2015 Legislative Session: Fourth 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)

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 19, Number 7

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

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2015

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Bennett: It’s a great pleasure this morning to introduce two friends. One is the mayor of Revelstoke, Mark McKee, who was just elected in November. Mark has had this job before and is very good at it.

With Mark McKee is Doug Clovechok, who will be our candidate in that riding in the next election as the regional organizer for the B.C. Liberal Party. They’re here in Victoria, actually, meeting with the Minister of Transportation, having constructive conversations about helping with Highway 1.

Can the House please help me make these two gentlemen welcome.

[1005]

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce one of the many wonderful young leaders in the student leadership movement: Brittany Barnes, from Capilano Students Union. My eyes aren’t good enough to remember who her partner is up there today. I want to welcome them both, and I hope the House will also make them both very welcome. Thanks for joining us.

Hon. N. Letnick: In the House today we have Fred Steele, the president of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, who’s come to watch our hard work and, hopefully, get some nuggets from this afternoon’s budget. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

N. Macdonald: I’d just like to join in welcoming Mark McKee, the mayor of Revelstoke and Doug Clovechok, who’s the administrator at the Invermere campus of the College of the Rockies. It’s not very often we get visitors here, but this is two days in a row. It’s lovely to see that you made the trip. I hope you enjoy yourselves here.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s a great pleasure today to introduce the new chair of the Vancouver school board, Mr. Christopher Richardson, and his colleague on the board and vice-chair, Janet Fraser. Will the House please give them a warm welcome.

S. Hamilton: I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome a long-serving volunteer in my community — as well as the wife of my constituency assistant. Would the House please make welcome Isaac Kendall.

J. Thornthwaite: My colleague introduced Brittany Barnes from Capilano University. Her partner there is Sacha Fabry. I’d like to make them also equally welcome to the precinct today.

J. Rice: I do look forward to the day that my father will be able to come and participate in the proceedings of the Legislature. In the meantime, while he is freezing his toes off in Ottawa right now with a windchill of minus 40, I do want to wish my father a happy 60th birthday.

J. Sturdy: In the precinct today is Mr. Stuart McLaughlin. While Mr. McLaughlin is my constituent both residentially and with businesses in the Sea to Sky, he is likely best known as the owner of Grouse Mountain Resorts. Mr. McLaughlin is involved in a surprising number of business ventures and contributes on numerous volunteer boards and social enterprises. Will the House please join me in making him feel welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

COLLIERY DAM PARK

D. Routley: In Nanaimo there is a lovely place where the sunlight filters through green trees along soft paths treaded quietly by runners and those who walk their babies. It’s a place where grandchildren are walked by grandparents who were once grandchildren walking with their grandparents. It’s a place called the Colliery Dam Park.

In the words of the Nanaimo city website, it is a rare link with Nanaimo’s industrial heritage. In 1910 and 1911 it was built by the Western Fuel Co., which built dams in order to create a water body to provide water for coal washing. It has this deep and historical connection for our community.

The role of Colliery Dam Park has morphed over the years. The Snuneymuxw First Nations, who were left out of many of the decisions around resource issues in our communities, are now full partners in determining the fate of the dams. That isn’t by accident. The provincial government had designated the dams as needing to be removed because they posed the greatest risk of any dams in the province.

Well, the people of the community did not accept that, and we saw what was a great demonstration of the marvellous capacity that exists within all our communities. When people are challenged, we find out just the kind of human resources we represent. Experts from all fields stepped forward, groups were founded, and people became deeply involved in saving this wonderful park.

After due consideration it was found that in fact the
[ Page 5832 ]
dams did not pose the risk that was identified by the province. The people of Nanaimo thanked the province for being flexible in their application of standards and waiting long enough to find out the truth.

[1010]

The truth is that the Colliery dams are strong. The Colliery dams will remain. The people have organized in a way that I think represents the best spirit of our democracy. People of Nanaimo were told by experts that they should be torn down. They didn’t accept it, and I thank them for that.

HERITAGE WEEK AND
HISTORIC ROLE OF RIVER SYSTEMS
IN PRINCE GEORGE AREA

M. Morris: I’m pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of Heritage Week in B.C., which runs from February 16 to February 22. This year’s theme is “Main street: at the heart of the community.”

In my part of the world main streets started out as the river systems that were used extensively to connect our communities. In my riding I have one of the first communities that has been continually inhabited by Europeans west of the Rocky Mountains.

Fort McLeod, now known as McLeod Lake, 140 kilometres north of Prince George, was established by Simon Fraser in 1805. This site is on the traditional territory of the McLeod Lake Indian Band, who were residents in the area at the time the fort was established.

Another heritage site in my riding connected by our main street river systems is Giscome Portage. Giscome Portage was first used by the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation of Prince George as a trade route with McLeod Lake First Nations and trappers living in Fort McLeod. Now known as a Giscome heritage trail, this portage crossed the continental divide separating the Pacific and Arctic watersheds.

In the early 1900s the Hubble homestead was established along the banks of the Fraser River where the Giscome Portage connected the Fraser River to Summit Lake. Summit Lake was connected to the Crooked River which connected to McLeod Lake and onto the Peace River systems and the Arctic.

Heritage Week is a great opportunity for families to find their main streets and explore and understand the historic significance of some of the heritage sites that are core to their communities and B.C.’s rich history.

75th ANNIVERSARY OF NADEN BAND

M. Karagianis: For 75 years the Naden Band has been a proud part of naval history in Esquimalt. The Naden Band was formed during World War II as a way to keep up military and civilian morale during some very dark days. Over the years they’ve done all that and more with concerts, dances, hundreds of radio broadcasts, and performances at base ceremonies and at parades both here and around western Canada. The band has represented the navy throughout the country.

In travels abroad, the Naden Band became an ambassador for Canada with performances at Expo ’70 in Osaka; in Fiji, Australia and New Zealand in 1972; and in Russia in 1991. Last June the band proudly participated in the 60th anniversary of D-Day at Normandy.

Today the band has 35 professional full-time musicians, and they take an active part in fundraising for non-profit organizations such as the Salvation Army Christmas Toy Drive, the Military Family Resource Centre and the United Way.

The ceremonial component of the band supports government events that we’re familiar with here, including the Victoria Remembrance Day ceremonies, the opening of provincial Legislature and the Canadian visit of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in 2003.

The end for the band nearly came in 1994 when it was one of five military bands that were cut in the federal budget. Three years later the music branch was restructured and the Naden Band was reinstated.

Over the past 75 years the band has presented audiences at home and abroad with musical performances of the highest calibre. Under the direction of Lt. Matthew Clark the band performs in a variety of large and small ensembles, and performs at parades, ship departures and arrivals and military dinners.

I hope the House will join me in saying congratulations to all the members past and present on this occasion of the 75th anniversary. Here’s to another 75 years of making beautiful music together.

RUBEN’S SHOES INITIATIVE
BY KELLY STRONGITHARM

L. Reimer: It is with great pleasure that I stand in front of the members of this House and speak to you about Kelly Strongitharm, a Port Moody resident who has served as an inspiration to our community and has helped thousands of children across the world. Kelly is the force that struck an entire movement called Ruben’s Shoes that was born from a simple realization that most of us in this room probably take for granted — that kids need shoes and kids have shoes.

Through sponsoring a child named Ruben in the Dominican Republic, Kelly realized that many children did not have a pair of shoes and that this often served as a barrier for them to go to school and even for them to play safely. So she came up with the idea to collect a few hundred pairs of shoes to send to Ruben and to his community.

[1015]

Kelly’s goal for a few hundred has long been reached. In fact, since February of 2013 Kelly has raised over 24,000 pairs of shoes.
[ Page 5833 ]

Kelly has done countless presentations at local schools, educating kids about the differences in life around the world and the importance of giving. Moreover, she has brought hundreds of kids into the Ruben’s Shoes warehouse and involved them in volunteer work. Ruben’s Shoes has brought together classes and teams all working together toward a common goal of giving back.

Kelly and her team make it very easy for people to get involved. They don’t just give away your lightly used shoes. They hand-deliver them and encourage community service in exchange for the shoes, in turn creating community pride wherever they go.

Today I stand to thank Kelly Strongitharm for her positive inspiration, and I encourage all the members in this House to look up Ruben’s Shoes and to let someone walk in your gently used shoes and allow them to take steps towards a better, meaningful future.

LEADERSHIP OF RON PEARS
AT UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LANDS

D. Eby: There’s a very unique neighbourhood in my constituency called the University Endowment Lands. The UEL is not part of the city of Vancouver or UBC, despite being located next to both. Instead, it’s part of what’s called electoral area A, which includes several small islands and remote rural areas and is ably represented regionally by Maria Harris at Metro Vancouver.

In law, for almost all municipal functions, the mayor of the UEL is the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. In fact, for most who live at the UEL, their mayor is not the minister but has been for many years retired architect Ron Pears, despite the fact that Ron has no legal powers under the current governance structure.

When there are media interviews to be given on behalf of the UEL, Ron steps up to speak on behalf of the community. When the provincial government needs to be advised of issues impacting UEL neighbours, Ron delivers the message until the matter is addressed. Ron has always presented a balanced, careful, articulate view on behalf of his community to the minister, the media and the general public while serving on various committees of the UEL since 1991.

But his most important job, until his recent retirement from the role, has been to serve as president of the UEL community advisory committee. Despite a very limited legal role as president, Ron used the position to pursue relentless advocacy for governance reform, in partnership with his fellow community advisory committee members. Their efforts have drawn attention from all quarters and action from this provincial government.

The Minister of Community, Culture and Sport has initiated a governance study which has the potential to truly democratize life at the UEL. This study has come about in large part due to Ron’s work, and if it reforms local government at the UEL, it will be the legacy of his 24 years of volunteering.

On behalf of Vancouver–Point Grey, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ron Pears, a committed community leader, for his tireless efforts and countless volunteer hours to improve life in his community.

PROPOSED AUDAIN ART MUSEUM
IN WHISTLER

J. Sturdy: I would like to draw your attention to an unlikely spot in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. While the day skier parking lots in the heart of Whistler are a location that you have all likely visited, the particular spot I want to draw your attention to has a somewhat disagreeable reputation, for what once occupied the site was the vehicle impound lot. But as we speak, work is progressing rapidly on a philanthropic endeavour that will change the landscape and further the community goal of developing not only a four-season resort but also a centre for cultural tourism.

Vancouver businessman Michael Audain and his wife, Yoshiko Karasawa, are contributing upwards of $30 million to build the Audain art museum. This 56,000-square-foot facility will house a permanent collection of British Columbia art dating from the early times to present day. Particular strengths will be an outstanding collection of 19th-century northwest coast First Nations masks, one of Canada’s strongest Emily Carr collections and a selection of Vancouver’s celebrated photo-based art. Room for temporary exhibits is also amply accommodated for.

The building is elevated above the Fitzsimmons Creek floodplain, uniquely oriented to embrace the feeling of being in the forest canopy. The museum will be interconnected to a pedestrian cultural corridor consisting of pathways and outdoor exhibits, and you will be able to freely transit parts of the museum on your way to and from the mountain.

[1020]

I had the pleasure of joining Mr. Audain last week for his regular inspection of progress, and construction is proceeding steadily. We will all be the beneficiaries of the Audains’ intense interest in British Columbia’s rich cultural and artistic history with the opening of the Audain art museum later this year. I hope that you’ll all take the opportunity to visit and enjoy this wonderful facility.

Oral Questions

ACCESS TO PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
AND HOSPITAL SERVICES
IN FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

J. Darcy: Last week we tried to get the Health Minister to explain why he had failed to live up to his commitment that every British Columbian would have a family doc-
[ Page 5834 ]
tor by 2015. We know that when people don’t have timely access to primary care, whether that’s a family doctor or a nurse practitioner, they very often end up in the emergency rooms.

When Stats Canada suggests that up to 600,000 British Columbians don’t have a family doctor, it’s not surprising that we have extremely overcrowded emergency rooms in British Columbia. In Abbotsford Hospital the overcrowding has gotten so bad that one senior spent one month in a shower room with no window and lacking basic facilities — not even a toilet.

Can the Health Minister explain how this government has failed so badly that vulnerable seniors are left in such a deplorable situation?

Hon. T. Lake: It is not acceptable to have people being cared for in hallways for prolonged periods of time. It’s not acceptable to have people being cared for in settings that are not up to standard. This occurs at certain times of the year when there is congestion. That is true. Health authorities work extremely hard to try to increase the flow of patients from the hospital into the community to decrease the congestion in the hospitals.

I’d like to note that the member opposite is referring to a hospital that the NDP promised for ten years to build and did not build. This is the government that built the Abbotsford Regional Hospital. We’ve spent over $12 billion in hospitals in this province over the last 12 years.

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

J. Darcy: Perhaps if the extra $300 million that this government wasted by insisting that this hospital be a P3 were put into patient care instead, we wouldn’t be facing this situation in the Abbotsford Hospital today.

Patients in Abbotsford deserve better care than they’re getting. Fraser Health’s own report card gave it the lowest possible rating in several categories. The key stat was this: two out of three patients were waiting more than ten hours to be admitted. This is unacceptable, and it is unacceptable that this minister refuses to accept responsibility for what’s happening to our seniors.

Will the Health Minister explain why seniors in Abbotsford are having to pay the price for his government’s mismanagement of our health care system?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned in an earlier response earlier this week, in terms of physician supply, if the NDP had increased the physician training spaces, over double….

Interjections.

Hon. T. Lake: Ten years of doing nothing. Ten years of doing nothing on that side of the House.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Lake: In the last 12 years we have over doubled the capacity of physician training. We have doubled the capacity of nurse training. We have spent $12 billion on health care capital, hospitals all around the province, that that government never, ever did. The Conference Board of Canada has just reaffirmed that we have the best outcomes in all of Canada, third-best in all of the world.

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

[1025]

J. Darcy: I could repeat what I said last week, and maybe I should for the minister. It’s clear that the best health outcomes in British Columbia…. We’ve had them since 1993 when the NDP government was in power. The minister should stop dining out on the coat-tails of the previous NDP government.

The fact is that emergency rooms aren’t just overcrowded because of the lack of access to primary care. According to the Fraser Health review, the government’s own review, a lack of residential care beds, a lack of mental health care beds and an absolute decline in home support hours in Fraser Health are all putting pressure on our emergency rooms and our acute care hospitals.

Yet last week, when a 68-year-old man recovering from major surgery went public about the indignity of lying in a hospital hallway at Royal Columbian Hospital for three weeks on end, what did the minister say? “Be patient. We did a top-level review. We’re hoping to become more efficient.”

The government has been asleep at the switch, and this minister tells seniors that they should be patient. Will the Health Minister please explain to these seniors how he plans to fix the mess that forces them into shower rooms and hospital hallways for weeks and weeks on end?

Hon. T. Lake: I know that the members opposite have very, very selective memory about the 1990s. Let me help them remember. In 1991 the Seaton commission on health care warned of an insufficient number of long-term-care beds. Between 1994 and 1999 the number of seniors in B.C. aged 70 and over increased by 25 percent. What did the NDP government of the 1990s do? They cut long-term-care beds by 18 percent and reduced home supports by 19 percent.

On this side of the House we are dramatically increasing the number of residential care beds to look after the people that have built this province. We are increasing home support. We are providing other supports to keep people in their homes longer, to provide the kind of support they need in the community and reduce the pres-
[ Page 5835 ]
sures on the acute care system. We will continue to invest to ensure that seniors in this province have the very best health care available to them.

SURGICAL SERVICES AT DELTA HOSPITAL

S. Hammell: At the Delta Hospital — meanwhile, in the present — the problem is surgical beds. Twenty years ago there were 25 surgical beds. Now, thanks to the Liberal government, the surgical program is basically non-existent, according to Dr. Robert Shaw, the head of medicine at Delta Hospital.

Can the minister explain why his government refuses to put resources into surgical beds at Delta Hospital?

Hon. T. Lake: The member opposite is just quite simply wrong. Delta Hospital has an excellent day-surgery program — 5,000 surgeries performed at Delta Hospital each and every year. Delta Hospital is indeed very proud of the surgical services that they have there. Less than three surgeries per week need to be transferred to a higher level of care — three surgeries per week out of 5,000 surgeries that are performed there each and every year.

Fraser Health has met with Delta Hospital and the physicians there. Their commitment is to maintain that day surgical program as well as establishing a preadmission clinic as well as an orthopedic services clinic. The services at Delta Hospital are excellent and will continue to be excellent into the future.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

[1030]

S. Hammell: A meeting of 250 people in Delta on Saturday disagree with you, as well as the doctors.

Here’s what Dr. Shaw told the media about the impacts of these reckless cuts to the hospital. He told the story of a doctor who had to put a patient in his own car and drive him to Richmond to take out his bladder because he was bleeding profusely and the surgical beds were not open, due to Liberal cuts. Imagine a 30-minute drive while bleeding and in pain in the back of a private vehicle.

We know the Liberals don’t like to be reminded of all the promises they’ve broken. But how does the minister think this fits with his party’s promise of health care where you live and when you need it?

Hon. T. Lake: Again, the member opposite is simply not correct. Delta Hospital has received no cuts. The surgical program will continue at Delta Hospital. In fact, resources have been increased for a preadmission clinic, and Fraser Health is performing 650 additional surgeries. Delta Hospital will receive some of those additional surgeries.

Let me just remind the members opposite what we’ve done for health care — $325 million for a new patient care tower that is committed to the city of Penticton, the Penticton Regional Hospital; $660 million for hospitals in the north Island; $80 million in Kamloops for the Clinical Services Building; $11 million for the ICU at East Kootenay Regional; $55 million for the beautiful Lakes District Hospital which we opened in Burns Lake.

We’ll continue to invest in health care in the province of British Columbia.

PERMIT FOR SOIL DUMPING IN
SHAWNIGAN LAKE WATERSHED

B. Routley: In 2013 this Minister of Environment issued a permit to dump five million tonnes of contaminated soil in the Shawnigan Lake watershed, which is the drinking water source for 7,000 people. Local residents have now spent over $1.2 million on legal fees fighting this decision.

Will the Minister of Environment tell this House how much this government has spent to date on its own legal bills to fight the people of Shawnigan Lake who are simply trying to protect their own drinking water?

Hon. M. Polak: I know that the members on the other side are not big fans of process, but let me remind them of the process. Those decisions are made by statutory decision-makers who review criteria that are set out in regulation that has been longstanding. The member will also know that that decision is currently in front of the Environmental Appeal Board, which is the longstanding process. We will await their decision and deal with those matters as the case may be.

Madame Speaker: The member for Cowichan Valley on a supplemental.

B. Routley: This government has put the interests of one business above the Shawnigan Lake community. Local realtors have reported that potential purchasers are nervous about investing in real estate in Shawnigan because of their concerns over safe drinking water.

Will the Minister of Environment do the right thing and cancel this permit to dump contaminated soil, and protect the drinking water of 7,000 people living around Shawnigan Lake?

Hon. M. Polak: I’m sure the member knows that we have in government, and working for governments of all stripes over many years, an incredible civil service in British Columbia. These decisions are made by civil servants.

[1035]

To suggest that a dedicated civil servant who gets up every day and makes decisions based on the science
[ Page 5836 ]
around what is the best for health and human safety…. To suggest that that civil servant would make the decision based on some connection to some company or other…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Polak: …is absolutely unacceptable.

MULTI-MATERIAL B.C. PROGRAM
AND FUNDING FOR RECYCLING
FACILITIES ON GULF ISLANDS

G. Holman: Recycling services on the southern Gulf Islands have been provided very efficiently for many years by non-profit societies operating small depots. These societies have informed the Minister of Environment that Multi-Material B.C.’s funding formula for rural depots will cover only a fraction of their operating costs, even after incentives for transportation and bundling. This means that recycling depots in the Gulf Islands will be bankrupt within two years if MMBC doesn’t increase its funding.

Will the Minister of the Environment assure communities in the southern Gulf Islands that MMBC’s inadequate funding won’t result in the closure of local recycling facilities?

Hon. M. Polak: I know that the significant change that has taken place in the packaging and printed-paper-recycling world has been challenging, just as many of our EPR programs have been over the years. I’ll remind members that when Encorp Pacific began its work, it was a fairly bumpy ride as well. Yet we were able to celebrate a milestone with them just this past year in terms of their 15 billionth beverage container recycled.

I am happy to continue working with local governments. Our ministry has been working with local governments to ensure that we assist with ironing out the different bumps in the road. We are committed to ensuring that those who produce the packaging and printed paper in British Columbia should be the ones who pay for its disposal.

G. Holman: Let’s hope these bumps in the roads don’t result in the closure of recycling facilities in the southern Gulf Islands. This government has given MMBC the responsibility to fund recycling in all parts of British Columbia. The minister now knows, if she didn’t know before, that MMBC funding to the CRD essentially only covers the blue box program, that rural depots have a different funding formula and that this funding formula leaves southern Gulf Island depots with a shortfall of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

Gulf Islanders are contributing to MMBC’s coffers — those product purchases that the minister mentioned — just like other British Columbians. Yet the funding being offered is going to result in their closure — facilities that have been providing excellent, efficient service for many years.

Will the minister assure Gulf Islanders today that the B.C. Liberals’ recycling scheme, these bumps in the road, won’t leave them without this essential service?

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, the goal is to get to a place where all communities have a sufficient blue box recycling service that they can enjoy and that they can participate in keeping our province clean and green. In fact, as a result of the MMBC program, we have communities all around the province which have curbside recycling for the very first time.

As with any of our extended producer responsibility programs, it takes time for the changes to be worked out in the local communities. We’re committed to working with those local communities — and happy to work with the member’s local community, as well — as we go through these changes and get to the best-possible recycling situation in British Columbia.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED APPLES AND
REPUTATION OF B.C. APPLE INDUSTRY

L. Popham: In response to genetically modified apples being approved in the United States, the B.C. Fruit Growers president, Fred Steele, said there could be a backlash against all apple producers if these apples are allowed to be grown in B.C.

[1040]

Is the minister prepared to be a strong voice for the B.C. apple industry, and will he send a message to the federal approving agency telling them that we don’t want the Arctic apple in British Columbia?

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s indeed an honour to stand up today. What a great day it is — the third balanced budget, which we’ll be introducing this afternoon.

Specifically on the question…. Will we have an opportunity to share the opinions that the members opposite have explained in the House today? As I have said before in the House and in other places…. When the Arctic apple was first proposed, we identified that it was a federal matter, federal jurisdiction. I communicated our intent to respect that with the federal minister, both in terms of a letter and also verbally. But what I’d like to say on top of that is that we have to….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Please continue.
[ Page 5837 ]

Hon. N. Letnick: We have to continue to help the industry grow. That’s why we put $8.4 million into a replant program that will be channelled over the next seven years.

L. Popham: It’s the minister’s job to stand up for B.C. industry. Our B.C. apple industry is concerned that allowing GMO apples in B.C. will destroy the reputation of our product on our international market. Fruit growers asked consumers, and they overwhelmingly rejected the idea of GMO apples.

This is not news for the minister. This has been raised numerous times. Will the Minister of Agriculture listen to B.C. apple growers and preserve the reputation of B.C. apples?

Hon. N. Letnick: This government has stood up for the B.C. apple industry, andnot only for the apple industry but for agriculture throughout British Columbia.

We have a $2 million Buy Local program that the B.C. apple industry is using, as well as other people. We’ve invested in the school fruit and vegetable snack program. We go out throughout the world to expand our markets not only in apples but in blueberries and cherries.

We’ve signed a deal with the government of China to see open access to cherries. That’s going to be $20 million a year. Hopefully, we’ll have blueberries for another $65 million a year. We don’t need to be lectured on this side of the House on how to expand agriculture. We’re doing it now for apples, and we’re doing it for all our commodities throughout British Columbia.

FUNDING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS IN PRINCE RUPERT

J. Rice: If you ask the residents of Prince Rupert, they will tell you that our infrastructure has been neglected for far too long. We have 100-year-old wooden water pipes. We have an airport that doesn’t have potable water. And while it’s great that our airport will soon see toilets that actually flush, access to that airport is a major challenge.

My question is to the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. When are you finally going to step up and invest in the infrastructure Prince Rupert so badly needs?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for the question. I look forward to meeting with the mayor of Prince Rupert today to talk about the Build Canada project that supports local governments with infrastructure that is necessary.

We’re encouraging everyone. February 18, for everyone in the House, is the deadline for the Build Canada project. Local governments can put in for needed infrastructure such as water, wastewater and pipes in the ground. If you need any support with that, we’d be happy to assist.

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

J. Rice: Prince Rupert’s infrastructure has crumbled while this government has ignored it for the past decade and a half.

[1045]

Our water systems are dangerously outdated, our bridges and roads need massive improvements, and though we will soon see toilets that flush at the airport, it still takes residents and business owners hours to even access that airport on our hopelessly outdated transportation system. That’s driving business away to other towns.

Again to the minister, when will her government fix the serious infrastructure deficit in Prince Rupert?

Hon. C. Oakes: It’s always a delight to have the opportunity to stand in the House to talk about important programs that support communities across British Columbia.

This past summer we had the opportunity to work closely with local governments and with the federal government to have a $2.76 billion agreement for a gas tax for the next ten years. This will support local governments with needed infrastructure that we’ve heard from local communities — whether it’s water or wastewater, whether it’s airports, whether it’s needed infrastructure.

Gas tax — the deadline for local governments to put in an application is in April. Again, we are meeting with local governments from throughout the province of British Columbia to ensure that they know the deadlines so that they can put the applications in to meet the needs of communities right across British Columbia.

FEES FOR GROUNDWATER USE
BY PRIVATE COMPANIES

S. Chandra Herbert: British Columbians tell me that they’re angry that this government is giving our water away for next to nothing — next to nothing — to companies who can then turn around and sell it for millions and millions of dollars. How can this minister stand in this House and defend giving away a million litres of water for just $2.25?

Hon. M. Polak: The member will know, because it’s been true throughout the history of British Columbia, that in British Columbia we don’t sell water. We charge administration fees for the management of that resource. We manage it very well, and even better now that we have a new Water Sustainability Act.

I think what I am hearing, as I’ve listened to the opposition’s comments, is that they believe that industry should be charged through the nose for water — industry like forestry.
[ Page 5838 ]

Interjections.

Hon. M. Polak: Oh, they scoff. So then maybe it’s not that. Maybe it’s just industries they don’t like that should be charged through the nose.

S. Chandra Herbert: What I’m hearing here is the minister thinks it a-okay for a British Columbian to go to the store, spend $4 or $5 for a litre of water while she gives her friends a million litres of water for $2.25. I think that’s what I am hearing from this government. They think that’s how it should go. British Columbians pay more; a corporation pays less.

How can the minister stand in this House and sell out B.C. resources to such a large extent? Can the minister answer this question?

Hon. M. Polak: British Columbians, throughout the consultation, told us they were quite proud that British Columbia, throughout its history — throughout successive different governments, different parties — has never engaged in the selling of water as a commodity. In fact, we’ve always charged an administration fee to support the program of managing water.

The member is wrong with respect to citizens of British Columbia. Groundwater domestic wells are exempt from the new fees, and for those on a municipal water system, their increase will be — get this — between $1 and $2 annually. When it comes to Nestlé, bottling companies, beer companies, forestry, mining, oil and gas, they are treated equally. Nestlé is charged at the highest industrial rate.

If the members opposite think that we should jack up rates on companies that they don’t like, there’s a new policy position.

[1050]

IMPROVEMENTS TO McKENZIE
INTERCHANGE ON SOUTH ISLAND HIGHWAY

R. Fleming: As the Minister of Transportation well knows, safety improvements are urgently needed at the McKenzie interchange and Trans-Canada Highway 1, at this stretch of this area.

In 2013, ICBC reported the McKenzie–Admirals Road intersection as the deadliest on Vancouver Island with the highest crash count.

My constituents want a safe intersection. They want their safety concerns addressed by the Ministry of Transportation. The business community in the south Island wants a smoother, more efficient transportation route for their goods and services.

I would ask the minister today if he would commit to a request he has already received from the district of Saanich to immediately establish a community consultation about this intersection and to appoint a working group that has a mandate to make the Trans-Canada Highway at this location safer, to reduce deadly crashes at this intersection in particular.

Hon. T. Stone: First off, I always relish the opportunity to stand and talk about the record $17 billion which we have invested over the last 12 years in transportation. That’s a lot of money.

I also love to stand on my feet and talk about the engagement opportunities that are very common with this government, including the Vancouver Island transportation engagement that was done. I want to thank my colleague, the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, who met with hundreds of organizations and individuals up and down Vancouver Island.

Indeed, we heard all kinds of priorities involving roads and transit, airports and the like. We are working our way through all of those priorities. The member is quite correct. The McKenzie interchange did figure prominently in terms of the feedback received from folks, actually, right up to about Campbell River.

We will be working through those priorities, and we’ll have lots of great news to announce in the coming months and years that will build on the record level of transportation investment from this government.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call continuing debate on the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On the subamendment (continued).

K. Corrigan: I’m happy to continue my remarks. I spent the first portion of my time to respond to the throne speech largely talking about my community and issues in my community that were not addressed, unfortunately, by this throne speech.

I’m looking forward with great anticipation to see whether anything is in the budget today for my community with regard to things like the Burnaby Hospital, seismic upgrading of schools that has not occurred in my community despite promises from this government, and other projects and programs that are a great priority in my community.

I started to talk a little bit about my critic area or my spokesperson area, which is Advanced Education, so I will continue on, with my remaining time, to talk a little bit about some of the areas that are not being funded in post-secondary.
[ Page 5839 ]

[1055]

In fact, all of post-secondary is not being appropriately funded. But it’s ironic that at a time when our universities and colleges and institutes are not being funded…. In fact, it’s the only ministry where there’ve been actual cuts — $51 million of cuts from the system — at a time when costs are increasing significantly and tuition fees are taking up a larger and larger portion of the budgets, making it very, very difficult for students.

At the same time as that is happening, this government has made the decision that it is going to hand out $230 million in tax breaks to B.C.’s top 2 percent of income earners, for those people over $150,000. We’re talking individuals — we’re not talking families — with individual incomes of $150,000 who are going to be receiving a total of $230 million across that group of people, which is rewarding and is helping the richest people in our society.

Yet at the same time, our post-secondary institutions — our colleges, universities and technical institutes — are being squeezed and squeezed. It’s harder and harder for students to go to school. It’s harder for institutions to be able to fix crumbling walls. Student debt is going up increasingly. We now have the highest student debt. I think we’re going to get an update on that soon. The BMO numbers indicate that students have debt of an average of $35,000, in a province that is very expensive to live in. We end up with students having debt averaging $35,000.

The bottom line of what this means is that post-secondary education is getting harder and harder to achieve and harder and harder to access. What we know is that that means those that come from wealthy families — those same families that are going to benefit, the richest families that are going to benefit from a $230 million giveaway — are the kids that are going to be able to go to university.

The kids who really need it, the families who need it and want the help and want their kids to do better — immigrants, middle-class families…. Those people are going to have less ability, and those kids are going to have less ability.

The facts, the data are very clear on this. As university becomes more and more expensive as it is, as more and more of the cost is being dumped on the backs of the students that go, what simply happens is that kids that come from families that have limited income simply don’t attend university. I think that is wrong. It’s not a good decision for this province. It’s not the right way to go, and it hurts families.

We’re supposed to be, and I think we all aspire to be, a province where everybody has equal opportunity. It’s not that everybody’s lives are going to be equal, but everybody should have an equal opportunity. Nobody is asking — although certainly Obama has talked about this — for all university and college to be free. But what we’ve said is that it needs to be accessible. It is becoming inaccessible, or very difficult, for wide swaths of our society, and that simply does not seem right.

So $51 million in cuts to post-secondary education at the same time as costs are increasing. Just for the research universities, which has the largest portion of students in this province, there’s $130 million of unfunded cost pressures over a three-year period. What that means is that programs are being cut in colleges, universities and technical institutes around this province.

Programs are being cut. Buildings are falling down. I just heard they’re going to be closing one of the residences at Simon Fraser University simply because they can’t keep it up, because they don’t have the money to do it anymore. It seems inappropriate to me.

I have to say that one of the areas where the impact is being felt the most is in our community colleges. Particularly, that affects our rural areas of the province.

[1100]

Not only is post-secondary education becoming less accessible to people who don’t have high incomes, that are not the wealthiest, but it’s also disproportionately impacting our smaller communities, where students used to be able to go to their local college, community college, for one or two years and either get a diploma or have this be a pathway to a university degree or a career.

What is happening is that those programs are being disproportionately squeezed, because they’re not the big universities. The alumni associations don’t bring in huge swaths of money. So what’s happening is that the programs are being cut.

The impact of this, of rising tuitions and of less and less courses being offered at the colleges and universities, is that it’s taking longer and longer for students to get a degree — if they get them at all, because they’re dropping out.

I see that I only have a couple of minutes. I want to mention finally, then, two particular areas that are being particularly hurt: adult basic education and English language learning or ESL, as some of us would know it as. The government has cut the funding significantly and said to universities and colleges — largely colleges — that they can charge. The bottom line — what this is going to mean — is that less people are going to school. Less people are taking that pathway.

Those that had a small hurdle in their way, that needed help with their English language training or needed some help to upgrade so that they could do what they wanted to do, which was become productive members and work hard and make a life for themselves in British Columbia…. Both those groups of people are having their pathways to success cut off by a very shortsighted government that has made the decision that it is going to take away the funding for advanced basic education and ELL.

Now, I know the government announced last week a small amount of money going back in, but this is a system which is in crisis. It’s a system which is in crisis be-
[ Page 5840 ]
cause the money was taken away. Now there’s going to be short-term, gap funding, but the students and the teachers and the colleges are beside themselves, because they can’t plan.

You can’t add some money, take it back, get enough people concerned about it, and then you put a little bit back in. It puts the system into chaos. Unfortunately, the result of that is that we have a system in disarray, and we have many, many less students that are going to be going to those classes.

I want to, if I….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

K. Corrigan: I do not have a minute…. Well, thank you.

Hon. S. Bond: As always, I am delighted to be able to stand in the House to respond to the Speech from the Throne. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that even after being in this place for more than a decade, I never take lightly the opportunity and the responsibility that we have as people elected by our constituents to stand and speak in this place. I look forward to sharing some comments and some of my perspective around the throne speech that was introduced.

I, like others in this House, want to start by recognizing the amazing family that I have, who have indulged my career for more than two decades in elected office of one form or another: an amazing husband, Bill, who I so appreciate — the fact that in this many years we’ve spent a lot of time apart, and I’m very grateful for the support that he always provides — our children; our two grandsons, Caleb and Cooper.

I also want to recognize the staff that I have. I’m very blessed to have incredible staff both here in Victoria and in my constituency office at home. We’re so fortunate, those of us elected, to have great people around us. I want to recognize Katrina, Dorothy and Tegan, who are at home working hard today, and my ministry team here: Katy, Mark, Cole, Jordan, Monica, Jessica, Blake and others who work so hard to make sure that we’re doing the best possible job that we can for the people of British Columbia.

I think people would understand how important for me it is today to talk a little bit about what’s going on at home while I am here with my colleagues. I can tell you that on Monday morning at 4 a.m., when I left Prince George….

[1105]

It’s always hard leaving family and home, but it was additionally hard because my community is playing host to the 2015 Canada Winter Games. I can’t begin to describe adequately the fantastic job that the people of Prince George and the north have done in hosting our country to date.

The opening ceremonies were remarkable, full of talented young people and not-so-young people, a very strong shared story, with the first time that we’ve had a First Nations host as a partner in the Canada Winter Games. I want to say to Chief Dominic Frederick and the people of the Lheidli T’enneh how this has given us a new opportunity to work with one another on the land that we share on their traditional territory.

It was incredibly inspiring and emotional to watch the little children of the Lheidli T’enneh sing the national anthem in front of thousands of people at the opening ceremony in their own language. It was something I will not forget. And I know this, that as I watched Chief Frederick and the leaders of the Lheidli T’enneh, you could just see the pride that they feel being legitimate and meaningful partners in the Canada Winter Games. I’m very grateful for that. I am hopeful that the momentum will continue. It is a fantastic opportunity.

I would also like to make sure that people know that Team B.C. is doing a remarkable job in Prince George. I’m sure that many, if not all, in this House are familiar with athletes that are participating on behalf of our province.

As of this morning, when I looked at the medal total…. Yesterday I had to watch one of my favourite sports, wheelchair basketball. I did manage on the lunch hour to get some of it streamed on the computer. B.C. lost a heartbreaking game there. They won in the morning and lost in the evening.

The medal count as we speak, as of this morning — B.C. has 13 medals, nine of which come as a result of female athletes. We’re very proud of that. Third place overall, two back of Quebec and one behind Ontario. So I would say that British Columbia is certainly holding its own and doing very, very well.

I want to give a special shout-out to Emily Dickson, who lives in Prince George, who won bronze in the female individual biathlon. We’re so proud of Emily, and it was a very exciting afternoon on Sunday. Lots of great things.

When we talk about events like the Canada Winter Games, I think it’s also important to recognize that it is about more than sport and culture — because there’s also a cultural component to the games. It’s also about the economy. It’s about making sure that as we have more than 15,000 people come to Prince George and to the north, there will also be an economic benefit from the games as a result of the enormous influx of people participating in our community. That’s important.

It’s also important that we recognize that as people come to northern British Columbia and to Prince George in particular, so often communities in our part of the province don’t have the story on the national stage that is one that truly reflects the place that we live and where we love to live. I am hopeful that as people come to Prince George and to the north, they will understand what a
[ Page 5841 ]
great place it is to live, to work, to learn, to raise a family.

If there will be legacies…. And there will be. There will be, obviously, sporting legacies. There will be infrastructure legacies. But I am hopeful, as a lifelong resident of a community that I absolutely am passionately working hard on behalf of every day. I hope it’s that they see us differently, that they see a thriving, incredible place to live with supports for families, with opportunities that include amazing geographic assets and affordability.

Living in Prince George today…. It’s a place where a family can still buy a three- or four-bedroom house and a home with a backyard where kids can play. It’s just a matter of telling our story. For us, the Canada Winter Games is very much about that legacy.

It’s an unbelievable year in our community. Prince George will celebrate later this year its 100th birthday. The University of Northern British Columbia is celebrating. It’s hard to imagine. I still remember the drive it took to bring a university to northern British Columbia. It’s 25 years for the University of Northern British Columbia.

We also celebrated just this past January the tenth year where the northern medical program was actually…. It’s ten years that we’ve actually seen the northern medical program in place, where physicians are being trained in the north of British Columbia for first time in the history of this province.

[1110]

What our program was designed to do was to ensure that as we see that growing demand for physicians, they’re actually being trained in the places where we need them to consider living and working. So we celebrated that as well.

It is a momentous year for the city of Prince George. I am delighted to be working with mayor Lyn Hall and his new council as we work on initiatives together to talk about how we can grow the economy, create well-paying jobs and support families who would make the decision to live or to work in northern British Columbia.

We’ve heard a great deal about the content of the throne speech. We’ve listened to speaker after speaker and, yes, members of the media talk about the content of the throne speech. But I want to harken back to a headline that was in the Vancouver Sun on May 15, 2013. I will quote directly from that headline. This is what the headline read: everyone had it wrong “except for the Liberals and the voters.” All along they said voters would prefer the party with a steady economic hand.

While we’ve heard much discussion and debate about what’s in the throne speech and what’s not in the throne speech, we know this: that in Canada today and around the world we still are in the position of having a fragile economy. We look at economic predictions for British Columbia in the years ahead, and we know that there is steady and modest economic growth — which, in fact, when we look at what’s going to happen in the rest of Canada, might well continue to elevate British Columbia’s position economically in the country.

Now is not the time to move away from those important principles and the discipline that we have demonstrated for more than a decade that gives British Columbia a pretty special place to be in Confederation today.

What bond-rating agencies look for is stability, certainty and continuity. They want to make sure that the people making the economic decisions are looking not just at the short term but at the long term.

As we have worked tirelessly for more than a decade to position British Columbia pretty much precisely where it is today…. In this province, despite all that you have heard, today British Columbia has a strong, a growing and a diversified economy. What that means is that we have a triple-A credit rating. That might not mean a lot to people who don’t understand the importance and how hard it is to get one. We are in a very small group of jurisdictions that actually can say they have a triple-A credit rating, and we’re going to have to continue to work very hard to make sure we maintain it.

What it means is that instead of increasing the interest payments that we have to make, we can actually invest those dollars in important infrastructure. We also have…. I can’t begin to tell you the work it takes to, later today, present to British Columbians the third consecutive balanced budget.

Perhaps the words come easily, but I can assure you that what it takes to be able to do that is discipline, hard work and saying no when it would be much easier to simply try to say yes to everything. What we say yes to on this side of the House is growing the economy and creating more well-paying, family-supporting jobs.

As we look at the focus that we’ve had through our jobs plan, which was reflected in the throne speech, the message we’re sending is this. We have a plan. We’re going to stick to the plan. We’re going to continue to send that message, not just to bond-rating agencies, not just to businesses, but to investors — people who look at those things when they decide where they’re going to chose to bring their head office or to move their company to British Columbia or to expand their project.

[1115]

What they’re looking for is a government that’s prepared to say: “Yes, having a responsible and reasonable tax regime matters to us.” Yes, it matters that a government is prepared to say no when it would be a lot easier to say yes.

From my perspective, when we talk about the content of the throne speech it’s a pretty simple principle. We have a plan, it’s working, and we’re going to stick to it. I think that’s what British Columbians recognized when I quoted the headline that day. “Everyone had it wrong except the voters,” who decided they wanted the party that had a steady economic hand.

I think that is precisely what the throne speech is talking about: a steady economic hand today and in the
[ Page 5842 ]
future. As we look at our economy, while we are anticipating modest growth, now is not the time to be moving away from a plan that is focused on job creation and growing the economy.

When we look at the diverse economy that we have, we can just go through the entire list. One of the sectors that I want to talk about a little bit this morning is B.C.’s technology and innovation sector. As we talk about our abundance of natural resources in the province…. We should be proud of the fact that we are a province with an abundance of natural resources. It’s what built our province. It’s what allowed us to be in this very special place that we find ourselves.

The technology and innovation sector in British Columbia brings $23.2 billion in annual revenue to the province. How did that look in 2012? It’s actually up by 3.5 percent. There are over $3 billion in exports. There are over 9,000 established technology companies operating today that reflect almost 85,000 jobs in our province. So to suggest….

We’ve had others that have been in this place talking about how, in fact, we don’t have a diversified economy. I would suggest that when you see a 3.5 percent increase in annual revenue in the technology and innovation sector alone, reflecting almost 85,000 jobs…. Technology is the third-largest economic contributor to B.C.’s gross domestic product.

The fact of the matter is that for those of us who believe in and support a green economy, there’s a lot of room for us to be paying attention to technology, to animation, to the green economy in the province. That’s what diversification is all about.

When we look at technology wages in the province, it’s almost $6.3 billion in technology wages and salaries, up 7.7 percent since 2012. That is almost double the 4.1 percent growth in total wages and salaries across all sectors and industries in the province. Wages in the tech sector are 66 percent higher than the average wage in British Columbia.

While we are working as hard as we can to attract the liquefied natural gas industry to British Columbia, and while we continue to support mining, forestry, tourism — all of those sectors — we know this: that we have the ability to leave an unbelievable legacy by focusing on technology and innovation in British Columbia. Certainly, that’s why it’s a key element of the jobs plan.

When I look at British Columbia in technology and innovation, in particular compared to growth and technology revenues, I look at how we are outpacing overall Canadian high-tech revenue growth. There are reasons for that — a stable economy, a reasonable and appropriate tax regime in the province. In 2012 the number of technology companies in B.C. grew by 2.9 percent, but we continue to outpace Canada when it comes to high-tech revenue growth. As we look at the future, we know that technology and innovation will play a critical role in the future of our province.

Let’s turn for a moment to a more traditional sector in the province, and that would be the forestry sector.

[1120]

In 2014 B.C. forest export production was $12.4 billion, up 63 percent since 2009. When we look at that, we had a very strategic plan about how we were going to make sure that we diversified our market. We intentionally went to China and said here’s a place where, when the U.S. economy is struggling, we can fill some of those gaps by actually looking at our Asian partners.

We know that 57 communities, for example, have a community forest or are very close to getting one. There are 864 active woodlot licences in the province, but our focus has been in expanding Asian markets.

I live in a part of the province that is resource-dependent, and I can assure you that our communities have gone through very difficult circumstances as we saw the downturn in the forest sector. But they are bouncing back, and people are resilient. They are working hard. They are finding new ways to operate a forest industry in British Columbia.

It may not be the same as it was. We certainly know that with the advancement of technology, we are seeing a different way of doing business, and that does impact jobs in the province, as we see in the way that we are modernizing mills across the province. So we have technology that’s grown. We have a forest industry that is rebuilding and in fact doing very well at the moment.

One of the things that we know is absolutely critical to the success of British Columbia is small business. Small businesses are the heartbeat of this province. I want to, certainly, take a moment to recognize the Minister of State for Small Business. She, as a business owner herself, is perfectly positioned to lead the initiatives that we have undertaken here in government.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that we have done some fantastic work to support small business in British Columbia. In 2008 we obviously cut the small business corporate income tax rate. We remain the third lowest in Canada, and we are committed to continuing to find ways to lower the rate.

One of the things that has been an enormous challenge for businesses is useless and unnecessary red tape. It’s really important to put this in context. Of course, regulations to protect health and safety and workers in British Columbia are critical, but we also know that we need to be sure that we’re being diligent about reducing those barriers that create success for small businesses in British Columbia.

Our small businesses make up 98 percent of all businesses in the province, and they employ over one million people. Small business provides nearly 55 percent of all private sector jobs in our province, and that is the highest percentage in the country.

When we look at confidence in terms of small busi-
[ Page 5843 ]
nesses, we have ranked among the top provinces in the country over the last number of months in terms of business confidence, where businesses are saying: “We feel better. We feel like we’re in a position to consider hiring new individuals.” All of these things are reflective of the need to ensure that we have a steady economic hand, making sure that it’s about consistency and continuity.

Let’s turn to tourism for just a moment. The tourism sector in British Columbia employs more than 132,000 British Columbians, almost one in every 15 jobs in our province. In 2013 the tourism industry paid $4.5 billion in wages and salaries to tourism workers, an increase of 3.8 percent over the year before.

The tourism industry generates $13.9 billion in revenue, and we have an aspirational goal of seeing that increase. We’ve certainly seen some challenges in a number of the past years with some of the global circumstances that we faced economically, but now, with the dollar in the position that it is, we’re seeing some really strong growth.

When I looked at the first 11 months of 2014 — very strong months for the tourism sector, and certainly, from some of our key markets.

[1125]

We saw overnight U.S. entries to B.C. increase by 2.9 percent. That translates to more than 80,000 additional visitors. We saw 50,000 additional visitors from China. Those are all incremental numbers. So, again, the tourism sector — an important part of a diversified economy. We have technology, clean and green. We have forestry. We have mining. We have tourism in the province.

As we look at the mining industry, we do have to be concerned about the nature of commodity prices in our province. It’s an enormous challenge. There are people in British Columbia today that are not working because their mines have had to move into a maintenance phase. Of course, we’re concerned about that, and we immediately send a transition team into those communities to provide important and necessary support.

The mining industry is important to British Columbia’s families. When we look at the wages that are generated, an average salary today in the mining industry is over $114,000 a year, up from $81,000 in 2001.

We read frequently about the importance…. Looking, for example, at increasing the minimum wage. There’s a campaign as we speak to raise it to $15 an hour. Well, we need to put that in context. Today the average hourly wage in British Columbia is nearing $25 an hour. When you look at the youth average hourly wage in the province, it is almost $15 an hour. Yes, there are people for whom the minimum wage is their salary. But as I look at the trends, that number is getting smaller every year, and that’s an important trend.

What we say in the throne speech is that we need to stay focused. We need to maintain economic discipline. The priorities that we have as a government are to ensure that we have the environment that attracts new investment, that sends that message to investors that are in this province today as we speak.

When we look at the possibilities for liquefied natural gas, we have 18 proposals, some of the largest companies in the world that are in British Columbia today. It is about being competitive. It is about being disciplined. It is about being aspirational.

As we look at the timelines, we’re going to continue to drive as hard as we can to make sure that British Columbia has done everything it possibly can to assure those proponents and other investors that this is a place where it is safe to invest, where there are incredibly amazing opportunities for people.

Whether it’s support through post-secondary institutions…. I listened to the member previous to me talk about the post-secondary system being in disarray. I visit my institutions regularly. Unlike the suggestion that was made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that government MLAs just sit in their offices and don’t talk to people in British Columbia….

I don’t actually think that’s a helpful piece of dialogue in this place, because I know this — that every single person elected to represent their constituents is proud of doing just that. They get out and they talk about the issues that are comfortable and the ones that are not so comfortable. They visit institutions. They go and they speak on behalf of their constituents. And it doesn’t matter whether you sit on this side of the House or that side of the House. That matters.

I can tell you I know my colleagues on this side of this House that work tirelessly on behalf of British Columbians. I don’t think it contributes to this place to suggest that one side of the House does their job as MLAs and the other side simply doesn’t.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you of this: in our communities we care about what happens on the ground. We want to make sure, as we set the stage for our children and our grandchildren, that, for one thing, we’re going to do our best to attract new investment to make sure that people see British Columbia as a beacon of hope.

[1130]

I can tell you that I meet regularly with my ministerial colleagues across the country. Today we’re going to be in a position to introduce our third consecutive balanced budget. When I was in Ottawa very recently with other ministers…. I can tell you that very, very few of them will be in a position this year or years ahead of being able to say that. And I can tell you that when it comes to things like our skills-training plan, we are actually being asked to present across the country about the kinds of changes that we’ve stepped up to the plate to actually talk about in British Columbia.

It hasn’t been with comfort for some post-secondary institutions. But we know this: if we’re going to grow the economy, we need the skilled workforce that we require,
[ Page 5844 ]
and British Columbians need to come first. Whether that’s women, persons with disabilities, First Nations or others who are currently underrepresented in the workforce, we need to do everything we can to make sure that we’re providing them with the support, the training and the opportunity that they need.

We’ve started to celebrate job-makers in British Columbia. On Sunday night in Prince George I was so very pleased to be able to recognize a job-maker. It was the result of a partnership between a company and a First Nation, Britco and the Lheidli T’enneh. The Lheidli T’enneh were so proud of the fact that they had partnered with this company, giving their members opportunity.

Now, that was only four jobs, but every job matters. We’re going to continue to highlight those people in our province who create jobs, and we’re going to continue to be that steady economic hand.

While we may be listening to the commentary about the content, it’s a pretty simple message. We have a plan. We have a balanced budget, a triple-A credit rating, reasonable tax rates in British Columbia. We are one of the few jurisdictions in Canada that will be able to say that. I think that’s a very important message to send, and I think that’s exactly what the throne speech said.

V. Huntington: I do enjoy listening to the Minister for Labour almost every time she stands and speaks. She has an amazing ability to put the government plan into a context, and much of the context is one that I can support wholeheartedly.

However, I do rise today to speak in response to the priorities in vision that the government didn’t attempt to set out for this session or for the future of this province. We know that this throne speech, like the one last fall, offered little and was critiqued by many as an empty speech that demonstrated a lack of vision for the province. Mike Smyth called the speech “a lot of vague and ill-defined commitments to just keep muddling along,” and that’s just about right.

The speech was notable not for what it said but rather for what it did not say. What we heard were bits and pieces of what the government is intending instead of the innovative leadership so badly needed in British Columbia.

Now, we heard the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Natural Gas Development reply to the universal criticism — that the government already has a plan and is simply working through it, that you don’t have to change the world each time a throne speech is delivered. I agree. Housekeeping is good. Finishing off policy decisions is good. Trying to pretend that LNG will proceed in the near future is good.

It would also be good if we were preparing a new vision, a plan that provides people with some sense of hope and direction beyond the ebbing promise of the LNG bonanza. There is no indication that government is looking to new visions. In fact, what we see in the throne speech is a bits-and-pieces approach to governing that fills in some blanks but which is not much more than busywork. To quote the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast: “You can only run an ad for so long before suspicion grows that there are no more ideas.”

I will state at the outset that I do applaud the government’s desire to balance the budget. It is an important accomplishment and will certainly be received well by the provincial creditors and B.C.’s investors. I worry, however, about the short-term dollars being generated by the sale of provincial assets. Balancing a budget on wisps of smoke does not give a lot of confidence in the government’s ability to sustain that fiscal balance.

[1135]

Further, as we impoverish provincial agencies that are forced to forward millions of dollars to the provincial coffers, the government is knowingly adding to the pressure on the taxpayer. Fees are skyrocketing, and I warn the government that one day there will be a revolt. The value of hidden taxation in this province is over $4 billion a year, a staggering number. Who is watching the cumulative impact on our citizens? Does government care that the taxpayer, that single taxpayer the government likes to talk about, is feeding the outstretched hand of government at an alarming rate?

To stop that enormous demand on the citizen’s purse, government has to go beyond bits and pieces and has to revolutionize the way services are delivered. It isn’t simply a matter of constantly centralizing services or of insisting that citizens deal with government through websites. These are just the bits and pieces of real efficiency. To actually slow the demand on the citizen’s purse will require dedicated and directed study and creativity to develop a truly visionary approach to the issues before us.

These issues are grave ones: food security, economic survival in a world that responds to cheaper overseas costs of production, health care delivery, protecting the vibrancy and beauty of B.C.’s environment.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful, for instance, if the government actually understood that the people of this province want a vision for the environment that they can trust, a vision that would put our land, our waters, our mountains, our beautiful and extraordinary British Columbia first? An environmental vision that all of us could trust, that we could know had the values of protection and mitigation uppermost in mind.

Now, the members opposite will say that is exactly what we do have, but they are wrong, because right now their Minister of Environment has a mandate to say yes to development, to streamline or gut every effective piece of meaningful environmental legislation and regulation on the books — a mandate to effect “process improvements that will ensure that the timelines are appropriate for economic development.”

What if government made an about-face? What if it
[ Page 5845 ]
actually did what the people yearn for? What if it became truly responsible for and protective of our land and our water and our wildlife? Just think what we could accomplish with a framework of environmental standards that were absolute, development guidelines that say, unequivocally: “You will use best practice. You will construct with the smallest possible footprint. You will not impact a waterway. Roads and transmission lines will respect the land. You will underwrite the salary of an independent enforcement officer who will be on site, who’ll have real power to enforce the standards and the assessments.”

Right now our laws enable so much compromise that people have lost trust in the assessment process. The law is so biased in favour of the project that the system has no public legitimacy. The schedules of environmental commitment aren’t enforced. Fines are meaningless, even if they are levied. Mitigation routinely fails. Habitat replacement often has nothing to do with the land and habitat destroyed in the first instance. Assessments allow projects to impact species at risk, and in my own riding actually impact a species that was even thought to be extirpated in British Columbia.

Let’s initiate a new vision for B.C. Let’s develop a framework of do’s, a framework which defines the development boundaries and expectations we have of a project, a framework which then permits a true, independent environmental assessment of whether that project lives up to the fundamental standards and requirements of British Columbia.

Let’s rewrite the legislation for the environmental assessment office and create a truly independent office staffed with technical specialists that can make uncompromised decisions — not an office within the ministry and which reports to the minister — a truly independent office that has the sole function of protecting the environment that is British Columbia.

Such frameworks — for there can be separate frameworks for distinct environments — would, in my opinion, actually speed up the assessment process. Industry would clearly understand that best practice is the cost of doing business in British Columbia. If they don’t like the additional cost, then our framework is the document that simply says the people of British Columbia will wait for a developer that respects our collective will, a will that says that life, and the land and waters that support it, comes first.

[1140]

Instead, this government marches forward — or perhaps stumbles forward is a better description — on an unstable float of bits and pieces. I will repeat what I said during the last throne speech debate. Can you imagine what we could accomplish with the Health file, for instance, if we focused on the issue without silos, with a determined single priority directive to all deputies, ADMs and administrators? We would probably solve our greatest public policy problem. That’s what would happen.

Even a devastating review, a significantly edited one at that, of Fraser Health Authority didn’t evoke a recognition by this government that visionary change is in order. Data showed that Fraser Health Authority had some of the worst results in the country, that in several areas of assessment some of its hospitals had the worst outcomes in quality of care and patient safety in all of Canada.

Surely, this signals to government that something is seriously wrong in the state of Denmark. Surely, it signals that a new way of doing business in the health sector is in order. But no, bits and pieces attack the problem. Even as we see big problems surfacing everywhere in health, from the B.C. Cancer Agency to the outrageous, egregious, scandalous firings in the ministry itself, it’s business as usual — a bits-and-pieces approach that reminds me of the gopher game: “Quick, bop that head back into its burrow.”

What if there was an effort to take apart every single aspect of health delivery — from air ambulance to substance abuse — lay it out horizontally and rebuild a system where every penny is accounted for, where the health authorities must be sensitive to costs across the health spectrum, a visionary review that puts patients first and enfolds that patient with a delivery model both efficient and sensitive and creative?

How much do the health silos cost us? What are the administrative costs and impacts of silos throughout the system? What is the real cost to society of addiction and mental health? How are we doing in all areas of health care delivery? Are the silos talking to each other? Are there real redundancies in staff, in delivery models? Are all the hundreds of programs and services we contract out actually delivering? How much do they cost? Are we listening to our doctors, or has centralization driven listening out of the system and put administrators in charge? What does that cost us in terms of health care delivery? What does that mean to the patient?

What would happen if we looked at the entire delivery model from a patient-first perspective, not just lip service to the principle, as we have now, but a true revolution in our delivery model, a review which looked at best practice and health care delivery models throughout the world, that swept aside special interests and self-interests and commitments to the way things have always been done, that focused on the development of a modern, compassionate approach to delivery of services to those who need assistance, a system that would reduce complexities, reduce costs and provide enriched care?

We have wonderful health care in British Columbia. We have committed medical staff. We have committed ministry officials. But we also have big problems, both in the present health care delivery system and certainly in the future levels of quality health care. Unless we act now and revolutionize the system, we will flounder on that sinking float.
[ Page 5846 ]

In the throne speech delivered last fall the minister mentioned his pride in how government diverted all ministries to the overwhelming need to rapidly support the development of the LNG promise. Now that that promise is in hiatus, we must do the same in other areas. We could divert our energies to the development of a new health care model or a new environmental assessment framework or a new system to deliver social assistance to those in need; get rid of redundancies, silos, inefficiencies and self-interest; and consider the taxpayer first.

We can do it, we have to do it, and it is unfortunate the throne speech did not contemplate it. I can only stand here and say to government, hoping that someone is listening, that there is still time to lead and there is still time to develop visions that will change B.C. for the better. There is still time to direct that the vast policy apparatus of government be dedicated to the development of a whole new approach to health or to social development or to the environment, an approach that could make B.C. a world leader in efficient, effective governance.

With that, I would like to comment on the amendment proposed by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. If we really want the best for this province, if we really want to see the people be part of the future of B.C., then my colleague is absolutely right. Leadership in government requires a commitment to seek out and incorporate ideas from others.

[1145]

The opposition, both official and independent, also have a duty to offer solutions and to critique government when it does not listen or when options are offered that better represent the people or better resolve a problem.

The member’s amendment calls upon this House to collaborate on a new vision for British Columbia, to canvass the ideas of all members of this place, regardless of their affiliation. We can do that. We can create a vibrant, excited atmosphere in this place. We can have committees operate properly, independently or with mandates to provide government and this House with the best possible advice on the grave issues of today.

We can do that, and government should have the vision and the self-confidence to make it happen. I wholeheartedly support the member’s amendment.

D. Bing: On behalf of my constituents in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, it is a great pleasure and an honour to provide my comments in response to the Speech from the Throne during this fourth session of the 40th parliament.

Before I start, I would like to wish all members of this House a very productive and rewarding legislative session. We had a very good sitting of the Legislature this fall, passing historic legislation in relation to the world’s cleanest and safest liquefied natural gas export industry.

Also, last fall we made history in my own riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. We celebrated the 140th anniversary of the founding of Maple Ridge. On September 4, 2014, we made history again by changing Maple Ridge from a regional district to the city of Maple Ridge. We were honoured to have the Premier attend this celebration and designate Maple Ridge as the 50th city of the province, with a population of 80,000 people.

This is more than just a symbolic change of status. It is a signal that Maple Ridge has grown up and is ready to join other cities in British Columbia in becoming an economic driver in the provincial economy. This means that Maple Ridge, which had a humble beginning as a small farming community settled by Scottish immigrants, is more than just a bedroom community.

While many of our residents commute to work in outlying communities, we do possess a number of competitive advantages in the form of lower land costs and geographic access to many other local markets. Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows are now considered to be the most desirable communities to live in, precisely because of our gateway proximity to other communities located in the Lower Mainland.

In late January I had the opportunity to participate in the release of the Invest North Fraser labour market study. It is predicted that over the next ten years employers in five major industry sectors…. They predict a demand of between 12,000 and 15,000 new highly skilled jobs located directly in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. In fact, population growth and current levels of migration are only sufficient to cover approximately 56 to 59 percent of all new hires.

This translates into a prosperous local economy that will be competing for new workers to come to Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. Because of that, all three levels of government are working closely together with industry and the private sector to ensure that local people are trained and prepared to fill those new jobs. This means greater access to post-secondary education and vocational training, giving people all the technical skills they need to succeed, and launches Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows on the right path to becoming one of the most business-friendly and desirable places to live and work.

This is exactly what the throne speech addresses. We need to ensure that British Columbians are first in line for the one million job openings that will be here by 2022. This is the reason why the government launched the skills-for-jobs blueprint, which includes $7.5 billion worth of investment in education and training every year. It forms a part of the jobs plan that the government announced in 2011, and it is working. Hon. Speaker, 77,000 new jobs have been created as a result of a diligent and well-conceived plan to chart the pathway to prosperity in British Columbia.

But the world does not stand still. While students in British Columbia are top-ranked in reading and science compared to other provinces, we know we can do more.
[ Page 5847 ]
We are ranked second in math compared to the rest of the country, and these types of skills will be needed to qualify for the jobs of tomorrow. While our education system produces some of the best student outcomes in the world, we know we can do better.

[1150]

Not only that. We must ensure that no British Columbian is left behind. Since 2001 the number of aboriginal students graduating from our schools has increased by 103 percent, but we must still do more to ensure that no one gets left behind. In fact, the government is making a special effort to reach out to First Nations and make them partners in future resource development. The government started this work with a historic meeting last fall between cabinet and First Nation elders.

Since 2006 the government has signed 250 significant agreements with First Nations. They range from treaties and reconciliation agreements to economic development agreements. It all comes down to having a plan and sticking to the plan.

As a whole, Canada is hurting from the dramatic drop in oil prices that we have witnessed in the last few weeks. No one predicted that the price of oil would drop half its value in a matter of months. It has caused the federal government to re-examine its own finances. Other jurisdictions, like neighbouring Alberta, are predicting a significant fall in government revenue due to dependence on oil. Consequently, Alberta is predicting a large budget deficit and cuts to program spending.

While some might characterize our throne speech as boring, I think British Columbians will appreciate the fact that we are poised to pose a third consecutive balanced budget with no prospect of cuts to services or programs. That is a difference that sets British Columbia apart from the rest of Canada. We have a diversified economy, and we are far less exposed to the price of oil than other jurisdictions.

By practising fiscal prudence we have preserved our triple-A credit rating. This gives us the fiscal flexibility to make strategic investments in infrastructure like highways and building schools or hospitals. That is the B.C. difference. While some might consider that boring, I think we have a very exciting future ahead of us.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my wish for a productive and successful session of the Legislature.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and deliver my remarks with respect to the throne speech and very pleased to be standing on behalf of constituents from Vancouver-Kensington.

When we heard the throne speech just a short week ago, I was waiting for some good news that I could deliver and share with my constituents and folks who come into my office, who have raised concerns with me on a wide variety of issues. I was, to say the least, disappointed with the lack of substance and, I think, the lack of significant programs or policies that would go towards alleviating a number of the significant concerns that constituents in Vancouver-Kensington face, particularly around the rising inequality we’re seeing, the decreasing affordability for families in British Columbia.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

To sum it up, the throne speech highlighted a tax cut for the most wealthy, and again, it’s families who are left without recourse. We’re seeing that families are paying more and getting less, and it’s really an incredibly lopsided — and not only shortsighted, but misdirected — emphasis in terms of the throne speech.

I have a number of folks who have come to my office for help and assistance to deal with one of the most pressing issues in Vancouver, in our city, as well as across the province. This is the need for affordable housing. Stories of desperation, of Chinese seniors in their 80s who are desperate for adequate housing; stories, as well, of seniors living in mouldy basements and of a young family with three children and a new baby who has just arrived — all on the waiting list for social housing.

[1155]

I see and hear that there is not much coming from the throne speech to address the desperate need and plight of individuals and families needing to access affordable housing. It’s a very pressing issue.

On the one hand, we see that there’s rhetoric and talk about needing to stimulate the economy, but we’re seeing that there’s a complete lack of support for families who are facing an affordability crunch, facing a crisis in being able to find affordable housing, and really seeing just increasing pressures and costs being downloaded onto families.

We’re going to be seeing another increase in the Medical Services Plan, as well as families paying more for the basics that all families and individuals are required to pay. We’re seeing B.C. Hydro costs going up. Rates will exceed 74 percent. Ferry fees, camping fees are increasing. ICBC rates continue to increase. Tuition fees are also on the rise. And that juxtaposed…. Wages are not keeping pace to address these costs.

As well, there are deteriorating services that are provided to families, in terms of hospitals, schools, seniors centres that families depend on. They are in decline because of a lack of significant investment. As well, a priority for many of my constituents — concern around the imminent loss of a number of advanced basic education and English language learning courses. We’re seeing cuts to that.

Noting the hour, I’d like to reserve my place to continue my remarks in the future and move adjournment of the debate.
[ Page 5848 ]

M. Elmore moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada