last 12 years. I realize that's a turbulent decade to pull a claim like this from, but this is probably the most turbulent time in the last 12 years where the level of uncertainty is the greatest for parents, for kids and for the teaching profession in the province.

[1800]

We have reached the near end of the legal road where government can come into this place and pass laws that rip up contracts it has been signed in good faith with workers, including teachers, where that is then deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and where government uses the legislative fiat to avoid meaningful, good-faith bargaining.

That's been exposed just in this legislative sitting — what the true agenda of government was just two years ago, when they sought to put 565,000 kids out of school and provoke a strike to gain the upper hand and a political advantage. We know what they're capable of now.

When the government says, on the one hand, that they want to have a ten-year deal for teachers, I don't fault them for any such ambition, but I say: "Where are the signs that you're serious about this?" I mean, this government is in a position where it seriously needs to earn the trust again of the public, who it deceived. We know that from sworn testimony in court from its chief negotiator, where it deceived the teaching profession and where it hatched a scheme to create chaos in the education sector.

Now they have to go back, having exhausted the legal route for the better part of a decade. While the taxpayer is paying the bills for all the legal help, they have to go back, and they have to try negotiations.

Just a few months ago government thought it was great — and I think we all were hoping that this would mean something of a lasting benefit — that educational support workers signed an agreement. Most of it was retroactive, and it was only a two-year deal. It was funded by school districts out of internal savings. It was extremely difficult for them to do, and it's not a feat that they can keep being asked to do again and again — even though government has asked them to go to the same well of internal savings over and over again.

We even had the government say…. When hydro increases of 28 percent were announced, their response to school districts in this province was: "Well, if you don't like it, close another school." That's the sensitivity we got.

Now we have a budget that for the next three years will tell school district employers, the people on the short end of the co-governance stick from this government, that they have to somehow absorb a 4 percent MSP increase for all of their employees. Those are payroll costs for 40,000 teachers and 25,000 educational support workers that school districts are going to have to find.

With all that uncertainty going on, let's look at the government's stated education plan. They're saying a lot of the right things. They're saying that 21st-century learning and rising expectations from parents about how their kids do in school needs a response from gov-
[ Page 1776 ]
ernment, needs a re-tooling. It's not just four walls that make a school now. All of that good stuff. I see the minister nodding away.

That requires more focus, more investment. If you're going to guarantee an individual education plan for every kid in school, then the first thing you have to deal with is the fact that, in many districts in this province, kids who have learning disabilities are unable to get them diagnosed for two or three school years today because of the lack of school support workers.

That's the problem that goes unaddressed in this budget. That's why this side of the House will be voting against it. It robs from the pocketbooks of ordinary British Columbians and fails to invest in the future.

Hon. S. Anton: It was an honour to sit here in this House the other day and listen to the Minister of Finance deliver our second balanced budget in British Columbia. That second balanced budget represented incredible work and dedication of the government, of this side of the House, in making sure that the ministries balanced their budgets, staying fiscally disciplined and working hard to make sure that our books are in order in British Columbia.

It is that that allows us to create prosperity in British Columbia and allows us to have the finances and the wherewithal to carry out the government's agenda and to make British Columbia a better place for all our families and for all our citizens. You can do that by having your fiscal house in order.

On the ministry that I'm responsible for, Justice and public safety, it allows justice to move forward in keeping British Columbia a safer place for families and for achieving justice for everyone in British Columbia. Without having justice….

[1805]

That's one of the foundations of our democracy. Achieving justice and achieving timely and accessible justice for everyone is a foundation of a civil society. We can do that. We can improve our outcomes in justice, we can improve access to justice, we can improve public safety because we have our fiscal house in order.

There is one indicator which I'll just start right off the top with. British Columbia's crime rate is at its lowest in four decades. Some of the things in particular which we are working on in Justice…. The first I'd like to mention is policing. We are investing in policing in such a way that it does make a safer British Columbia.

For example, we are putting $22 million a year into our anti-gang strategy and keeping dedicated anti-gang officers on the streets of British Columbia. Investigations by the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit of British Columbia, the province's anti-gang agency, have resulted in seizures of large quantities of drugs and firearms. And the ministry is working with police and other stakeholders to address gang recruitment and violence by developing new evidence-based approaches and building on existing strategies.

The problems caused by gangs and gang recruitment in schools of young people is something that we need to address. Gang activity is extremely detrimental — obviously, very detrimental — to public safety in British Columbia. We are making inroads, but we must proceed forward by continuing to invest our efforts in these strategies.

Beyond gangs and organized crime, we are following up on the action items in the B.C. Policing and Community Safety Plan. We released the final version of this multi-year strategic plan at the end of last year, and we're taking action to modernize B.C.'s policing and law enforcement framework.

For example, in November we announced a multi-year, expert-led process to examine how policing is currently funded and structured. This will help to better define funding responsibilities at each level of government and to lay the groundwork for exploring new service delivery models.

This followed our appointment last September of a blue-ribbon panel that meets around British Columbia to examine existing crime reduction initiatives and research and has ongoing consultation with stakeholders. And today, of course, I introduced legislation to amend the Police Act to respond to recommendations in the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry.

We invest in policing. We are investing in corrections. We have recently committed the first stage of a two-stage capital budget for increasing and improving our corrections facilities in British Columbia. We have spent, now, $185 million on the first three stages, which include the Surrey Pretrial Services Centre, which I was able to open with others a few weeks ago; the Prince George Correctional Centre, which I was able to visit not long ago; and the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women, which has increased in size to provide better services for women prisoners in British Columbia.

The Surrey centre has state-of-the-art security features and design which enhance safety for staff, inmates and the community as a whole. Its efficient design — LEED gold — will help us save on operational costs over its life.

But that's just part 1 of our corrections capital spending. Part 2: we recently announced the preferred proponent to help us make the new Okanagan correctional centre a reality. Construction is scheduled to begin this spring, with completion projected to be on schedule, in 2016.

Public safety, of course, includes road safety, and we have made a recent commitment to have the safest roads in the country by 2020. Just today the British Columbia Court of Appeal made a ruling in relation to the immediate roadside prohibitions, allowing us to continue the program that we are on to continue our tough approach to drinking and driving, which has led to a reduction in the last three years of 190 deaths on the roads of British
[ Page 1777 ]
Columbia caused by drinking drivers.

[1810]

This was remarkable leadership in British Columbia. We were the first to bring in this kind of legislation. We have been followed by some of the other provinces, and all of the other provinces are watching because they are extremely impressed with how this scheme, with how this regime, has worked in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Hon. S. Anton: I think the members opposite may be saying that they're not in favour of the immediate roadside prohibitions, Madame Speaker.

We are, as I said, continuing with immediate roadside prohibitions because they have been determined to be extremely successful in saving lives on British Columbia highways. Every death by someone drinking and driving, every death on our roads, is a death too many. The budget includes a $5 million increase for the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles to permanently fund the immediate roadside prohibition program. This is money well spent.

In late 2012 Commissioner Oppal released the recommendations of his Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. Since that time, the recommendations are of the highest priority in Justice. We acted on some of those recommendations immediately, and others we are continuing to work through, so we are covering all of the major themes in the missing-women report.

For an example, as immediate actions we committed $750,000 in annual funding to the WISH Drop-in Centre in Vancouver to allow them to expand their hours of service to vulnerable women, and we appointed Steven Point as our ambassador.

In November we released a status report showing our work was complete or underway on more than half of the recommendations directed to the province. And we're making further significant strides. Some of the themes in Commissioner Oppal's report…. Policing, and I talked about some of the policing things we've been doing; missing persons; and support for vulnerable women — we are taking action on those three areas.

With regard to missing persons, we introduced missing-persons legislation in this House very recently to support police in finding missing and at-risk people and to strengthen oversight of cases that remain unsolved. One of the problems around the terrible tragedy of the missing women was that their friends often knew they were missing but that police lacked the tools to go and find them. This missing-persons legislation will change that.

In terms of policing, I mentioned the oversight of cases that remain unsolved. The new changes to the Police Act will also establish standards in relationship to missing-persons cases and also provide standards for providing bias-free policing in British Columbia.

In looking for support for vulnerable women, government has been working for many years to improve the situation of vulnerable women in British Columbia, and we continue to work so hard on that. For example, we've brought in the office of human trafficking — the first province, British Columbia, to bring in such an office.

We have made enormous commitments in housing, so much so that we now invest $32 million annually to support more than 800 spaces in transition houses and safe homes. In fact, last year about 18,000 women and children stayed in transition houses. This government bought hotel rooms in Vancouver and around British Columbia, it has built new housing, and it has made very significant changes so that women and children in abusive situations or in other vulnerable situations can have safe and secure housing.

I would like to talk about justice transformation, but I see that my time is running out. I will say very quickly, Madame Speaker, that we are committed, as I said earlier, to timely justice and accessible justice in British Columbia. This is why we are investing in justice access centres and in family mediation counsellors — so that things that do not need to be in court don't need to go to court, so that people can achieve justice through a variety of different means which are accessible to them and timely.

[1815]

These things that I've mentioned can only be done because we in British Columbia have our fiscal house in order, because we have achieved a balanced budget, because we are the only province in Canada which has brought in two successive balanced budgets.

We are in a good position in British Columbia to achieve, as I said, public safety and to achieve justice for our citizens. We can do that because we have good fiscal management, because we have our budget balanced. I am so proud to be able to stand up in support of our balanced budget.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'd like to thank all members for providing their thoughts on the budget. We will have ample time in the days ahead to delve into the details of the budget in excruciating detail, through the estimates process.

I move, again seconded by the hon. Deputy Premier of British Columbia, that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

[1820]

Motion approved on the following division:

Motions Without Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
TO SIT IN TWO SECTIONS

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I have provided to the hon. Opposition House Leader and the independent members of the Legislative Assembly the standard motion that relates to the House authorizing the Committee of Supply for this session to sit in two sections. I can advise the members that, having examined the motion that I am submitting, it enumerates the same rules as have been customary in this House governing the conducting of the two committee rooms.

By leave, I move:

[Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in two sections designated Section A and Section B; Section A to sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time, and Section B to sit in the Chamber of the Assembly, subject to the following rules:

1. The Standing Orders applicable to the Committee of the Whole House shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of Supply save and except that in Section A, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.

2. All Estimates shall stand referred to Section A, save and except those Estimates as shall be referred to Section B on motion without notice by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be decided without amendment or debate and be governed by Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation.

3. Section A shall consist of 17 Members, being 10 Members of the B.C. Liberal Party and 6 Members of the New Democratic Party and one Independent. In addition, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his or her nominee, shall preside over the debates in Section A. Substitution of Members will be permitted to Section A with the consent of that Member's Whip, where applicable, otherwise with the consent of the Member involved. For the second session of the Fortieth Parliament, the Members of Section A shall be as follows: the Minister whose Estimates are under consideration and, Messrs. Letnick, Morris, Throness, Ashton, Hamilton, Sultan, Kyllo, Yap and Ms. Tegart, and Messrs. Horgan, Simpson, Farnworth, and Mmes. Karagianis, Hammell and Corrigan, and Ms. Huntington.

4. At fifteen minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of Section A will report to the House. In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial Estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the Government shall have a maximum of eight minutes, and the Official Opposition a maximum of five minutes, and all other Members (cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to summarize the Committee debate on a particular ministerial Estimate completed, such summaries to be in the following order:

(1) Other Members;

(2) Opposition; and

(3) Government.

5. Section B shall be composed of all Members of the House.

6. Divisions in Section A will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells four times.

7. Divisions in Section B will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells three times at which time proceedings in Section A will be suspended until completion of the division in Section B.

8. Section A is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during consideration thereof in Section A, and for all purposes Section A shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to Section A shall be made upon motion without notice by the Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals.

9. Bills or Estimates previously referred to a designated Committee may at any stage be subsequently referred to another designated Committee on motion of the Government House Leader or Minister responsible for the Bill as hereinbefore provided by Rule Nos. 2 and 8.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.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