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)

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 9

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

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Oakes: It truly is my delight today to recognize a friend of mine from a previous hat, Christine. We’re delighted to have you here and hope you have a wonderful holiday in Victoria.

Would the House please make Christine welcome.

J. Horgan: As a native Victorian, it’s often my privilege to stand and introduce guests in the gallery, but today I get to introduce a lifetime friend. The challenge, of course, with lifetime friends is they’ve got a lot of stuff on you. But the good news in this case is I have as much stuff on him as he does on me.

I’d like the House to welcome my longtime friend, my lifetime friend, Keith Bridge. Joining him here in the gallery is his son Kyle.

[1335]

J. Shin: Joining us in the gallery today is a young man who was among the many to give their time and hearts to my election campaign in 2013. Siavash Tahan is Burnaby-grown. He is an economics and politics major with a minor in commerce at UBC. He’s also fluent in three languages, with French and Farsi, and aspires to be in policy research and analysis. He’s joining us today to learn how this Legislature works and also to meet all of the characters that are in it.

Would the House please make him feel very welcome.

A. Weaver: Today I’d like to introduce Jackie Powell, a constituent of mine in Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the founder of a group called Moms Like Us, a group that’s working towards the establishment and development of a Clubhouse International here in Victoria.

Would the House please give her a warm welcome and wish her the greatest success in her endeavours.

C. James: I have two guests in the gallery today. The first is Paul Barnett, who is a former colleague and a friend. He’s president of PARCA, which is the Provincial Association of Residential and Community Agencies. In his work, he supports and advocates for community-based justice programs across British Columbia. He’s joining us today from the Comox Valley.

My second guest is a constituent of mine who recently returned from his home country of New Zealand to settle back in Victoria. He’s attending university here. With the spare time that he does have, we’re very grateful that he shares his expertise and his time, and he volunteers in my community office.

Would the House please welcome Paul Barnett and Colin McKinnon here to the gallery today.

M. Mungall: Very rarely do I get the opportunity to introduce to the House people from Nelson-Creston, but today I get to do just that.

We have Ted and Judy Pollard in the gallery today. They are amazing, amazing people in the Nelson area. They have contributed so much to the region. I do want to mention Judy in particular — all of her years of contribution to early learning and child care issues in this province. We have all benefited from Judy’s contributions, so thank you very much.

May the House please make them welcome.

H. Bains: In the gallery today is a young man, Nathan Ferguson, who is a son of a very good family friend. His dad, Bruce Ferguson, a longtime, very respectable and good labour leader, is here. Please help me to welcome Nathan to this House.

J. Rice: I’d like to mention that Peter Lantin, the president of the Council of the Haida Nation is in the precinct. Peter and guests are here today. I’d like the House to make him feel welcome. I also just wanted to acknowledge that Peter was instrumental in organizing and mobilizing his people on the ground when the Russian cargo ship, the Simushir, had lost its power and steering just recently or just a few months ago. I think he should be congratulated for that. I hope the House makes him feel welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

HEART HEALTH AND ROLE OF
HEART AND STROKE FOUNDATION

Moira Stilwell: February is Heart Month, and it’s a perfect opportunity to remind all British Columbians that 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented by making healthier choices like eating well, exercising regularly and quitting smoking. We’re all fallible, and it can be a constant struggle. I remain firmly lodged at one out of four. Thank goodness for the news about saturated fats, but I digress.

Last week the Conference Board of Canada ranked B.C.’s health performance first in Canada and third in the world behind only Switzerland and Sweden. This
[ Page 5862 ]
achievement highlights the excellent quality of life we enjoy here as well as the priority we all place on the health of our citizens.

One of the most successful partnerships we’ve had is with the Heart and Stroke Foundation. For the past 60 years the foundation has worked hard to educate British Columbians on how we can all minimize the risks of heart disease and stroke by living well.

Through research and investments, the foundation has played a big role in helping to reduce the national heart death rate by more than 75 percent over the last six decades. These are impressive numbers, but there is still much more to do.

[1340]

Heart disease takes a Canadian life every seven seconds and is the No. 1 killer of women. Each year more women die from heart disease and stroke than from all forms of cancer combined.

These statistics we can change, and by continuing to work with the Heart and Stroke Foundation on important initiatives such as increasing public access to defibrillators and providing financial support for its educational programs and services, we can help more British Columbians make healthier choices for themselves and their families.

RAPTOR CENTRE IN COWICHAN VALLEY

B. Routley: The Raptors birds of prey centre in the Cowichan Valley provides a special opportunity for the public to get up close and personal with some of the most amazing creatures on the planet, raptors. Bald and golden eagles, hawks, falcons, owls and vultures, to name a few, help bring the public closer to nature, and they inspire people to help the environment.

Also, the centre supports the Raptor Rescue Society, which operates a raptor-wildlife hospital. They rescued and rehabilitated over 60 injured birds last year alone. Through educational programs, they teach all about raptor biology, native species and how they are environmental barometers at the top of the food chain.

Most of the birds are hatched at the centre, and they fly freely all over the place. They are encouraged to fly the skies and have freedom. They return because they feed them, and they have developed a trusting relationship by working together.

The raptors also provide very effective bird and wildlife control. These birds have important jobs. They work at the Vancouver airport and other industrial sites, flying at the airport every single day from October through till May. They have two staff on per day with a team of seven to ten raptors that take turns patrolling and flying around the airport, primarily to clear dunlin but also other birds like geese, gulls, crows, etc., improving commercial airline safety considerably.

If you’re ever in the Cowichan Valley, hon. Speaker and everyone in this House and everyone watching, please come and see the raptor centre. You will be totally amazed, and I guarantee you will love it.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the member for Comox Valley is seeking leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: Today in the chambers above us we have 43 students, from G.P. Vanier and other schools in the Comox Valley, from the Explore program. They are joined by their teachers Grayson Pettigrew; Natalie Ward — who, when I was at Vanier, went by her maiden name, Natalie Sawchuk; and the senior teacher of the bunch, a gentleman by the name of Dave Neill. Dave Neill has taught at Vanier since 1989. He has been there 26 years, by my math, and this may be his last visit bringing students to Victoria.

I’d like the chamber to please recognize the students from G.P. Vanier but especially recognize Dave Neill for the work he did serving students in British Columbia for the last 26 years.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MEDICAL RESIDENTS

D. Bing: The week of February 16 to 20 marks the 14th annual Resident Awareness Week. Resident Awareness Week is a national event that aims to improve the public’s understanding of the role resident doctors play in the health care system.

Resident doctors have completed their medical degree and are now training in a specialty. This training occurs across the province in a variety of settings and takes between two and six years. Currently there are over 1,300 residents training in B.C. in more than 60 different specialties.

Residents are front-line health care workers who are often the first point of contact for patients. They provide around-the-clock care, participate in research and undertake studies that advance the science of medicine. Residents also mentor medical students and junior residents to ensure that the next group of doctors in B.C. will be caring, well-informed professionals.

Residents are the physicians of the future and are committed to providing quality health care throughout the province. In recognition of this week, the resident doctors of B.C. will be staffing a number of booths at community centres across greater Vancouver to help the
[ Page 5863 ]
public better understand the work that residents do and the association does.

They will also be releasing a video chronicling a day in the life of a resident and launching a new photo campaign that highlights the human side of residency.

[1345]

By drawing attention to Resident Awareness Week, I hope we will all recognize the valuable work that resident doctors provide to our citizens and to our health care system.

TRI-CITIES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

S. Robinson: Chamber of Commerce Week, celebrated annually during the third week in February, recognizes the outstanding contributions that chambers and boards of trade make to communities right across British Columbia. I appreciate the opportunity to share the success of my own chamber of commerce, the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce, with members of this House.

The Tri-Cities Chamber represents local business in the northeast region of the Lower Mainland. Membership to the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce is about building community with 900 other businesses in the region. It’s about staying connected through social and educational events. It’s about expanding networks and getting support for strengthening businesses in the Tri-Cities and throughout the province.

We have amazing businesses in the Tri-Cities. Earlier this month the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce celebrated several businesses for their role in building a strong business presence and for their role in strengthening our community. The winners in each of the six categories have demonstrated success, innovation and passion in their respective fields.

The chamber recognized the accomplishments of these businesses and individuals at the annual Chamber Gala on January 31, hosted at the Hard Rock Casino Theatre. As one of the 300 attendees, I have to say it was a fine, fabulous evening of celebration, good food and great entertainment, emceed by CBC’s own Fred Lee.

The winners of the 2014 Business Excellence Awards in the Tri-Cities are: for Small Business of the Year, Coquitlam Florist; for Business of the Year, ten to 50 employees, International Submarine Engineering; for Business of the Year with 50 or more employees, Dynamic Structures; for the Community Spirit Award, Kelly Strongitharm with Ruben’s Shoes. I understand that the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam did a very lovely job talking about the work she’s doing with Ruben’s Shoes.

Not-For-Profit of the Year was Tri-City Transitions Society, supporting women and children leaving abusive relationships; Business Leader of the Year, Ken Catton with Pacific Coast Terminals; and Chamber Member of the Year, Don Layfield with the Tri-City News.

I hope that the House will join me in congratulating all the award winners and nominees from Coquitlam, Port Moody and Port Coquitlam.

DEMOLITION OF RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL
IN ALERT BAY

G. Kyllo: In Alert Bay a very special healing and celebration ceremony is taking place today. National leaders and Anglican Church representatives join with residential school survivors and First Nations to mark the demolition of St. Michael’s Indian Residential School.

For survivors and their families, the memory of St. Michael’s still haunts. The government-funded, church-run school represents one of the darkest chapters in our collective history, and the wounds that were inflicted there have been felt through generations.

St. Michael’s represents a time when aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their homes and their families and placed in residential schools, where physical, sexual and mental abuse was widespread. As a father of four, I cannot begin to imagine the sheer horror, fear and anger that must have been experienced by First Nations families and communities to have their children forcibly taken from their care.

The remaining St. Michael’s buildings are being torn down, and the visible symbol of the wrongful treatment of aboriginal children within its walls will soon be gone. But its damaging impact on aboriginal families, culture, heritage and language is a sad legacy. Reconciliation is an ongoing, individual and collective progression that will take the full participation of all those affected by the Indian residential school experience, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. We must be unwavering in our pursuit of it.

We will look to the future. We must continue our collective path towards reconciliation. It is a journey that must always be based on mutual understanding and respect, dignity, openness and hope.

The healing ceremony and celebration at Alert Bay today and the demolition of St. Michael’s should remind us all of just how important reconciliation really is.

ALL-NATIVE BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT

J. Rice: Last week the town of Prince Rupert was busier than any other time of year. The hotels were full, restaurants were buzzing, and retail sales were higher than at Christmas time or at tourist season. That’s because the All-Native Basketball Tournament is no ordinary basketball tournament. It is one of the largest sporting events in Canada.

[1350]

Basketball players and their families from across the province and as far away as Alaska were in Prince Rupert for the 56th annual week-long sporting and cul-
[ Page 5864 ]
tural event. The tournament is so significant that some schools give the week off to students to attend the games with their families.

A constituent of mine from Haida Gwaii was unable to attend this year, but thanks to CFNR Radio, she was able to watch the games on line. I may add that the final game had over 200,000 viewers. A typical Canucks game has 300,000, just to give you perspective on the significance. Leslie Brown writes:

“Fan for life. I love the ANBT. It made me feel part of the Haida community as a kid, and it makes me feel part of the First Nations community in B.C. I have friends along the coast, and I love seeing everyone’s updates — of the excitement of the games and how their family members are doing and playing. And it has awesome energy. And you know us natives. We go where there’s good energy. I’d be crazy to say I’m not missing it, which makes me grateful I’m able to watch our nephews play on line today. Go, Haida, go.”

And go they did, as the Haida Skidegate Saints won the championships for the fourth year in a row. The Skidegate intermediate team nearly took it, too, losing out to Metlakatla, Alaska, by five points, and the Heiltsuk women’s team from Bella Bella took the championship for the very first time.

It’s such an honour to be a part of the All-Native Basketball Tournament.

Oral Questions

BUDGET PRIORITIES AND TAX
REDUCTION FOR HIGH-INCOME EARNERS

J. Horgan: Yesterday we learned from the Finance Minister that budgets are all about choices — and keeping selective promises. Yesterday we learned that the Minister of Finance felt that it was okay to give a tax break to the top 2 percent of wage earners — a $236 million break for the top 2 percent.

At the same time, medical services premiums are going up for middle-class and working families; ICBC rates are going up for working- and middle-class families; and, of course, Hydro rates are going up as well. Now, the tragic irony in all of this is that while regular folks are having to dig a little bit deeper in their pockets, the CEO of Island Health gets a tax break; the CEO of ICBC gets a tax break; and of course, the CEO of B.C. Hydro also gets a tax break.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Why did he choose to make a choice that benefits a select few, rather than focusing on helping all British Columbians, with his budget yesterday?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the Leader of the Opposition. It’s a unique question. In the time I’ve been here, I can’t actually remember an opposition or an opposition leader making the centrepiece of their critique of a budget a decision that was made two years ago, in a budget in 2013.

Even that is interesting because, of course, when that was introduced as part of Budget 2013, the official opposition was opposed to it. They were opposed to bringing it in, and apparently, they’re now opposed to taking it out. I think they’re the New Democratic pretzel. They’re so twisted in their policies.

We are unapologetic for the fact that we have sought to achieve for British Columbians the most competitive tax framework in all of Canada. That is not just true for people who are better off and earn more. It is true for people at the other end of the spectrum who earn far less — who, when they were in power, that New Democratic Party chose to collect income tax from.

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

[1355]

J. Horgan: I know Comedy Central is looking for a replacement for Jon Stewart. My advice to the minister is: don’t apply.

Now, I appreciate that fake news is good for the government, but the real news in the budget yesterday were the choices that the government chose to make. Very little to nothing for low- and middle-income families and $236 million given back to the top 2 percent.

The minister said it was a solemn promise. Just like the solemn promise not to introduce the HST — oops. Just like the solemn promise to parents and children to seismically upgrade schools by 2013 — a solemn promise — but only when we have money available, apparently. Yet another solemn promise forgotten. And then the best solemn promise of all — the Minister of Health might want to pay attention to this — a commitment by this year to ensure that every British Columbian had a general practitioner, a family doctor. Promise made, promise broken.

It appears to me that the B.C. Liberals like to make promises, but they only keep the promises that affect the people that give them donations. The top 2 percent get a break. Everyone else fends for themselves.

Hon. M. de Jong: Look, I understand that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues in the New Democratic Party have never met a taxpayer they didn’t want to take more money from. That’s not theory; that’s fact. When they had an opportunity to demonstrate differently, from low-income British Columbians, people for whom that $600 or $700 meant a great deal, the New Democratic Party said: “No, no. Send it to the government.”

People earning under $19,000 no longer pay any provincial income tax. Families, and particularly families with children, collect not hundreds of dollars now in benefits but thousands of dollars in benefits through the early childhood tax benefit, through the skills and education training grant….
[ Page 5865 ]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I understand it’s disconcerting for members of the opposition, although I did celebrate one thing yesterday. I heard a number of the members of the opposition acknowledge that this is the third balanced budget. I celebrate that for two reasons: (1) because it is the third balanced budget in a row and (2) given their record, I didn’t think they’d recognize a balanced budget when they saw it.

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

J. Horgan: I can appreciate that the minister was celebrating with the champagne-and-caviar set yesterday, but the rest of British Columbia saw $700 million in increased fees and taxes on their backs. Middle-income families are paying the freight, and you, the B.C. Liberals, deliberately and with intent, chose to give a quarter of a billion dollars to people who didn’t even ask for it.

We still have 350,000 British Columbians without access to a family doctor. We are going to be debt-free, apparently, yet the debt went up in the next service plan $25 billion. The words say one thing; the numbers say something quite different.

The minister can get back into his way-back machine and talk about a time gone by, but the people who live here today are paying more, and they’re getting less. That’s a choice the minister made. Why did he not focus on taking $230 million that he already had and putting it towards services for people?

Hon. M. de Jong: I only have to go back two years to reveal the twisted turns and the policy machinations of the official opposition. A policy that they ridiculed and opposed….

[1400]

A choice that we made in Budget 2013 to ask people who made a little more to contribute a little more for a particular period of time to help the province balance its budget, that they ridiculed in 2013, ridiculed when we introduced it — they now stand in the chamber, and they are opposed to eliminating it, as we said we would.

The government….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: My colleagues and I are proud of the fact that British Columbians are now in a position where we have balanced budgets; that we are able to make targeted decisions to assist British Columbians who are most in need; that we are able to say to the lowest-income-earning British Columbians that they’re not obliged to pay any provincial income tax; that we are able to extend protection and benefits to families with young children and to provide them with an early childhood benefit that, for children, equates to $660 and more, if you have more children, an education and training payment that is $1,200 per child — real benefits that we are able, as a result of a balanced budget, to give to British Columbians without imposing further debt obligations on children and grandchildren.

C. James: I heard the Finance Minister say “debt obligations.” Well, I can tell you now that the Finance Minister, through Budget 2015, has put the debt obligations on families in British Columbia because of their fees and services and high costs.

The minister has made his government’s loyalty to the wealthiest British Columbians very clear in this budget. Does everyone remember when the Premier actually promised families first? I guess she forgot to tell British Columbians that she only meant the wealthiest top 2 percent of families in British Columbia.

I heard the minister last week say that it wasn’t a tax break, that it was just something that was going to expire in this budget. Well, in fact, in this session we’re going to be voting to amend the Income Tax Act to extend the mining flow-through tax credit. We’re going to be making a change when it comes to tax policy, so there’s no reason why we also couldn’t amend the budget to keep the top income tax bracket from expiring.

My question is to the minister. Why does he think the economic situation facing the wealthiest 2 percent is more urgent than hard-working British Columbians in Kamloops, in Maple Ridge, in Abbotsford?

Hon. M. de Jong: The hon. critic member opposite does not have to convince me that if given a choice, the opposition would seek to dramatically increase the tax burden not just faced by people earning more than $150,000 but by people across the economic spectrum, because that’s precisely what they did when they were in power.

The problem with NDP logic is that according to their record, anyone earning more than $25,000 qualifies as a wealthy British Columbian. She chooses to ignore purposely that for a family….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. M. de Jong: For a family with two children aged under six earning $30,000, the benefits that accrue to that family — the provincial benefits combined with federal benefits — amount to an additional $11,400. That’s
[ Page 5866 ]
$11,400 that will assist that family with the challenges associated with raising their children. That is significant, it is real, and these are choices that we are able to make as a government because we have a balanced budget.

Madame Speaker: The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

[1405]

C. James: I’d like to say to the Finance Minister that I’ll tell you what’s real. What’s real for families are the fees and services and costs and premiums that under your government they are now having to pay every single month. It causes them hardship. They are having difficulty when it comes to hydro, when it comes to ICBC, when it comes to tuition and when it comes to medical service premiums.

The minister stands up and says that they’ve made life easier and doesn’t include any of those additional costs — costs that families are burdened with every single month. Budget 2015 actually increases those costs. Medical service premiums will go up. Hydro rates will go up. ICBC rates will go up. Ferry fares will go up.

This government has made life tougher for families. To the minister who stands up and tells people that it’s time to tighten their belt…. Well, I’d like to ask the minister: how can he find over $230 million for the top 2 percent income earners and nothing for hard-working British Columbians?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m certainly amenable to criticism from the official opposition. I presume at some point they’ll get around to criticizing something that’s actually in this budget, though.

Let’s deal with an issue that the member has raised, that her colleagues and others have raised. There is actually — and it was announced some time ago — an increase in medical services premiums. It takes effect next January. There have been previous increases as well. For an individual, next January, the medical service premium will go up $3. It’s true that it is an additional burden. It is an additional burden for families. It’s more than that.

The health care budget is approaching $18 billion. In just over a decade it has gone up from $7 billion. MSP premiums account for 13 percent of that health care budget. One million British Columbians — 800,000 of them don’t pay any medical services premiums, the lowest-income British Columbians; and another 200,000 pay a significantly reduced….

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member says that in other provinces no one pays. Is there any better indication of the misguided logic…? A member who says that in other provinces they don’t pay for health care — what poppycock. What ridiculous logic. They pay. Health care isn’t free. But by keeping our books in balance, we are able to provide assistance to British Columbians that need it the most.

Madame Speaker: Members, please be reminded that the Chair will hear the answer and the question.

SCHOOL DISTRICT COSTS AND
FUNDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF TEACHERS COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT

R. Fleming: British Columbians could have sworn they heard the Premier say not too long ago: “Class composition is our number one priority.” You know why? She paid an insider firm 350 grand to tweet it for her. But her budget yesterday says something completely different.

Instead of reducing the wait for assessments for kids with individual learning needs, which can take up to two to three years in a school in this province, school districts are being asked to make more cuts and send the money to Victoria again.

How can the Minister of Education promise his government would fully fund the costs of a new teachers’ contract only to betray that promise with a budget that leaves school boards on the hook to fund it?

Hon. P. Fassbender: When I listen to NDP logic when it comes to finances, I struggle, and I struggle for this reason. Three years ago the opposition said we could not balance the budget. Two years ago they said we couldn’t balance the budget. Now they’re complaining because we have a third balanced budget.

[1410]

The 2015 budget delivers significant funding increases to education. I see the members opposite have notepaper, so you can write this figure down: $576 million over the next three years invested. Another figure for the members opposite is a 33 percent — write it down — increase to the learning improvement fund, which has a direct benefit in classrooms.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: If every kid in British Columbia had $10 every time that minister gives out a misleading fact, British Columbia would be first in the nation for school funding instead of ninth.

The minister should answer the question. He could deny the promises that he made to 550,000 kids and their parents throughout that five-week school shutdown, the longest in B.C. history, but as recently as September 17 he said, and I want to quote him: “The provincial government will be funding the settlement and not leaving it to school boards to find the money in their existing budgets.”
[ Page 5867 ]

The minister surely knows the impact that downloading funding pressures to school districts has on classrooms. A 2014 briefing note to his deputy minister calculates that already there’s $192 million in unfunded cost pressures. It documents that the ministry does not fund provincially determined cost areas like pension plan adjustments, hydro rate increases, MSP and WorkSafe rate increases, inflationary costs, nor does it cover the wage settlements for support staff and professional staff. The list goes on.

Again I say to the minister: how can he explicitly, repeatedly promise that his government would fully fund the costs associated with a teachers’ contract and then push it on to cash-starved school boards to do it for him?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I, with all respect, appreciate the question, but calling the facts misleading is the kettle calling the pot black here. Here is the fact. The six-year teachers’ agreement, much to the chagrin of the members opposite.…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Fassbender: It’s the longest negotiated settlement in the history of the province. I would like to emphasize again for the members opposite that if they read the facts and they read the budget, the teachers’ settlement, the CUPE settlement, is fully funded.

I don’t want to take too much time here, but the last fact I’m going to give the members opposite: in a budget for education of over $5 billion, asking school districts to work with the government to find a 0.5 percent saving is not asking too much. We ask it of ourselves, and taxpayers expect governments to find efficiencies that will benefit education.

REVIEW OF POLICE LEGISLATION

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Minister of Justice. The Police Complaint Commissioner, Stan Lowe, has stated that changes to the Police Act are needed so that he can do proper investigations of police misconduct.

[1415]

In her December 2013 policing plan, the Justice Minister committed to review the Police Act by 2015. Can the Justice Minister tell this House: is that review complete, and when will we see the recommendations from that review?

Hon. S. Anton: We are, of course, aware of the requests by the Police Complaint Commissioner. And by the way, I congratulate him on his reappointment. He has made certain requests which we are taking under consideration in the ongoing review of the Police Act. That work is underway, so we don’t have any conclusions at the moment. But I can assure the members opposite that the work is underway and that we are very well aware of the comments and requests by the Police Complaint Commissioner.

PARTICIPATION OF GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS IN REVIEW OF
HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

A. Dix: In September 2012, announcing the wrongful dismissal of Ministry of Health employees, the Liberal government, at the direction of the Premier’s communications team, smeared the researchers by reference to an RCMP investigation. We now know — we’ve learned from FOI this week — that as recently as November 2014 the RCMP e-mailed the government, asking if they were any closer to providing them any findings.

So 2½ years later, 2½ years after they led a press release smearing employees with an RCMP investigation, the constable, Dean Miller, asked: “Are you any closer to being in a position to forward your findings?”

The Premier is responsible for all of this. The people who decided on the smear report to her. They even include her personal friends. She had the power to ensure that those very officials were compelled to testify before the McNeil report. She refused.

Will the Minister of Health acknowledge it is time that those officials be brought in to testify under oath as to their role in this fiasco?

Hon. T. Lake: We’ve canvassed this issue many times in this House. We now have the McNeil report that reviewed the public service response to the allegations that were put forward. We have taken that report, and we’re implementing the recommendations in that report. The Public Service Agency has been directed to take immediate steps to address the issues that have been identified in the report to ensure that government managers are better prepared to address serious allegations like those received in this particular case.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: What Ms. McNeil concluded was that the senior officials — the most senior officials of government, including the highest, the head of the public service — were not compelled and did not provide evidence to her such that she could draw any conclusions at all. She says: “The dearth of documents has granted the decision-makers an opportunity to avoid taking ownership of the decision.”

Now we find that the government which led its smear of these employees — its first line in the press release asks the RCMP to investigate — hasn’t provided the evidence and any information of substance to the RCMP at
[ Page 5868 ]
all which would lead to an investigation. It was a smear, and the authors of the smear are being protected by the Premier and the cabinet.

Isn’t it time for a public inquiry to get to the truth of which officials — which ministers, which senior officials — were responsible for this fiasco, which led to terrible consequences for the employees involved and the whole health care system?

Hon. T. Lake: We’ve acknowledged that mistakes were made, and apologies have been given in this House. There’s no question that some of the conduct was not acceptable. That is why we had an independent labour lawyer look into the situation so that we could learn from that and so that we could make sure the public service treats other members of the public service in an appropriate fashion.

[1420]

The member opposite is on a smear campaign of public servants around this issue, constantly bringing into disrepute the names of leading public servants who’ve given their whole lives dedicated to the public service here in British Columbia.

We are going to take this report. We are going to implement its recommendations and make sure that we have proper processes in the public service.

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR
THERAPEUTICS INITIATIVE

J. Darcy: It’s a little bit rich for this minister to accuse people on this side of the House of damaging reputations of public servants after what they did to the people who worked in the Ministry of Health and the therapeutics initiative.

In addition to wrongly terminating and smearing some of the best drug evaluation researchers on the continent, the government also inflicted major damage on the internationally renowned therapeutics initiative. On the basis of a botched investigation, the government blocked its funding and its ability to evaluate which drugs are safe and effective for B.C. families. Yet this government has still not acknowledged this damage, its impact on patients, its impact on B.C. as a centre of excellence for drug evaluation and its impact on the health care budget. On a very meagre budget, the TI generates enormous savings for health care, yet this government cut TI’s budget by nearly half.

Budgets are about choices. This government failed to take action yesterday to restore TI’s funding. But the fiscal year hasn’t started yet, so it’s not too late.

My question to the minister is: will he commit today to restore TI’s funding to the earlier budget of $1 million a year and make it a standing line item in the budget for the sake of patients, for the sake of drug evaluation research in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: The member opposite is just wrong. The therapeutics initiative has had all of their contracts renewed. They’ve had access to the data after the investigation, after the recommendations of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and Deloitte were implemented.

Therapeutics initiative does some very good work, and we have contracts with the therapeutics initiative to do that good work on behalf of British Columbians. We will continue to use that UBC and UVic research unit to do very good work to make sure that British Columbians get the very best in health care and pharmaceuticals.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY CHAIR,
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move, seconded by the member for Port Coquitlam electoral district, that Pat Pimm, member for Peace River North electoral district, be appointed Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole for this session of the Legislative Assembly.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

C. James: I’m pleased to rise to continue my response to B.C. Budget 2015. I want to start off talking a little bit about what budgets are. Budgets really are a reflection of the character of the government that produces them. This budget is no different. A budget tells us about government’s priorities. It tells us about their choices. It gives us an idea of how the government views the world, what’s important to the government and, just as critical, what is not important.

[1425]

I heard the Finance Minister yesterday state in his budget response: “Governing is always about choices.” That was the Finance Minister’s quote.

I’d like to start by looking at Budget 2015 and what it tells British Columbians. What choices, using the Finance Minister’s own words, were made by the B.C. Liberals in this budget?
[ Page 5869 ]

I’d like to start with the fact that this budget tells British Columbians that even though they’re stretched to the limit, even though they’re already paying more in fees and rate hikes, with Budget 2015, they’re actually going to have to pay even more.

And why is that? It’s because the B.C. Liberals actually did make a choice in this budget, despite the Finance Minister’s words about tightening our belts. Last week I heard him talk about the fact that he was proud of being known as Dr. No, that whenever anybody came forward to ask for additional supports or additional services, he’s very proud about the fact that he says no, that he has that reputation.

In fact, in one part of this budget Dr. No, the Finance Minister, didn’t actually say no. The Finance Minister and all of the B.C. Liberals on that side decided in this budget that they’d give a tax break to B.C.’s highest-income earners, the top 2 percent in our province. That was a choice. That was a choice, a line item of over $200 million that is going directly to the top 2 percent of income earners.

What do middle-class families get? What do the people who I see in my community every single day get? They get more pressure. They get more costs. But don’t worry. There’s a break for those at the very top. They’ll get a break, but not the rest of British Columbians.

Now, I’ve heard the Finance Minister say — and I think we heard it again today — that it’s not actually a tax break. It’s just keeping a promise. Keeping a promise? I have to tell you that that is unbelievable to hear from this government across the other side.

All we need to say to the public is HST, LNG, a doctor for everyone, Debt-free B.C. That is just a very short list of a long list of promises that have not been kept by this government. But oh, don’t worry. “When it comes to the top 2 percent of income earners, we’re going to make sure that that promise is kept. We’re going to make sure we’re following through on that, never mind all those other people in British Columbia who are struggling and having a hard time.”

I also heard the Finance Minister, in the last few days, say that he was just letting the tax increase expire — that that’s all this was. It was just expiring. He wasn’t deciding anything, like it almost just happened by itself. I’d like people to take a look at the budget speech by the Finance Minister, because in fact, there’s an entire section in that budget speech that’s called “Tax Credit Extension.”

They certainly did choose to extend a number of tax measures. They certainly could have chosen the tax measure of keeping the increase on high-income earners. It was a choice to give a tax break and to use over $230 million of taxpayer dollars.

How does that tell families that times are tough? What does that say to the person I met on the weekend who works in my local supermarket whose husband passed away? She had to go back to work. She has lost her house because they didn’t have a pension. He had a heart attack and died.

She’s in her 60s, and she’s had to go back to work as a clerk at the supermarket. She works long hours, and because we have a 24-hour supermarket, she actually sometimes has to go to work at midnight and doesn’t finish until 7:00 a. m. — in her 60s. What does this budget say to her about this government’s choices? What does this budget say to her and her family?

It says that the B.C. Liberals say: “You don’t matter. But don’t worry. Those people earning the most — they matter. We found money for them.”

[1430]

I also think this budget, coming back to the choices that it makes and what it says about a government, points out that this government seems to have an inability to see reality, an inability to handle the truth about what’s going on in British Columbia.

Over the time I have this afternoon I want to speak a little more to those points. I want to speak to the reality for hard-working families in our province. I want to talk a little bit about missed opportunity.

I want to start off, as I said, with this government’s inability to handle the truth or to see reality. We all know that this Premier made a risky bet — a bet on LNG, all the time, every moment of every day. For the last number of years, that’s what we’ve been hearing from this Premier, and it’s not panning out the way this Premier had told all of us.

I’d like to read a few of those quotes, because I think it’s really helpful for the public to actually go through the chronology of what this Premier said about LNG. I want to start off with February 2012, where the Premier said that B.C. would see: “At least one LNG on line by 2015 and at least three in operation by 2020.”

Continuing on to February 2013. The province committed to a prosperity fund. How many people remember that prosperity fund? It was in their throne speech. We talked a week ago about throne speeches having nothing in them. Well, in 2013 the Premier loaded up that throne speech. Loaded it up with LNG and loaded it up with commitments to a prosperity fund that would: “Exceed $100 billion over the next 30 years.” It could eliminate the provincial debt, the provincial sales tax.

The Premier, in a press release coming out of that throne speech, said: “B.C. can create tens of thousands of jobs…and generate $1 trillion in economic activity over the next 30 years.” As you can see as we go through each of the throne speeches and each of the years of the Premier, the promises got bigger and bigger and bigger.

A government fact sheet at that same time said: “Now, the economic impact of five new LNG plants before the end of the decade is going to be significant for British Columbians.” So I think we started off with one. Then there going to be three. I think now we’re up to five LNG plants.

Then we move ahead to May, and we went into an election campaign. The B.C. Liberals, and we hear them talk
[ Page 5870 ]
about this quite often, made a number of commitments to the people of British Columbia. During that campaign LNG was the answer for absolutely everything. A quote from the Premier, “Our goal is Debt-free B.C., and we intend to reach our goal 15 years from today” which was April 15.

LNG, at that point, was going to pay off the debt. It was going to balance the budget. It was going to pay for health care. It was going to reduce poverty. The B.C. Liberals even claimed that they would introduce legislation on the prosperity fund to pay off the debt for B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries and the Port Mann Bridge. So let’s see. We’re now up to hydro, we’re now up to ferries, we’re now up to MSP. We have no provincial sales tax. We’re debt-free. It’s extraordinary, absolutely extraordinary.

And then continuing on. May 2014. A quote from the Premier: “We do know what we can do today, and that is make sure that as a government we look at every decision we make through the lens of whether or not it fits with our purpose in creating an LNG industry in British Columbia. This is our central preoccupation.” We’re going to give it absolute laser focus.”

In fact, after the Premier made that comment, every minister in government got a letter of expectation. I support those letters of expectation. I think it’s a good approach. It was started by a previous Premier who felt that there needed to be more accountability, and I think the letters of expectation are actually a positive direction to give an opportunity for the government to have a central focus, to be able to ensure that all the ministers are looking at their ministries.

[1435]

But when it came to LNG, the issue that was raised with me — and at the time I was the critic for Children and Families — was that even the letter of expectation for the Minister of Children and Families stated that they needed to look at how they could show their focus in their ministry, with their resources, to support LNG.

Well, I’m sorry, but having seen the kinds of struggles that children in care are going through, having seen the struggles of youth with mental health challenges, having seen the struggles for children who are aging out of care and can’t get support, I would suggest that the better approach would have been to focus on the Ministry of Children and Families and getting that in line instead of LNG.

We saw that across government, whether it was the Health Minister, whether…. You name it; the letter of expectation talked about LNG. If you listened to the Premier, it all sounded great. It all sounded like it was going to be so easy, except for one problem: it wasn’t. It wasn’t easy because governing isn’t easy. Governing is hard, and it’s not a fairy tale. You have to get your priorities straight. The Premier’s risky bet, all LNG all the time, wasn’t working out the way she told British Columbians.

I have to say — and this comes back to the government’s difficulty in handling the truth and in handling the reality of British Columbia — it wasn’t until the October 2014 throne speech that the Premier and the Liberal government actually had to acknowledge what everyone else in this province had been saying and had been seeing all along. In that throne speech, the LNG promises from the Premier…. I’ll give a quote. Remember she talked about laser focus? Now LNG was “a chance, not a windfall,” not going to solve everything that was going on. Now LNG was a chance.

In the February throne speech of this year LNG was simply an opportunity. In fact, it’s hardly mentioned.

Now, all of this would be laughable if it hadn’t had an impact on our province, if it hadn’t had an impact on all of those other industries that have been trying to get the government’s attention. I take a look at all of the missed opportunities that were there for jobs, that were there for expansion, that were there for economic growth in British Columbia.

Other industries spent time talking to us. I’m sure they raised it with the government and with the ministers about the fact that they couldn’t get any attention for their industry. Unless you talked about LNG, there wasn’t an opportunity for the government to pay any attention to your industry.

In fact, I even heard industries joke about trying to put LNG in their name somewhere, because maybe if they changed the name or threw it into some agenda that they were bringing forward, maybe the government would pay attention. Maybe they’d be able to get a callback from someone in the minister’s office. Maybe somebody would recognize what they were contributing to British Columbia. But that didn’t happen. That didn’t happen because the Premier put all her eggs in one basket instead of recognizing the importance of all industries in British Columbia.

I have to say that now it’s very interesting to hear the Premier and the Finance Minister, just in the last few days, start adjusting their message on the economy. All of a sudden, diversity in our economy is actually a wonderful thing. Diversification helps us weather the global economic challenges so we don’t have to deal with single commodity fluctuating prices, as we see with oil. Well, I’d like to say, on behalf of all of us, a huge thank-you to all of those industries who’ve continued to survive and thrive in British Columbia despite this government’s singular obsession.

While the Premier was busy putting all her eggs in one basket, other industries were continuing to work hard. They were doing what they do every single day in British Columbia. They were contributing to our economy. They were providing jobs for British Columbians. They were looking to expand opportunities despite a lack of support and a lack of focus by this government.

[1440]

We know that British Columbia’s future doesn’t rely solely on the success or failure of any one industry. Our
[ Page 5871 ]
success in our province relies on every British Columbian working in a diverse, dynamic economy across many industries in every corner of our province.

Focusing solely on one industry to the exclusion of others meant wasted opportunity. It meant lost potential for families, for workers, for jobs and for economic growth — lost potential for people and our province.

I’d like to take the next little while to just take a look at a few industries that do contribute to our province and to take a look at how they fared under the B.C. Liberals over the last number of years.

I’m going to start with an industry that certainly, I think, most people would see as the backbone of our economy, an industry that really did help build our province, that continues to help build our province and that will continue to build our province in the future. That’s the industry of forestry. There are many of us from forest communities on this side of the House who continue to support forestry despite the government’s direction.

Our forests represent a quarter-trillion-dollar asset that is owned by the people of British Columbia. I want to start off with that, because I think it’s a fact that’s often forgotten on the other side of the House — that those trees and that industry and those forests belong to the people of British Columbia. It’s an asset that is here for all of us.

We’re one of those very, very fortunate jurisdictions that have natural resources like forestry. Yet what we’ve seen under the B.C. Liberals is that we get less and less revenue and less and less jobs from every tree that we cut. Wood exports have increased since 2009, but what have most of those been? Raw logs — taking our natural resource and sending it out of British Columbia.

Exports of value-added wood products are still far behind what they were even in 2000. We’ve seen half the companies in the value-added sector go out of business since 2002. We’ve seen employment in the forest sector fall by 40 percent. Sales of value-added have fallen by 60 percent.

The president of the Independent Wood Processors Association, Russ Cameron, says that his members have suffered “because of the inattention of the Liberal government.” Back again to what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket, forget about the very industries that built this province and that are continuing to sustain us and don’t give them the kind of attention and support that they need.

Small and medium businesses in other parts of the forest sector are also struggling. We’ve seen silviculture contracts and contractors getting paid half of what they were in the year 2000. Many of them aren’t even making enough money to be able to stay in business.

We certainly know when it comes to investments that this government has not invested in silviculture. They haven’t looked at how to support a sustainable forest industry through replanting, through research and development.

Silviculture has also provided a great number of jobs for our young people as they’re going to school, in university and college, perhaps looking for further education. Again, those opportunities are taken away with the lack of support and lack of investment in this very critical industry in British Columbia.

How do we compare if we take a look at forestry and take a look at other provinces in maximizing value from our B.C. natural resource? It’s an important statistic to take a look at. As I said, that resource belongs to all of us in British Columbia. What are we getting from it? What value are we getting from it?

Well, for every tree we cut, B.C. gets just one-quarter of the number of jobs that they do in Ontario and one-third the number of jobs that they get from a tree in Quebec. B.C.’s wood and paper manufacturing industries make just one-fifth of the sales revenue from every tree we cut compared to Ontario and one-third the sales revenue compared to Quebec.

What does that statistic mean on the ground and in communities? It means we’ve lost jobs. It means people. It means impact — economic impact — on communities.

[1445]

B.C. lost 206 forestry mills between 2001 and 2013. Think of the impact that that’s had on communities, on families who used to have jobs in those communities, who — many of them — moved to those communities, who love their work and who don’t have opportunities.

We’ve lost 21,000 wood and paper manufacturing jobs. That’s 40 percent of all jobs in that sector — gone. Job losses across the forestry sector in all areas of forestry since 2001 — 25,000 jobs lost, a 30 percent loss.

Now, I raise these statistics because of the lost opportunity. I raise these statistics because of our support for this industry and our desire to see the industry thrive, to see people with futures.

I’ve sat down with those loggers who’ve talked about the fact that their children will never have an opportunity to work in this field. They don’t see a future for their kids. Often they don’t see a future for the kids in their community because of the mill closure or the job loss. That’s what’s been lost with the lack of support for diversification by this government.

I want to touch now on manufacturing and exports. Again, if you take a look at economic growth, if you take a look at opportunities for economic growth in our province, often manufacturing and exports is a good place to look at statistics to see how we compare with the rest of the country. Well, the statistics aren’t great in this area either.

We are actually one of the weakest-performing provinces in Canada when it comes to export intensity. British Columbia exports just under $19,000 worth of goods and services per capita. That’s behind almost every other province, except Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Quebec. We’re at the bottom when it comes to exports.
[ Page 5872 ]

In 2013 we imported $21.8 billion more in goods and services than we exported. That’s a deficit worth 8.7 percent of our provincial GDP. Even a small investment in manufacturing, a small investment in export markets would see a huge boost and increase to economic growth in British Columbia.

Instead, we’ve seen investment in manufacturing actually decreasing by 3 percent in our province. It’s an interesting statistic to take a look at — business sector investment overall — because it really is a key indicator that speaks to the economic strength of our province and certainly speaks, as well, to improvements in productivity.

If you’re not seeing that kind of private sector business investment, then there’s a worry. There’s a worry about what kind of upgrading and what kind of productivity we’re going to have as a province. It certainly is a concern when it comes to the manufacturing sector, because you need that kind of business investment in order to have a thriving manufacturing sector.

In 2013, B.C. ranked fifth for investment in non-residential structures, machinery and equipment as a percentage of our GDP. Even with the Premier’s sole focus…. I found this interesting. Even with the Premier’s area of LNG that she claimed she had laser focus on, even in that area the government left out the manufacturing sector.

The B.C. chapter of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said last year that there was nothing in the provincial budget to encourage manufacturing to flourish around LNG projects and that the province needed to adjust from pursuing short-term economic gain from resource exploration towards investing in and creating sustainable manufacturing clusters.

I would have expected, given this — given the state of exports, given the state of the manufacturing sector in British Columbia — that when I took a look at the Premier’s job plan that she tabled a couple of years ago, there certainly would have been something in there around supporting our manufacturing industry. Well, in fact, manufacturing wasn’t even in the jobs plan until the update that happened this past September. It wasn’t even there, completely missed.

[1450]

So there wasn’t support for forestry, other than shipping our raw resources out, losing those jobs and not supporting families, and no support for manufacturing and exports.

Let’s take a look at mining. This budget in fact acknowledges the lack of support for mining by this government after cutting staff all across the dirt ministries, the resource-based sectors, since 2001. Just to take a look at what those numbers look like, we saw a 27 percent cut — that’s over 1,900 FTEs — in the resource sector ministries.

We finally see in this budget that the government has added back $6 million to the Ministry of Energy and Mines. Well, we’re certainly glad to see those resources go in. Given the Mount Polley disaster, it’s even more critical for this industry, for communities and for workers, to have better support, better checks and balances, more boots on the ground. We’ll be watching very closely to see where those resources go — whether they actually go into providing that kind of support.

I have to say, given this government’s continued direction and belief that they need to cut regulations and cut red tape, we can hope that they’ve seen how important those kinds of protections and regulations are — important for workers, important for the community but also important for the mining industry. Something like Mount Polley sets back any kind of approvals and any kind of support for mining projects going forward. That’s not good for mining; it’s not good for British Columbia. That’s a real concern for the industry and for communities, as well as for workers.

I also have to say that mining is actually another one of those examples of the failed promises of this government. The jobs plan in 2011 promised eight new mines by 2015 and the expansion of at least nine mines.

Well, here we are. We’re in 2015. We have seen three new mines open. We’ve seen two old brownfield mines restart. We’ve also seen five mines closed. It’s nowhere near the promise and commitment that this government made. It certainly doesn’t look to me like there was a focus on mining in this province — again, one of those industries that helped build British Columbia, that provides resources to all of us, that provides jobs in communities. But not now — not without the support, not without a focus by this government.

Let’s take a look at another sector: energy. This is another sector that really is full of possibilities. I think many of us…. I’m sure it’s not simply those of us on this side of the House. I’m sure other MLAs, as well, have had the opportunity to talk to sectors involved in everything from geothermal to tidal, to wind, to solar, to retrofits, to conservation. There’re so many opportunities in the energy sector to provide options for British Columbia, to open up possibilities, to provide new industries, to be able to do our part for climate change, to be able to provide expansion.

With all of those possibilities in front of them, what did the government decide to do? Well, in fact, similar to what we saw with LNG, the government decided to put all their eggs in one basket, Site C, without any kind of thorough business case and a comparison with the other options that were out there.

There was a federal joint review panel. It reported that the power provided by Site C right now isn’t needed. That report went on to point out that there was a failure by this government to explore alternative energy sources and that the Site C project should be reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

That’s pretty sensible; that’s pretty straightforward. A huge project, billions of taxpayer dollars going into a project, shouldn’t go ahead without some kind of independ-
[ Page 5873 ]
ent review, some kind of comparison. What would the costs be for other sectors in the energy field? What would the comparison be? What would the rates be for taxpayers? What would the costs be to taxpayers? What’s the long-term debt that we’re looking at? Because the Site C power isn’t needed for a number of years, as pointed out by the joint review panel, it was the perfect time. It was the ideal time to, in fact, explore and compare alternative energy sources.

[1455]

Here’s an example. If this government really cared about diversification — if they were serious and they weren’t just now saying what they think they have to say because, oh dear, their singular focus didn’t work; “It’s not turning out the way we expected” — they wouldn’t put aside the opportunity to do this comparison. They wouldn’t put aside the opportunity to look and say: “What opportunities do we have with hydro, and what opportunities do we have for geothermal, for tidal, for solar, for retrofit of buildings?”

We all know, when it comes to power, that conservation is also a huge opportunity. It’s a huge opportunity for doing our part for climate change, for saving taxpayer dollars, saving families money. But it’s also a huge opportunity for jobs and job creation. There are buildings all over this province that could be retrofitted to save energy and to provide good-paying jobs for people in communities across B.C.

We haven’t seen that. We haven’t seen the government do that. Once again, it was a sector that they turned their back on. They said they had a direction, and they didn’t want to hear anything else.

What about agriculture? There are, again, so many opportunities in this sector of our economy. Just like energy, we’ve got a chance to expand. We’ve got a huge chance to diversify in this sector. We’ve got a chance to diversify and create new jobs. We’ve got a chance to be able to do our part for climate change. So how did the government decide to respond to that opportunity? Well, we spent the last year taking apart a well-respected and well-recognized piece of legislation that protected our agricultural land.

This government decided that they’d weaken protection. They’d weaken provincial oversight. They’d allow non-agricultural land use to take place where previously agricultural use was the priority.

Here we have a next generation of young farmers. I spent a lot of time over the last number of years, when I’ve travelled around the province, talking to people who are working in the area of agriculture. It has not been an easy field for people to work in. Families have talked about the fact that their kids have gone off to do other things because of the struggle that they’ve had in maintaining the family farm, in trying to provide that support.

In the last number of years we’ve actually seen a shift. We’ve seen a shift as people start talking about 100-mile diets. We’ve seen a shift as people start talking about wanting to get back to the land. We’ve seen a whole new young generation of farmers come forward, a young generation of people who really want to get into the industry. It’s exciting to see that there is that next generation stepping up to the plate.

What is this government’s response to them? They decide to shrink the land that’s available and drive land costs up as a direction to take when we finally see this next generation stepping up. Another industry, in my view, of missed opportunity.

We on this side of the Legislature aren’t waiting for those opportunities to pass us by in British Columbia. That’s why the member for Saanich South activated the standing committee on agriculture. If the government doesn’t do it, if they don’t believe in diversification, then we will. We’ll take the action.

I expect you’ll see some very interesting things coming forward from that committee and the public consultation that they are doing around the province. I’m sure the members will share all the information that’s there with the other side, or they could actually join the committee and come along. I’m sure we’d be open to that. I’m sure if they had conversations with that committee, they’d be keen to include government members from that side of the House on the agricultural committee.

Let’s take a look at high tech. This really is a success story in our province. I talked earlier about thanking industries, despite the government’s inattention, that have continued to grow and thrive, that have continued to contribute to our economic growth, that have provided jobs for British Columbia. This is one sector that really has shone in our province, that really has possibilities ahead.

[1500]

What excites me is the possibilities that could be there if they actually got a little bit of leadership and a little bit of attention and support by government. We’ve seen the high-tech industry in British Columbia grow in the last 20 years from $4 billion to $23 billion. It’s extraordinary.

I certainly see it right here in Victoria in my own community. Right now we have approximately 9,000 companies and 84,000 employees working in the high-tech sector. It’s a great sector. It’s an exciting sector. A lot of young people are connected to this sector. And it’s a green sector. Again, when we talk about supporting our existing industries and also looking at how we transition to the new economy and providing support for the new industries, high-tech is one of those.

Let’s take a look at the components that are needed to grow this industry, because things don’t happen by themselves. There are various components that have to occur to keep various industries going. I talked, on forestry, about the need to get more value from each log, from each tree that we cut. That’s a critical component, a critical opportunity that is missed in British Columbia.
[ Page 5874 ]
Well, in high-tech there are a number of components to do with education and to do with investment that are tools that are needed to continue to expand this industry.

Let’s take a look at a few of those statistics. B.C. has 25 percent fewer undergraduate degrees per-capita than Ontario and Quebec — fewer people with those degrees, fewer people going into the sector. B.C. has half the number of engineers as the Canadian average, and B.C. has less than 1/5 of the PhDs as leading OECD countries. We also trail in all science and technology graduate degrees — again, a critical area that needs to be encouraged if we’re going to continue to grow our high-tech sector.

If we look at the range of indicators to developing skills and knowledge needed for this industry to grow, B.C. lags behind. What about research and development? It’s a critical indicator for this industry. Without research and development, the industry is going to fail. Well, again, on this indicator we fall behind. B.C.’s level of R and D as a percentage of GDP remains 40 percent lower than Ontario and Quebec. On tax credits B.C. is significantly lower than Ontario and Quebec.

I mentioned what’s possible. I think my frustration and the reason that I’m taking the time to talk about these industries is that we have so much potential, and I see it right here in my backyard. People only need to take a look at the tech industry in Victoria to see the kind of economic growth, to see the kind of spinoff jobs that are occurring, to see the kind of excitement that’s going on in the life of our community.

Victoria is a community that doesn’t have a very diversified economy. Many people, and most of the folks that I know, have had to have their spouses or their kids move away to other places to be able to get jobs. Those of us who’ve lived in Victoria most of our lives have worked hard to try and look at that diversification and what opportunities are there.

We’ve had some great success with the shipbuilding industry — despite the government’s direction to send ferry building across to Europe — to actually get a contract and get that industry going and support the basis that was already there. High-tech is like that as well. I can see the life that it’s bringing to our community.

Missed opportunities. With a government and a Premier who decided that she had one singular focus, as we talked about, one direction to go, we missed so much in British Columbia over these years. Industries deserve better than they got. They deserve better than a government that really turned away from them for a singular, risky bet that didn’t turn out the way the Premier had told all of us.

Now when I hear the Finance Minister and the Premier talk about diversification, I hate to say it, but I think it’s another one of those examples with this government where they say one thing and they do just the other. If they really had cared about diversification, we would have seen support for forestry. We would have seen support for agriculture. We would have seen support for high-tech. Not just lip service, not just words when now their bet isn’t turning out, but real concrete support for those industries that continue to contribute to British Columbia.

[1505]

What’s our most important asset in our province? It’s our people. I want to take a little bit of time to talk about how families are managing, how people have fared in this budget, how they’ve done under the B.C. Liberals over the last 14 years.

It’s interesting, if you take a look, because democracies across the world are recognizing that a strong and growing middle class really is the foundation of a strong and growing economy, that they aren’t two separate things. You can’t say that we’ll deal with the issues for people and families when we’ve got the economy going. In fact, they are intricately tied. If you don’t deal with support for families, if you don’t provide support for equality, you are not going to see your economy grow. You are not going to see that kind of support there.

People are recognizing across the globe that growing inequality, where those at the top do very well and everybody else falls behind, is actually bad not only for those individuals and those families but bad for the economy.

There’s a quote from a recent speech that the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney — people will remember him from Canada, obviously — gave before Christmas. The quote is: “Prosperity requires not just investment in economic capital but investments in social capital.” I believe that if you ignore that fundamental truth, if you ignore the truth that it’s important to make sure that you’re addressing both the social and the economic side of your ledger, the result you see is the British Columbia that we see now after 14 years of the B.C. Liberals.

Let’s look at a few of those facts for British Columbians. It’s interesting to go back to the Liberals’ election in 2001, because the then Premier, Gordon Campbell, set some targets that he wanted to be measured and to be tracked. He took the Progress Board, and he said that they were going to set some targets and that that’s what their government was going to be measured on. That was going to show success for British Columbia.

In that Progress Board in 2001 the Premier at the time said that B.C. was going to be first or second in the country when it came to economic growth. The Premier also said that B.C. was going to be first or second in standard of living, and he also said that we would be first or second in jobs and the numbers of people who are gainfully employed.

Well, it’s interesting to look and see how that turned out. After 14 years of the B.C. Liberals are families better off? How do we measure up when you take a look at these indicators? I think it’s an interesting side note that, actually, the Premier, the existing Premier, got rid of the Progress Board. The Progress Board doesn’t actually exist anymore.
[ Page 5875 ]

Their last report came out in 2010. We actually went back and looked at the stats. We took their indicators and their measures — we didn’t change the measures from the Premier’s Progress Board — and we looked at those indicators for today’s families after 14 years of the government being in power.

It’s very interesting to take a look. On the first key indicator, which was economic growth…. You remember, again, that the benchmark that was set by the former Premier was to be first or second when it came to economic growth. In fact, in 2013, which are the last numbers that are available, B.C. was in sixth place in real GDP growth per capita. That’s a long way from first and second. It’s a long way from being proud of the kind of economic growth that we have in British Columbia.

Again, that’s a direct result of not looking at the existing sectors and where things are booming and providing support for that so that you can weather the economic storms, so that you can provide the kind of levelling that is so needed in our economy.

There’s no question that we are a small, open economy here in British Columbia. There’s no question that we in fact have ridden the wave of commodity prices and markets over the last number of years. But that’s not a good long-term strategy for managing an economy.

[1510]

We can ride the wave, and when things are going well, spend; and when things aren’t, everybody struggles. But that’s not any way…. It’s certainly not any way, I think, most of us would manage our household budgets. When things are good, spend, spend, spend; and when they’re not, too bad. You go without food. You give up your house. That doesn’t make any sense.

We need to look at long-term economic stability. I think what this indicator and what the lack of support for all of those many, many industries that have worked so hard have shown is that this government hasn’t provided that kind of support. They haven’t looked long term. They haven’t looked at how they could provide that levelling in a kind of economy that we have here in British Columbia.

Now, what about standard of living? This is an interesting one, because I hear on the other side often, from the government, that we’ve seen no change since the 1990s. Third place, and that’s using the government’s measure — which, I want to point out, is a measure of real after-tax disposable income and which doesn’t take into account the cost of living, doesn’t take into account housing affordability, doesn’t take into account income inequality.

If you add all those in, we know it will be certainly worse than third place. I’ll talk a little bit about all those measures as I go on. But again, on a measure where we’re supposed to, in British Columbia, be one of the leaders, you didn’t see the kind of focus, you didn’t see the kind of support that I think we would have all expected.

What about jobs? Again, this was a measure that the previous Premier was using back in 2001, when he had his Progress Board indicators. He talked about being first or second in British Columbia. The current Premier had her jobs plan that came out to great fanfare. It was going to solve all of the challenges that we face in British Columbia.

B.C. is in seventh place for the percentage of people who are gainfully employed, also known as the employment rate. We have the lowest employment rate west of the Maritimes here in British Columbia. Since the Premier was sworn in in 2011, 38,500 people have given up looking for work — not a record I think anybody should be proud of.

Since the 2008 recession B.C. has seen one of the weakest job recoveries across Canada. We’ve seen 50,000 jobs in three years and four months since the job plan came in. Unbelievable. The impact of that is felt in community after community after community, because although we talk about statistics, these are people. These are families. These are individuals who want to work full-time, who want to have a family-supporting job, who are doing everything right in their lives and who just aren’t seeing any kind of support coming forward.

I would think a jobs plan that has been launched and that launches us into seventh place when it comes to job growth would get a pretty big failure. You think it would be revamped. Most people, I would think, if they took a look at something and said, “Wow, we put all this time and energy, we put all of our resources, we put all of our support into this jobs plan. This is what’s going to get us the jobs in British Columbia….” They take a look after three years, and we’re seventh when it comes to jobs growth.

I understand focus. It’s important to focus, but it’s also important to recognize when you’ve made a mess of it and when what you’ve done isn’t working — to throw it away and start again, to say perhaps we need to do something different. Perhaps we need to focus on actually providing jobs and maybe looking at all of those other industries that we talked about that we haven’t been paying attention to.

Maybe that would help. Maybe if we did that, those industries that have kept chugging along despite the government…. Those industries have kept contributing despite the government. Maybe we need to provide some support to them. Maybe we need to make sure that we’re looking at all of British Columbia. Maybe we really need to actually act on diversification instead of just talking about it when it’s now convenient and the one big bet has gone down the toilet. I think that’s going to be critical.

[1515]

Now I want to look at families themselves and one of the indicators that directly impacts families, and that of course is household income.

We saw a recent study, StatsCan data, that showed that between 2006 and 2012, B.C. experienced the worst income growth of any province in Canada. In fact, not only
[ Page 5876 ]
did we have the worst growth, we actually saw income fall in British Columbia. It fell by 2.4 percent. It’s actually even bleaker in some of our major cities. In Metro Vancouver employment incomes fell 3 percent. Here in Victoria income fell by 4.8 percent, and in Abbotsford, 5.1 percent.

I want to read a quote when the article came out with the statistics, because I hear from the government that they brush statistics off. “Oh, this doesn’t matter. It came from this group, or we don’t use those kinds of measures.” Well, when these statistics came out, there was a quote from Jock Finlayson, the VP of the Business Council of British Columbia. He said this of the analysis, that it “offers an important new perspective, particularly since it provides regional comparisons and it looks at median, the midway point of all incomes, rather than average employment incomes,” because average employment incomes are skewed upward due to a number of high income earners.

He went on to say:”Income data released over several years suggests that our economy isn’t providing enough high-paying jobs, that there are relatively more low-paying jobs over time within the broader labour market and that policy-makers need to pay attention to the problem of significant numbers of unemployed people whose job-related earnings make it hard to support a household.” That’s the B.C. Business Council recognizing that this is something we need to pay attention to here in British Columbia.

We have the highest level of wealth inequality in Canada right here in our province, the highest level of market income inequality — what people can actually earn from employment in the country.

Why should we pay attention to this indicator? Well, as I talked about earlier, the importance of a strong middle class is the foundation of a strong economy. You can’t ignore the inequality when it comes to wages and when it comes to poverty in a province and expect that you’re going to see your economy continue to grow.

This is being recognized across the world. There have been a number of reports, and I want to just read a few quotes from those reports that have understood the need to pay attention to this issue, unlike what we’ve seen on the other side.

The OECD published a report in late 2014. The report was titled Growth and Inequality: A Close Relationship? It was an interesting report to read. It stated that the evidence shows that inequality undermines economic growth — so again, back to the importance of paying attention to the issue of the people in your province and not simply the economy, as though the people can be separated out from any kind of strategy that you put together for the economy.

The report says: “Growing income inequalities can undermine the foundation of market economies. They can lead to inequalities of opportunity. This smothers social mobility and weakens incentives to invest in knowledge. The result is a misallocation of skills and even waste, through more unemployment, ultimately undermining efficiency and growth.”

There was also a report done in this past year by TD Economics. Their report was entitled The Case for Leaning Against Income Inequality in Canada. That report showed that rising inequality can hinder investment in human capital and curtail productivity, resulting in slower economic growth. Again, I just want to quote from this report, because I think the government often, as I said earlier, likes to write off statistics, likes to write off reports that have been done.

[1520]

I think it’s important to recognize that there are a wide range of economists and economic groups across this country, as well as social and progressive groups, who have taken a look at the issue of the economy and inequality and have recognized how important it is to address it.

I quote from the report. “The ultimate result is slower economic growth because individuals fail to reach their full potential. Worse still, slow economic growth environments can further foster rising inequality by reducing public support” for policies that support addressing inequality “due to greater competition for the limited income gains provided by the economy.”

But the good news in this report is that “policies aimed at reducing income inequality need not dampen economic growth. Indeed, a 2014 report from the IMF argued that equality-enhancing actions can actually improve economic performance in the long run.”

Finally, in this area, I just want to quote Standard and Poor’s. They did a report, as well, on income inequality, and that report stated that income inequality is dampening U.S. economic growth. “Higher levels of income inequality increase political pressures.” They discourage trade, discourage investment and discourage hiring. “Extreme income inequality is a drag on long-run economic growth.”

I think if we take a look at all of the challenges facing people in British Columbia…. I talked about the median income. I talked about the difficulty families are having. We see that growing gap here in British Columbia. This is not something that has not impacted our province. In fact, it’s a reality in British Columbia.

It’s also getting tougher for young people to get ahead. There was a study done taking a look at Vancouver and ranking it last among the ten metropolitan cities when it comes to median incomes for those between the ages of 25 and 35. Those are individuals who have a bachelor’s degree or greater — so people who have gone to post-secondary education, people who are trying to better themselves, who are looking for those opportunities. Yet they’re in last place when it comes to opportunities to increase their incomes.
[ Page 5877 ]

At the other end of the spectrum it’s not simply young people and people starting to get into the workplace. A Royal Bank of Canada poll showed that across Canada, British Columbians are the most worried out of any province in our country about their retirement security.

A report from Vancity showed that three out of four Vancouverites under the age of 45 won’t be able to retire. They don’t have any money to save for retirement; 75 percent of them can’t contribute to an RRSP. It’s not a matter of educating them to tell them about how important it is to save for your retirement. In fact they have no money to save for their retirement. They are just getting by, paycheque to paycheque, month to month with all of the increased costs and all of the increased pressures that they are facing.

British Columbians also have the highest level of consumer, mortgage and personal debt in the country. Forty-seven percent of British Columbians live paycheque to paycheque. Again, this is the reality.

I talked about the situation where this government doesn’t seem to want to see the truth or doesn’t seem to want to see the reality for families. These are not facts plucked from the air. These are statistics that are pointing out what all of us in this Legislature need to pay attention to, which is that the families and the middle income are squeezed in this province. They’re struggling to get by. They’re having a difficult time.

If we don’t address it, we will not see the kind of economic growth that we need to in British Columbia. We will not see the kind of success that our province should have as a province when it comes to economic growth. I think that’s something that, as I said, needs to be paid attention to, not simply by this side of the House but, in fact, by all of us, in our communities, who see those families every single day.

I want to take a look for a moment as well at the situation for B.C.’s most vulnerable, because I think that’s critical for us to pay attention to.

[1525]

I want to say a huge appreciation for finally ending the clawback — we saw that in this budget — for single parents. I think it was a long-overdue move, and I want to express my appreciation to those families who came forward, because it’s not an easy thing to do. To share your personal story, to have to go in front of the media when you’re just trying to manage day to day is not an easy thing to do.

I can tell you, having talked to some of those, mainly, moms, but also some of the dads who contributed their resources towards their children…. I also know the huge impact that this is going to have for those families. Those spouses who are contributing towards helping their children with new clothes, basic school supplies, supporting them at Christmas time. Those children now are going to receive the money that was theirs in the first place and was being clawed back. I certainly think that that’s a positive move, and I was pleased to see it in this budget, Budget 2015.

Does that address the issue of the most vulnerable in British Columbia? No. In fact, B.C.’s child poverty rate, as we all know, under the B.C. Liberals has remained consistently higher than the Canadian average — first or second across this country, with the most children living in poverty. One out of five children in our province lives in poverty.

We can argue about the measures. I’ve heard the arguments on the other side. I’ve heard the government say: “Oh, it’s the wrong measurement. We shouldn’t be using the low-income measure after tax, or we should be using the low-income measure before tax.” Well, it doesn’t matter what measure you use. You could use the before-tax or after-tax measure. It still points out that we have too many children living in poverty in this province, and we need to address it in British Columbia.

That’s almost 170,000 children who are struggling each and every day, whose families are struggling to provide for them, who are having to access food banks, who are having to access breakfast programs and community programs that volunteers are putting on. I’m grateful. I’m incredibly grateful in our community for all the people who provide that support, who are there to provide that support. But it shouldn’t be that way in British Columbia. We shouldn’t have families having to line up at food banks to be able to feed their kids in a province like ours. Yet that’s the situation that we see after 14 years of the B.C. Liberals being in power.

What about the general population? Well, 19.4 percent of British Columbians live below the poverty line. That’s, again, higher than the Canadian average. I think another statistic that often gets ignored is that over half the children living in poverty have one or more parents employed. These are not all children of parents who are on income assistance. These are parents who are working but who aren’t able to make ends meet, often working part-time jobs, often working low-wage jobs, often working two and three jobs and juggling it because they certainly couldn’t afford child care to be able to manage on the kinds of salaries that they’re making. We all know that inequality isn’t good for those families and certainly isn’t good for our economy.

There’s a quote from another report, a report done by the Commission on Inclusive Prosperity, that says: “History tells us that societies succeed when the fruits of growth are broadly shared. Indeed, no society has ever succeeded without a large, prospering middle class that embraced the idea of progress.” And: “Nations need to ensure both that economic growth takes place and that it is broadly shared.”

In the decades following the Second World War, hundreds of millions of people across developed countries were able to work. They were able to gain economic security through higher salaries and through a series of
[ Page 5878 ]
benefits. Households saw that hard work and careful planning was going to deliver security for themselves and opportunity for their children year after year.

[1530]

That’s what I see with families every single day. I see that families are working hard. They are trying to better themselves. They are looking for opportunities for their children. But they’re finding it tougher and tougher than it was even just a generation ago.

There’s huge concern, because people are struggling. Stagnant wages, as I talked about. Slow economic growth. Slow job growth, lagging behind other provinces. Huge insecurity. People aren’t sure whether their job is going to be there. They aren’t sure whether they’re going to have to work two jobs to be able to manage. That gives huge increased pressures.

Given that reality, as I’ve talked about — given the reality of industries that have been ignored, given the reality of dropping median incomes, given the reality of a shrinking middle class — what did this government decide to address in this budget? What did the government decide in Budget 2015 was going to be their priorities?

Those British Columbians that I’ve just talked about who are working hard, who want to make sure that their kids get the best start in life, who are often also looking after their parents and trying to provide that kind of support — they’re worried about their own retirement and wondering if they’ll ever be able to retire because they have no money to put aside. Those families don’t expect government to do it all.

Those families understand that they have to take personal responsibility, and they are. They’re doing everything they can. They’re doing everything right. But they certainly don’t expect their government to make it tougher for them, yet that is the reality in this budget. The choice made by the B.C. Liberals in this budget is to make life tougher for middle-income families with increased fees and costs. In this budget those people that we’ve talked about, that are struggling every day to get by, will now pay more and get less service.

Why did they do all of that? The B.C. Liberals in this budget did that because they needed to give a break to B.C.’s highest income earners. The top 2 percent of income earners get a break while your family ends up paying more.

Now, I’ve heard the Finance Minister stand up and talk about tightening our belts. He’s said, as I said earlier, that it’s been his job to say no. Well, the government did say no. They said no to average families. They said no to economic opportunity for everyone, and they said yes to the top 2 percent of income earners. Well, that is simply wrong — simply wrong.

What are families going to face specifically in this budget? Let’s look at the costs that people have been faced with since 2001 under the B.C. Liberals. I think it’s important for people to recognize that after 14 years there is a record for this government, a record of increased costs and pressures that families have been facing.

Let’s start with B.C. Hydro rates. Since 2001 they’ve increased 74 percent. What’s happening over the next five years? The rates are going to go up another 28 percent. That’s a bill every month that families are going to receive where their rates go up at a time when they’re struggling.

What about medical service premiums? They’ve increased 92 percent under the B.C. Liberals. Again, they’re expected to continue to increase by 4 percent for each year ahead. Then you add into this the unfairness of the medical service premium system itself. Whether your family makes $40,000 or whether you make $500,000, you actually pay the same amount. There’s nothing in the budget to address that unfairness and that inequality that is built into the MSP budget.

We’re going to continue on that issue, to push to get the government to recognize that families are struggling, that they’re facing unfairness, and that it has to be addressed. I know that other members in the House will join us, including the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, to fight on this issue. I think it will take all of us to get government to recognize that when they stand up and say that income tax is lower for British Columbians, they’re not including MSP premiums; they’re not including hydro rates; they’re not including the cost of tuition; they’re not including ICBC rates — more than eaten up by all of those fees and services.

[1535]

What about ICBC? ICBC has seen a 41 percent increase under the B.C. Liberals.

What about ferry fares? For those of us who live on Vancouver Island, that’s basic transportation. We’ve seen a 63 percent increase on major routes and a 100 percent increase on minor routes. The impact of that goes much further than simply families. It impacts the entire economy of British Columbia. In fact, there was a very well done report, an independent report done, sent to the Union of B.C. Municipalities for the government to review, and it was scoffed at by the other side. The Liberals said it didn’t matter. They didn’t want to hear it. Well, it’s the reality for people on Vancouver Island. It’s a challenge that people are facing that is caused by the government increasing the fees.

What about tuition for post-secondary education? More than doubled under this government. That’s something that directly impacts opportunity. We all know the importance of post-secondary credentials, whether it’s college or university, whether it’s a trade, whether it’s getting a certificate. Most jobs today require that you take that time to be able to get those credentials. And what’s this government done? They’ve made it more difficult for people to be able to access opportunity.

Even on PharmaCare, deductibles rose under this government by $200. Seniors were hit with a $75 deductible, and seniors were hit, when it came to long-term-care rates since 2001, by a 93 percent increase.
[ Page 5879 ]

I talked about those families who are trying to help their kids go to university or college — give them a good start in life, put some money aside to be able to make sure that they can get there — and are also looking after their parents and are having to face a 93 percent increase when it comes to long-term-care rates.

Of course, the government couldn’t leave it alone. They had to add another fee this year when they looked at parks. We now see new user fees in 41 of B.C.’s parks. And I haven’t even touched on child care fees and costs for education.

I can tell you that families who have their kids go to school now know that they’re having to fork out more and more and more for basics. You’ve seen school supply lists that now include a package of paper for the photocopy machine — that that’s a requirement as a school supply for kids to have to bring to school. That’s a fee. That’s an additional cost that families are having to pay.

We know that families are paying more. We know the reality. But are they getting more services? Are they getting more supports for all those extra costs? No. The reality is that families really are paying more and getting less. That is the reality in British Columbia.

Our schools have more and more overcrowded classrooms. Teachers and support staff are completely stretched. As I said, parents and students are expected to pay more and more for basics. We’ve seen a loss of counsellors and teacher-librarians, music teachers.

What about our hospitals? I heard the Finance Minister earlier today say that people are paying MSP for all of that quality health care that they’re getting out there. Well, let’s remember that our emergency rooms are bursting at the seams. We had a story in the last little while of an individual that spent three weeks in a closet. This isn’t hours in a hallway while you wait for a bed. These are individuals who are being put there as a way of dealing with health care.

We’ve seen the challenges with mental health and youth mental health. The Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth has been travelling around and hearing about the pressures that families are facing to get support for their young people struggling with mental health and addictions. Services are inadequate.

Seniors are languishing in hospital beds because there aren’t any long-term-care beds available for them. Not good quality care. And while the dedicated staff in long-term-care homes and the hospitals try to do everything they can, we know that long-term care is stretched and that they’re struggling to try and provide support.

What about child care? Well, all those families who are trying to get back to work, who are looking at opportunities to try and make ends meet, are then stuck trying to even find child care, never mind afford it.

[1540]

When you’re looking at paying $700, $800, $900 — in some cases in the Lower Mainland for infant-toddler, $1,200 — a month for quality child care, that’s out of the reach of most families and doesn’t provide support to those children.

Cuts to post-secondary education. This budget saw, once again, a cut to the post-secondary education budget. I talked earlier about the importance of opportunity for young people. That opportunity won’t be there if we continue to cut the budget for our colleges and our universities.

The government talks about skills shortage. They talk about trades training. They talk about how important that is. As they’ve done in other areas, they say one thing and do the opposite. How can you stand up and say that you believe in the importance of opportunities for trades and training and going to post-secondary education and then cut the budget for post-secondary education?

How can you say to children and to parents: “We’re going to provide the best education possible but, by the way, we’re also expecting the budgets to be cut by $29 million and another $25 million next year”? It’s typical of what we see with this government. They say one thing, and we see just the opposite when it comes to the reality.

I know these are only a few of the areas that I could raise, and I don’t raise these issues to talk about simply the challenges in British Columbia. I raise these issues because they are missed opportunities for a province as extraordinary as ours.

I am a proud British Columbian. I’ve lived here since I was five years old. I’ve raised my kids in this province. My grandkids are now being raised in this province. I know that we have all the ingredients we need in British Columbia to be a leader. We live in an extraordinary diverse place, with citizens from all parts of the globe here in British Columbia.

We have huge entrepreneurial spirit. We have world-class institutions of higher learning. We have public education and public health care. We certainly have an unparalleled natural environment. We are extraordinarily blessed with our location, as a province. We’re a gateway to the Pacific. We have natural resources in British Columbia. We have a high-quality labour force.

There are few places on earth that have our advantages. There are few places on earth that have advantages that, sadly — and we see it again with this budget — have been ignored or neglected or squandered by the B.C. Liberals.

Governments must lead — not by letting everything ride on pie-in-the-sky promises, not by ignoring other industries, certainly not by letting inequality grow, and not by nickeling-and-diming hard-working families. Government has to lead by providing opportunities for every British Columbian. Yes, that includes the opportunity of LNG but not at the expense of every other industry in British Columbia, not at the expense of our natural environment or our clean air or clean water, not at the expense of the true partnership that needs to be built with First Nations.
[ Page 5880 ]

It means remembering that our province’s future rests with our people. It rests with the small business owner in Surrey who’s working 80 hours a week to try and grow her business. It rests with the student at UNBC who’s putting in late nights and long days, working hard to try and get his advanced education degree. It rests with the forest worker on Vancouver Island who gets up before dawn to do a dangerous and demanding job. It rests with the child care worker in downtown Vancouver who does the same to care for our children.

British Columbia’s future rests with the entrepreneur in Kamloops who’s willing to take a risk on a new idea. Our future rests with teachers and social workers and nurses and bus drivers and public servants who support us in our communities each and every day. It rests with the senior citizen in Victoria who, after a lifetime of working, is volunteering her time to give back.

[1545]

These are the people that our future rests with. A government that cared, a government in touch with average families, would have focused their attention and resources on supporting our people and our diverse industries in every corner of British Columbia.

A government that was in touch, a government that saw reality, would have focused on the tools that were necessary to address inequality, and they would have opened up opportunity for the middle class in British Columbia in this budget. That would have meant not charging for adult basic education and ESL, which is in fact closing the door on opportunity. That would have included a poverty reduction plan in this budget, to actually start addressing the inequality that we’ve seen. That would have included investments in education and training, not cuts in a budget, not making it tougher for people.

As I get to the close, I want us to imagine. Imagine a province where we had a government that actually believed in the people of British Columbia.

As I said earlier, we’re so fortunate to all benefit from a creative, industrious, innovative citizenry. Just imagine what our citizens could accomplish with some support. Just imagine what they could achieve if they weren’t struggling paycheque to paycheque. Just imagine what they could do if they had a little bit of support to try and find child care or a care home for their parent. Imagine a government of British Columbia that actually worked with the people of this province, with the industries of British Columbia.

As I said at the very start, a budget is a reflection of the character of a government. It shows us what a government sees as important and what they see as not. This budget makes it perfectly clear. For the B.C. Liberals, hard-working British Columbians don’t count. But, boy, that top 2 percent of income earners — they matter. They certainly found $230 million to be able to give them a break. Well, those aren’t our priorities. I’ll be proud to stand and vote against this budget and the missed opportunities that it presents for British Columbia.

D. Ashton: Well, first of all, I would like to acknowledge the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill — always a very eloquent speaker. We may not agree on the direction of the budget or governance, but her input is always greatly appreciated and is very well respected. Thank you.

It’s an honour to lead the debate on the budget of 2015, especially on behalf of my constituents in Penticton, who have given me the privilege to represent them in this House.

I’d like to take a moment to thank Dick, Candace and Ali in Penticton, who do such a great job in helping those who really require the services offered by government at our office. I would like to thank Kristen and Kelly here in Victoria, who keep our busy lives in order and keep us up to date; and especially all the other staff of this wonderful institution of democracy, who allow all on both sides of this House to do a very good job at representing all of British Columbians; all of the staff in communications, who put our thoughts to words and help us to get important information out to the citizens of British Columbia.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my family — my mom, my late father — who have instilled in me the values of trust, generosity and an incredibly strong social conscience. They also instilled in me the incredible importance of being fiscally responsible and financially accountable. “Look after the pennies, and the dollars will follow,” said Dad. “You can’t spend $1.10 if you’re only earning a dollar.” Values I learned, values that I adhere to in my private and public life.

There comes a time in the history of a province that we have to reflect on our past, to take stock of the present and to decide where we want to go in the future. In the past, British Columbians have always proven to be resilient. It was not that long ago that we were mostly reliant on only a few resource industries to sustain our entire economy. For example, a drop in the lumber prices could put our whole provincial economy into a tailspin.

[1550]

But that was yesterday. Today British Columbia has developed a highly diversified, modern economy that is evolving beyond a single-market reliance. That means we are far more resilient to unforeseen drops in the price of commodities.

In neighbouring Alberta today, we are witnessing the unfortunate consequences of the sudden drop of oil prices. In a province that is heavily reliant on one major commodity, provincial revenues have suddenly collapsed. Now the government of Alberta is facing deficits in the billions of dollars. Newfoundland and Labrador is also facing significant challenges. But not here in British Columbia. At present we are the only government in Canada that is posting a budget surplus.

As Canada’s Pacific Gateway, British Columbia is responsible for accessing markets all across Asia. That helps us contribute to a balanced budget in British Columbia. For example, while the United States remains our largest trading partner, strong market demand for B.C. lumber
[ Page 5881 ]
products is taking root throughout Asia. That means we are far less exposed to a dip in the housing starts south of the border, which we witnessed not that long ago.

Let’s take a closer look at how the landscape has changed in recent years. In 2001 almost 70 percent of our exports went to the United States. Only 2.3 percent went to China. Fast-forward to 2014, and China now accounts for 20 percent of our exports. Since 2003 we have seen a 30-fold increase in the value of B.C. softwood lumber exported to China. Asian markets now account for 30 percent of B.C.’s trade activity, and today roughly 51 percent of our exports go south.

One emerging star in British Columbia is agriculture. It is becoming an important segment of our export mix. That means that in my own riding of Penticton — B.C. wines are becoming the toast of the town in China — this represents a significant boost to our local economy.

It also means that the wine and vineyard agricultural community in Penticton, Naramata, Summerland and Peachland has a whole new customer base with a vivacious taste for our products, which has brought new foreign investment to the valley. Three wineries are now owned by Chinese. And we’ll bring additional new tourists to see where these wonderful wines are created. That’s very, very important to an agricultural-based area like where I come from.

In this budget we are recognizing the crucial role of agriculture in all of our lives. B.C. has the most diverse agrifoods industry in Canada, providing approximately 60,000 jobs and generating $11.6 billion in economic activity. Yet many people don’t realize that every week B.C. growers donate thousands of pounds of fresh and nutritious food for people in need.

This government believes that farmers should be recognized for this. In the coming year we’ll be exploring options to give farmers credit for what they donate. In the meantime we are committing a further $2 million to our Buy Local program, which helps farmers and processors promote B.C. products.

Naturally, there are many economic factors that are beyond the control of government. But there are certain things we can control, and public spending is one of them.

Some may question the importance of a balanced budget and what it actually means to British Columbians. First of all, it means an end to deficit financing to cover our operating costs. We are no longer running expenses on a credit card, which in turn contributes to provincial debt. Out-of-control spending is unsustainable. Second, the balanced budget means that we can start paying off the provincial debt.

I have two children, Chantal and Coleton. Coleton is here in Victoria at the University of Victoria in his first year, and Chantal is in grade 11 at Summerland Secondary School. When I look at my children, I think about what kind of legacy I want to create for them while I serve as an MLA.

In my new role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, I feel especially strongly about a solid plan to eliminate our debt so that we are not placing that burden on future generations. Balancing a budget is not an easy process. It takes discipline and a solid commitment. Someday we will achieve a debt-free British Columbia. But this is not something that we are going to achieve on our own.

Interjection.

D. Ashton: Thank you for your comments.

[1555]

Thanks to the cooperation of our dedicated public servants and their unions, we have successfully reached fair agreements in order to keep services affordable. Today approximately two-thirds of British Columbia’s public sector workers have already agreed to five-year contracts. Under the new mandate, they will benefit as the economy grows. We’re sharing, and I think that’s an important trait that needs to be shown by all levels of government.

Most notably, of course, the provincial government and the Teachers Federation set aside more than 30 years of discord to reach a negotiated settlement. Now we have the opportunity to concentrate on two shared priorities: the students and the students’ outcomes.

A balanced budget also provides us with a triple-A credit rating. In one budget year it would be impossible to raise the capital necessary to build the bridges, the hospitals, the schools and the major infrastructure that we need, without access to that credit.

That infrastructure debt is a legacy. It’s a legacy that we can give our children because we’ve built something. We’re all helping to pay it off. That infrastructure lasts more than a generation, and it’s something that everybody will have the opportunity to benefit from.

Thanks to a triple-A credit rating, British Columbians pay the lowest interest rates on capital projects. For example, the new patient tower to be built at Penticton Regional Hospital could not be financed in any given year unless we had a strong and sustainable capital plan.

That’s the kind of legacy that I want to pass along to my children. In the same way, past generations of British Columbians have built up our province to a place that we all know, that we all love. I want my children and their children to receive a legacy of prosperity, not a huge pile of operational debt.

Another feature of a balanced budget is a low income tax regime. When our public finances are in the black, there’s no need for government to consistently go back to the taxpayer and ask for more tax dollars. Low income tax, with the need for a low corporate tax regime, is one of the competitive advantages that any government can control.

British Columbia has the lowest provincial personal income taxes in Canada for individuals up to $122,000
[ Page 5882 ]
a year. That’s a substantial improvement from 2001. For example, 14 years ago…. A senior couple earning $40,000 a year pays $774 less in provincial taxes. An individual earning $50,000 a year pays $1,334 less. A family of four earning $70,000 a year pays $2,027 a year less. Overall, most British Columbians have had their provincial personal income taxes reduced by 37 percent or more since 2001. When we can afford to lower rates even more, that will happen.

For 2015 we are providing a small enhancement to the B.C. tax reduction. This will mean that a single individual can earn more than $19,000 a year before paying any provincial personal income tax. Modest as it is, this measure will benefit roughly half a million taxpayers, letting them keep a little more of their hard-earned income. The annual cost to government will be approximately $5 million.

A balanced budget is more than making just the numbers add up. It is about achieving a balance with all of our social objectives, as much as we can afford, as the economy improves.

That’s why I’m proud of the fact that the budget of 2015 contains a significant change for parents receiving income assistance and support payments from a non-custodial parent. Effective the first of September, 2015, child support payments will be fully exempt from income assistance calculation. In other words, parents will be able to keep every dollar they receive in child support, and that is over and above what they receive in assistance. This means an additional $32 million over three years for some of the neediest children and families in British Columbia — on which both sides of the House agree.

At the same time, the government will ensure that the resources continue to be made available to parents on income assistance to assist them in pursuing support orders from non-custodial fathers and mothers.

Approximately 180,000 families in British Columbia will also be receiving the B.C. early childhood tax benefit starting on April 1 of this year. It provides up to $660 a year for each child under the age of six, to help offset the costs of child care. When combined with federal benefits for families with children, a couple earning $60,000 with two children under six stand to receive an annual benefit of approximately $7,500. Lower-income families can receive additional benefits.

[1600]

This is essential in a balanced budget. It combines fiscal prudence and provides relief to families and the need right across British Columbia.

With this budget we’re also providing additional dollars to support those individuals and families who are most in need. That includes an additional $106 million over the next three years to Community Living British Columbia to support people with developmental disabilities, and an additional $20 million for assistance programs.

As we all know, health care is first and foremost in the minds of most British Columbians, yet health care is by far the most expensive line item in the budget. In the next three years funding increases for the Ministry of Health will total almost $3 billion.

Did you know, hon. Speaker, that if you counted to one billion, and it took you one second for every digit, it would take you 31 years to come up to $1 billion? That’s not….

Interjection.

D. Ashton: No, sir, I don’t have that much time left in my life.

First of all, what I want to say is what the province has done. We have achieved what many critics said we couldn’t do. We’ve reduced the growth rate of health care spending to an average annual increase of approximately 2.9 percent. That’s down nearly 8 percent from the mid-2000s. So in B.C. we have proven it’s possible to achieve a slower rate of growth in our health care budget, and we have done it by being innovative and exploring new ways to deliver services.

Now other provinces confronted by the tough fiscal choices are coming to the same conclusion. Consequently, British Columbia is now recognized for having some of the best health care outcomes than any other province in Canada, and we have a phenomenal quality of life here. In fact, we are ranked only third in the world behind Switzerland and Sweden.

As a member of this government I also am very proud of the approach we are taking to ensure that no British Columbians are left behind. That applies to First Nations. As the Minister of Finance noted, we continue to make slow but steady progress on the treaty front. But in the meantime, B.C. is the first province in Canada to share provincial revenue from mining, from forestry and from clean energy projects with the First Nations communities. We have now more than 200 revenue-sharing agreements in place to ensure that First Nations benefit directly from work taking place in their traditional territories.

In conclusion, we are projecting surpluses for the next three years. This will include $3.7 billion in additional funding for health care and education, $31 million in measures to strengthen economic growth and job creation and $150 million to make life easier for those families in need. It is all about achieving a balance. We believe that we have struck the right balance for fiscal prudence and helping families right across British Columbia.

That brings me back to my values — those of being trustworthy, accountable and having a strong social conscience. That is exactly what the government has delivered in this budget.

D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to rise to discuss the budget today. I think, to start off, I’ll just give a quick overview of what a budget is all about.
[ Page 5883 ]

Two questions that the government answers in a budget. The first is: where do you want to spend your money? The second question is: where are you going to get that money from?

In this budget the government has answered those questions: where do they want to spend the money, and where are they going to get the money from? The answer to the question of where they’re going to get the money from has been answered in a way that I find incredibly surprising.

This government would rather increase the fees of British Columbians’ MSP, ICBC, B.C. Hydro, tuition — you name it — than maintain income tax on the top 2 percent of earners in the province. The cost of this cut that they’ve given to the top 2 percent is over $230 million. That’s money that’s going to have to be recovered from somewhere, and the budget answers the question of where that’s going to be recovered from. You heard my colleague the spokesperson on Finance for the opposition rise and go through in great detail the fees that are going to be levied on British Columbians in order to make this up.

[1605]

It’s interesting. I had an exchange on Twitter with one of the members of the government, the Minister of Environment, just recently that I think illustrates for me the trouble that this government has in understanding where to get the money from without hurting ordinary British Columbians. The question that we were discussing was: how can it be that one company can take one million litres of B.C. water for $2.25, put it in bottles and sell it for 2 bucks for 250 millilitres? The effect of the policy in B.C. is that if you’re the president of Nestlé, you’re writing a cheque to the government of British Columbia for less than 10 bucks, and you’re selling 16 million 250-millilitre bottles of water.

The exchange that I had on Twitter was: “Shouldn’t we be asking for a little bit more money from this company when they write a cheque for less than 10 bucks and they sell 16 million bottles of water? Couldn’t we get some revenue from this?” The Minister of Environment wrote back and said: “Well, I can’t figure out how to do that.”

Does that mean that we start charging farmers for water? No, it doesn’t mean that. Does that mean we start charging the forest industry and other industries in British Columbia for water rights? No. We’re talking about a company that’s taking water out of the ground, putting it in a bottle, selling it for 2 bucks, and we’re charging them less than $3 for a million litres of water.

If this government can’t figure out how to get more revenue from Nestlé in that situation, and other companies in the same situation, then no wonder this is such an anemic budget that hurts British Columbians, because all they know how to do is raise fees for everyday British Columbians. If they can’t figure out how to get revenue from an obvious source like that, then I look forward to the rest of the year and the revelations that will come from this budget and the details in the estimates period as we go through that.

Interjection.

D. Eby: The Minister of Environment says I want to sell water. That’s what my policy is. This government is giving our water away. The line here is clear — where this government wants to get their revenue from, and where they don’t.

I have a number of spokesperson roles for the official opposition. I’m going to start by going through my various spokesperson portfolios to discuss the impact of this budget, and then I’m going to take things back to my constituency.

I’m going to start with the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Now, the B.C. Lottery Corporation is responsible for administering lotteries and casinos in the province. The government projects that they will be spending an extra $4.8 million at BCLC in operating costs over the next year — $4.8 million to operate the lotteries and casinos.

Does that sound reasonable as a cost-of-living increase for BCLC? I guess so, if there hadn’t been an audit that this government did of BCLC just a few short weeks ago, in which this government detailed on its own the failures of this government with respect to BCLC’s control of money. It’s important for people to understand that when BCLC spends a dollar, that’s one dollar less that goes to public services. That’s one dollar less that goes to hospitals. That’s one dollar less that goes to schools.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

B.C. Lottery Corporation had an early retirement program that cost municipalities and everybody in British Columbia an unexpected $25 million instead of saving money. They thought this was going to save money. Why did it cost an extra $25 million? Because they literally offered 18 months’ severance to every senior executive in the corporation, regardless of length of service.

Imagine this. You’re working at BCLC for two years. You’re earning, let’s say, a respectable $80,000 a year, and the provincial government comes to you and says: “We’ll give you $120,000 to walk out the door.” You’ve only been here for two years. Guess what? There was a stampede for the door. But it wasn’t amounts like that. In fact, there was paid severance, despite giving working notice, to four employees of $300,000 each. They received $1.2 million total.

BCLC is supposed to…. They have a role making sure that retailers sell lottery tickets responsibly. They did one test of retailers. They found that 40 percent of retailers were selling lottery tickets to minors.

[1610]

They’ve got a fight going on with the enforcement agency called GPEB, which goes in and does enforcement in casinos, that’s leading to a delay in criminal investiga-
[ Page 5884 ]
tions. They’ve seen a major increase in the number of suspicious cash transactions at casinos, and they cut the $1 million budget of the RCMP team that was the dedicated casino investigation team. We see an almost $5 million increase for B.C. Lottery Corporation, but this is the same corporation that cut the budget for the RCMP team that was dedicated to policing crime in casinos.

I’ve toured a number of casinos now in our province. I’ve met the operators. They would be glad to cooperate and work with a dedicated RCMP team to support their internal security teams. Yet for some reason, this government cut that team. What was the impact of that cut, which hasn’t been restored in this budget? The impact of that cut was major increases in suspicious cash transactions at B.C. casinos. Review after review finds the casinos are reporting suspicious cash transactions, and nobody is investigating them.

The Minister of Finance puzzled: “What I am detecting” — this was in 2014 — “is a degree of frustration on the part of some officials who collect that information, forward it on and lose track of what becomes of it.” How, in this budget, can there be an extra $5 million for the B.C. Lottery Corporation that wastes money like this and cuts the $1 million budget of the RCMP enforcement team? How can that be the case?

I’m also responsible for the B.C. Pavilion Corporation. The B.C. Pavilion Corporation — it’s an unusual name, and maybe people don’t know what they do. They’re responsible for B.C. Place and the convention centre in Vancouver. They’re the corporation that administers these. People across B.C. may remember that this government spent almost $1 billion on the new convention centre. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars putting a new roof on B.C. Place when we have schools that haven’t been seismically upgraded in this province.

They did these things because they said that they could bring in extra revenue. They would bring in revenue for the province. PavCo projects that their revenue is going to drop by $6.4 million in the coming year. Got a new roof, got a new convention centre, and revenue is dropping. And at PavCo, just like at the B.C. Lottery Corporation, expenses are rising by $5 million.

Now, this government tells school boards: “Find the money. We’re not going to fund you an extra cent. Find the money.” Yet when PavCo shows up — they got the $1 billion convention centre; they got the roof that costs hundreds of millions of dollars, went way over budget — they say: “Oh, here’s an extra $5 million. Spend it wisely.”

So $125 million in operating expenses for the B.C. Pavilion Corporation. I’m afraid to say to this House that the expenses are just beginning for the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, because they have partnered with an unbelievable company to build the site 10A mega-casino in downtown Vancouver. Of all of the casino developers in the world, the B.C. Pavilion Corporation chose a company called Paragon. It wasn’t just anybody….

Hon. B. Bennett: Say that out in the hall. You’re a lawyer.

D. Eby: I’ve been invited to say that in the hall. I have said it in the hall. Not only that, I’ve said it in the papers, and I’ll say it again in the papers, because their track record is defended by something that as a lawyer I know is truth.

Let me lay down a little bit of the truth on the mining minister here. The company that the Attorney General and the Minister of Education, on the board of PavCo, chose has two Canadian casino developments in this country that have been completed. They’re both in Alberta. One of them went bankrupt. Yes, that’s right. Paragon bankrupted one of their two Canadian casinos prior to building out site 10A.

[1615]

The second casino? Alberta’s regulator cut off their access to aboriginal development grants after it found that they were being misused. They then defaulted on a line of credit to CIBC, and now they’re no longer involved in that project either. So 0 for 2 on their projects in Canada. Yet B.C. chose this company to develop site 10A.

I hear the Mines Minister is much quieter now. I wish he’d spoken up at the time that the Attorney General and the Minister of Education chose this company when they sat on the PavCo board. I wish he’d been there to say: “Have you done the due diligence? Did you call Alberta, where they’re operating two casinos, where they’ve cut off the access to the grants, where they’ve done repeated audits of this company and found problems?” But he wasn’t there. I wish he’d been there.

Paragon’s partner, their First Nations partner on one of those two projects, had to go to the Alberta government and ask for and extra $2.1 million for legal expenses arising from that project. So when I say that the expenses for PavCo are just beginning, I speak with some experience in knowing what Paragon’s situation was in Alberta, I’m sorry to say.

We see the budget for tourism in this province. There was a really interesting discussion in Vancouver about why there wasn’t a New Year’s Eve festival in Vancouver this year. So many other cities have big New Year’s Eve celebrations, and unfortunately, there just wasn’t the money this year in Vancouver to have a New Year’s Eve celebration. Now, why is that?

Well, there’s an organization called Tourism Vancouver, an important organization promoting tourism in Vancouver. If you stay in a hotel room in Vancouver, they take a portion of your hotel room cost. It’s a hotel room tax that funds this organization.

This government decided that Tourism Vancouver should help them pay for the convention centre that went so far over budget. It cost almost $1 billion. The impact of that: Tourism Vancouver’s total debt has increased from $97,000 five years ago to $101 million, $106 mil-
[ Page 5885 ]
lion, $109 million, $119 million as a small tourism promoter because they are helping pay for this over-budget convention centre.

The amount of hotel tax that they dedicated to debt payment in the last year: $3.7 million, more than enough for a blowout New Year’s Eve celebration. But instead, they’re paying for this government’s convention centre.

It’s remarkable how well our tourism operators are doing despite this government’s best efforts. I went up to the Cariboo-Chilcotin, where they cancelled the Discovery route ferry and where they faced the disaster in Mount Polley and are trying to recover up there. They’re resilient. Man, they’re working hard up there. They’re driving the tourism numbers despite everything this government does to them.

I was inspired, frankly, to go up there and see those British Columbians working so hard to keep their businesses going in the face of what they’re doing.

I see we have some guests here. For background, there used to be a wonderful ferry that people could book. They’d travel around the Discovery route. They would stay in…. There were little rooms in them. It was a beautiful trip, and it was sold to Europeans overseas. It was sold to Germans. They were very excited to come to the Cariboo, tour around.

This government cancelled the ferry, and they cancelled it in the middle of the season so that a bunch of people who had put deposits on trips were caught out. A bunch of businesses were totally caught out. They replaced it with a ferry with hardly any amenities and, certainly, one that does not compare. As a result, we’ve lost a huge number of bookings. A number of people are looking at losing their businesses.

These are the kinds of decisions that are hidden between the lines in these budgets. When you look at tourism, you don’t see cancellation of the Discovery route ferry, but it’s there.

I’m also responsible for Housing, and I spent a number of years working in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver on the housing issue. In that role, I travelled all over the province talking to other housing advocates. Try to imagine this. In the same year this government gave $230 million to the richest 2 percent of British Columbians, they cut the housing capital fund by 62 percent. The budget for the housing capital fund — this is to build housing for homeless people — was $39 million in 2014-15 and only $15 million in 2015-16.

[1620]

I’m fortunate to come from a very affluent constituency. I think it’s the second most affluent following the new Minister of Advanced Education’s constituency in Quilchena. There are a lot of people who earn more than $150,000 in my constituency. I can tell you right now that the vast majority of those people would tell you: “If you took that tax increase and you applied it to the homeless problem in B.C., I would be happy. I wish you would do that.” They would tell that to this government. Instead, this government gave them a tax cut they didn’t ask for, and to pay for it, they’re cutting the capital fund that builds housing for the homeless in this province. Can you imagine that?

I’m not making up that this is what this fund is for. This is the quote from the service plan. This grant that’s been cut — this grant for housing capital funding — is meant to supply housing “for those at risk of homelessness and to fund infrastructure projects to increase the supply of provincially owned housing for seniors and persons with disabilities.” Cut it 62 percent.

It’s not just this cut, because the provincial government is currently selling the B.C. Housing stock. This is the policy — that they are selling it. Some of it’s great — selling to the non-profits that operate, give them a chance to build up some capital, do some renovations, expand. But where’s the money?

Where’s the money in the budget that they’re taking in from these sales? Somewhere in miscellaneous revenue. Where is it going? We’re told it’s going back into housing, yet the housing capital fund has been cut by 62 percent. You’re selling the B.C. Housing properties, and the Housing Minister promised in the media over and over…. The head of B.C. Housing has promised over and over that this money is going back into housing. Where is it? I can’t see it.

I’ll be canvassing this in estimates, but I can assure you that there are a lot of people who will be looking for this money. They believed that this government would not be taking the sale of housing for the homeless, taking the money from that, and using it to give a tax cut to the richest 2 percent of British Columbians. Nobody believed that was the case. It can’t be the case. Surely, it can’t be the case.

Interjection.

D. Eby: The member for Kingsway says he thinks it may be the case.

I try to conceive of a world in which you sell housing dedicated for the homeless and use it to pay for a tax cut for the top 2 percent. I hope we’re not there yet.

The residential tenancy branch. If you go talk to landlords, you go talk to tenants and you ask them, “Have you been to the residential tenancy branch lately?” you will get an earful. It takes months to get a hearing. Landlords can’t get rid of problem tenants. Tenants can’t deal with problem landlords. It’s not working for anybody.

There are landlords in this province where the roof literally fell in on people in this province because they didn’t do necessary maintenance. Yet the residential tenancy branch doesn’t have enough staff to go do the investigations and lay the administrative penalties that are set out in the act. They simply can’t do it. They’re overwhelmed with the number of hearings they have to do.
[ Page 5886 ]

Here we see that the residential tenancy branch, to address these issues, has received an extra $39,000. The residential tenancy branch has to pay increased hydro costs, increased MSP, just like every other employer in the province. This $39,000 isn’t even going to cover it. Not only will residential tenancy service be…. It’s not going to be the same as the substandard service that landlords and tenants are complaining about. It’s actually going to be worse.

Now, it’s a bit of an obscure promise, but I remember it, and anyone who has had a problem with their strata will remember this. The Minister for Housing promised that he would establish a tribunal in this province so that people who have problems with their strata council don’t have to go to court anymore to deal with it. He promised to establish a tribunal where you could bring your complaint forward, just like the residential tenancy branch, about your strata, and it would be dealt with outside of court.

It’s going to save money, because we don’t have to pay a judge to hear it. It’s going to be faster, because the rules of evidence are less and it’s easier to deal with. And it’s going to be more accessible to people.

[1625]

I hope nobody in this House has ever had the situation of having a problem with their strata council. But if you have, you will know how difficult it is when the house that you live in…. You can’t find a remedy except to go to B.C. Supreme Court. This is something that needs to happen, yet there’s no money in the budget to deal with it. Maybe it’ll happen next year. We’ll have to see.

Maybe this is one more promise that’s expendable, unlike the promise to make the biggest expense in this budget, the cut to the wealthiest 2 percent of British Columbians. That promise wasn’t expendable.

I tried to make sense of the budget projections for revenue for liquor. I have to say that these numbers can’t be based on any kind of reality. It was just a week and a half ago that the Attorney General cut what’s called the wholesale price for premium wines in British Columbia. These are the top, most expensive wines.

The Attorney General issued a press release. The increase that she’s been planning on doing for months — she’s abandoned it. That’s not imaginary money. That was real revenue that this government was counting on. It was revenue that the government was counting on to ensure that the wholesale price reform was revenue-neutral — that was, they would bring in the same amount of money when they changed around the system.

Now if you make a big cut to the amount of money you’re expecting to take from the most expensive wines and your math had been based on keeping everything the same, obviously you’re looking at a loss of revenue there. It’s really straightforward. Yet the projected revenues for liquor in the province remain the same. How can that be? How could that be revenue-neutral? I look forward to seeing the results on the fiscal year, to see how that’s possible. I’m fairly certain the Attorney General is not a magician, because she’d have to pull some cash out of a hat to make that work.

I’d like to transition into a discussion of the opportunity cost, at least as far as my constituents are concerned, of the $220 million tax cut for the richest 2 percent of the province. I stood shoulder-to-shoulder with a number of young people in our constituency trying to save the only dedicated youth clinic in Metro Vancouver. That is the Pine Free Clinic.

This was a clinic that was opened for 40 years, supported by all different stripes of government, where young people could go and get the medical treatment they needed, no judgment — just young people and doctors and nurses who were expert in dealing with young people. This government closed that clinic. Their budget was a fraction of the $220 million that this government gave to the wealthiest 2 percent of this province.

I’ve got a dedicated group of parents. They’re a real champion group who send their kids to Bayview Elementary. They know, as this government knows, that Bayview Elementary is not seismically upgraded. If there is an earthquake, that school will be flat. It’s a very old school — a beautiful school, a heritage school. But they know that they’re sending their kids to a school that’s not safe. A $220 million cut for the wealthiest 2 percent in this province, and Bayview Elementary is still not seismically upgraded. How can that be?

Education funding. For a lot of people in my constituency, English is not their first language. Yet new policy in this province — free English-as-a-second-language training doesn’t exist anymore. Adult basic education. You’d better start to pay for that as well.

If I had a nickel for every person who came into my office with concerns about their kid who has a learning disability that needs extra support…. Maybe their kid is gifted. Maybe their kid participates in a music program that they really enjoy. They want funding for those programs. I guess I’d be able to fund a good chunk with this tax cut for the wealthiest 2 percent of British Columbians.

There are students who are going to schools who need to be assessed for their learning disabilities, but the school boards are not assessing them, because there’s no point. The services don’t exist for them. If they’re assessed to have a learning disability, the services don’t exist to address that learning disability. Yet this government cut $220 million for the wealthiest 2 percent.

[1630]

UBC, part of my constituency. The students there are facing a 20 percent increase in rent. They’re staying in a dorm room at UBC. They’re going to face a 20 percent rent increase. They’re already facing tuition increases, and it was already the case in this province that student loans don’t cover the full cost of education.

Can you imagine paying 20 percent more rent for housing that doesn’t even have any basic tenancy protec-
[ Page 5887 ]
tions because UBC has been entirely exempted from the residential tenancy branch?

Imagine, too, that this is the group that thought they’d come to this government and say: “Hey, what would be really great is a graduate scholarship for British Columbia. A lot of provinces give a little bit of cash to graduate students to help offset the costs of their education. Wouldn’t it be great if British Columbia did that?”

Instead, what do they see? A 20 percent increase in rent, and tuition increases. They got completely the opposite of what they asked for. This government didn’t make it easier; they made it significantly harder for them to get an education. So $220 million would go a long way here.

Many of my constituents come to my office. They’ve got a kid with an addiction problem. They’ve got a partner who’s depressed, who’s got anxiety. They need mental health services. There’s a homeless person who’s had to make a house out behind their store. They don’t want to call the police because it doesn’t seem right. They’ve clearly got a mental health issue that needs help. So $220 million would go a long way here.

I want to talk about another issue, and that’s what happens if we get close to the fiscal year-end and this government hasn’t quite balanced the budget. Will we see a repeat of what happened in fiscal 2013? That’s where this government sold $601 million in property in a single year. The previous year they sold $11 million. Fiscal 2013 they sold $601 million in property in a single year. The amount of the budget surplus: $384 million. Thank goodness we had a lot of things to sell.

There’s a big piece of provincial property in my constituency called the Jericho lands. I don’t have a lot of nice things to say about this federal government. I’ll be honest with you. But the federal government, the Canalands Corp. has come in. They’re consulting with the community. They’re taking a period of years to look at this sale and redevelopment and do it properly with the community. I do not want to see this government come in and sell that property to make their budget surplus overnight to one of their friends. That’s the history we’ve seen.

In this budget that’s been presented we’ve seen massive increases year-over-year in ICBC, MSP, Hydro and a cut for the people, many of whom live in my constituency, who would have told this government: “If you’ve a good purpose for it and you can show me that money’s going to that purpose, then do it.” But instead, they got a tax cut they didn’t even ask for.

I can tell you that if this government came with a plan for that money that made sense to deal with homelessness or mental health or education — any priority — it would see huge support in my constituency. So why are they doing this? Why are they taking this tack? I have no idea, but I hope they’ll reconsider.

R. Lee: I’m very proud to be part of this government. We have delivered a third consecutive balanced budget, with a projected surplus of $879 million. We are the only province in the whole country to accomplish this, and our government is forecasting three more balanced budgets: in 2015-16, $284 million surplus; 2016-17, $376 million surplus; in 2017-2018, $399 million surplus.

Moreover, our accumulated direct operating debt is forecasted to decline by more than 50 percent, from $10.2 billion in 2014 to $4.8 billion by 2018, the lowest level since 1991.

[1635]

As you’ll remember, when the government was in place in 2001 we inherited quite a bit of the direct operating debt, which was over $12 billion. I think we are paying down those debts for the NDP. This is truly not an easy job.

Looking back in history, from 1980 to 2005 — in those 25 years — British Columbia recorded only four actual balanced budgets. Because of our strong commitment to fiscal discipline we have fulfilled our promise — controlling our spending and balancing our budget — which allows us to maintain our triple-A credit rating and pay down government’s direct operating debt, which means more capital to pay for the services British Columbians value. We don’t have to pay a lot of interest on those debts.

In order to balance our budget and maintain a healthy economy, apart from maintaining fiscal discipline, another key is to be diverse in developing our economy. It’s wise not to put all our eggs in one basket, so to speak, especially when facing unstable market conditions such as the sudden drop of oil prices in the last few months.

Indeed, growing a diverse economy has always been our government’s direction. Our government has been supporting sectors, including international education, transportation, forestry, mining and energy, technology and green economy, tourism, agrifood and also natural gas, of course. We can see significant achievements in these sectors through our concrete numbers.

In the forestry industry, by the end of 2014 the value of forestry products to all markets increased to a total of $12.4 billion — a 63 percent increase from 2009 — which now accounts for over a third of all our exports.

In technology, the technology sector contributes about $23 billion in annual revenue, up $10 billion in just ten years. It’s now the third-largest economic contributor to B.C.’s gross domestic product, at 7.6 percent.

In tourism, we are doing well as well. The tourism sector continues to grow. In 2013 it generated over $13.9 billion in revenues, a 44.3 percent increase over 2003. It also has more than 19,000 tourist businesses in our province. Many of those are small businesses.

In the period of, say, the last four years our mining sector is doing quite well as well. Our Minister of Energy and Mines is sitting over there smiling. Since 2011 we have seen five new mines open. In the last four years this, on average, is more than one mine per year, creating over 1,300 new jobs. Later this year we expect the Red Chris mine to open, employing another 300 British Columbians.
[ Page 5888 ]

Our government has been seeing growth and development in other sectors. We have been very excited to see that happening. With a healthy and diverse economy, our government can continue to invest in important sectors such as education, health care, transportation and clean energy.

In education, B.C. has one of the best education systems in the world, and we are very grateful that a historic six-year agreement was reached last year between the BCPSEA and the BCTF. It means that in the next five years there will be a guarantee of peace in the sector and a better education system with more resources.

[1640]

Government funding to school districts remains at record levels. The Ministry of Education was providing $4.7 billion to districts in operating grants in 2012-2013, an increase of 27 percent since 2000-2001, despite a drop in enrolment, of course, of more than 66,000 students over that period — dropping, in terms of the number of students.

Since 2001 we have committed more than $4.2 billion to school capital and maintenance projects. Under collective agreements reached last year, our government is committing another additional $125 million to the learning improvement fund, bringing the total up to a half-billion dollars — $500 million to address issues such as class composition.

In this budget I am very pleased to see a $500 education coaching tax credit for teachers and teaching assistants, recognizing the value of extracurricular sports and arts opportunities in our schools. We know there are many dedicated teachers. They spend time and effort and energy in helping students to have activities after school. I think this is a great way for them to see that they are being recognized.

An additional $1 million for British Columbia school districts for the fruit and vegetable nutritional program, which now benefits almost a half-million children in participating schools, including many in Burnaby.

On health care, I am proud to say that B.C. ranks third in the world for health performance. We just heard that last week. And it’s ranked the No. 1 province in Canada according to a recent report presented by the Conference Board of Canada. Health care is very important to our province. This is why our government invests nearly half of the total provincial budget in our health care system. In 2015, this year, health care funding, again, reaches a record level of $19.2 billion, more than double the amount spent in year 2000-2001.

I’m very grateful that our government is investing up to $12.5 million for the Canadian Cancer Society to establish a world-class cancer centre in Vancouver. Over the years, I’ve been helping a little bit here and there with the society, from daffodil sales in the mall to calling up for donations in their phone activities — pledges.

I note we will be also supporting hospice services for children and adults by doubling the number of beds by 2020 and supporting end-of-life care.

On transportation. To keep our economy growing, we must continue to enhance connectivity and mobility across our transportation networks. Since 2001 there has been over $16 billion invested in transportation infrastructure in B.C., including over $13 billion in provincial investments and $3 billion through federal and local partnerships.

This year a new ten-year comprehensive transportation plan, called B.C. on the Move…. This is a plan which will be released this year and will guide transportation improvements over the next ten years. We will continue to make affordable transportation investments in order to support growth in tourism, increased trading capacities with the world and all of our industries in B.C., such as forestry, mining, energy and oil and gas.

On clean energy, our government has committed to continue leadership on climate and energy policies, helping foster innovation as well as growth in the clean energy sector.

[1645]

I have received many calls for the clean-energy vehicle incentive program, so I’m very pleased to see that this program will be reintroduced in this this budget. — and also fuelling, charging and infrastructure for electric vehicles. I think those are good programs, which provide British Columbians an incentive when considering the variety of clean and green choices for their transportation needs. Of course, additional energy efficiency and conservation initiatives will also be implemented.

I would like to say a few words about skilled trades and training in our province. We have an incredible opportunity on the horizon. There are expected to be one million job openings in B.C. by 2022. More than 78 percent of those jobs will require some form of post-secondary education, and 44 percent of those jobs will be in skilled-trades and technical occupations.

We are re-engineering our education system, and training, so that B.C. students and workers have the skills to be the first in line for jobs in a growing economy. In fact, in BCIT institute in my riding we have committed to invest in them. We have funded 1,424 critical trades-training seats all across the province, including those in BCIT. BCIT is celebrating their 50th anniversary.

This year in January our government also announced that BCIT will also receive $421,500 for new trades-training equipment, which will support students to enter into the mining occupations critical to the economy. This equipment supports a lot of programs, including the machinist and millwright programs, the heavy mechanic program, the welding and pipefitting programs and also the carpentry programs, etc.

Moreover, the BCIT institute also receives $1.3 million from the government with $798,000 to fund an additional 272 trades-training seats and also $553,000
[ Page 5889 ]
in operating funds for minor equipment, such as tools. Recently more steam boilers, welding equipment and threading machines in those facilities will also be supported by this fund.

I also would like to say that other post-secondary institutions such as KPU — Kwantlen Polytechnic University — Vancouver Community College and Okanagan College will also receive a total of over $850,000 in trades-training equipment. Above funding is part of the B.C. skills-for-jobs blueprint commitment of $185 million over three years for trades-training infrastructure and equipment at post-secondary institutions.

Apart from the skilled-trades training, our government also supports research and development. In our province we have provided over $2 billion to research and innovation in B.C., leveraging an additional $1 billion in research funding for a total of $3 billion. We also support research infrastructure at universities, colleges and institutions, with over a half-billion dollars provided to date through the B.C. knowledge development fund.

Other organizations provided with research money from our government include Genome B.C. — $187 million — and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research — a total of $362 million.

In support of our economy to grow healthily, in order to ensure that we have sufficient resources to support the people in need in our province, it’s very important that we also support the policies which make life easier for families and children in B.C. For example, from September 1 this year child support payments will be fully exempted from income assistance calculations. This is an additional $32 million over three years for some of the neediest children and families in our province.

[1650]

I would like to say thank you to many of my constituents for bringing those issues to my attention as well. Since April 1 of this year nearly 180,000 families will begin receiving the B.C. early childhood tax benefit. Moreover, there will be a one-time payment of $1,200 for every child resident in B.C. born since January 1, 2007. I think it’s probably too late for my family to benefit from that.

On disability: in support of people with developmental disabilities and their families, we offer a vast majority of programs and services for them all across B.C. The total funding is more than $5 billion a year. Institutions like BACI in Burnaby are doing a lot of programs for people in need, and they’re doing a good job.

We are also protecting vulnerable women in our province. Our government invested another, for example, $32 million annually to support them with around 800 spaces in transition and safe houses as well as second-stage housing. Dixon Transition House in Burnaby is part of this network.

Since 2001 we also invested $3.6 billion to provide affordable housing for low-income individuals and seniors and families in communities across the province. More than 21,000 new units of affordable housing have been added. More than 19,000 new units are complete, and the remainder is in development or under construction.

For supporting homeless people, since 2006 we have doubled the number of provincially subsidized apartments and shelter spaces available for the homeless, to 11,000. For supporting aboriginal people, more than 4,200 housing units are specially designed to provide them with access to safe and secure housing. We are doing a lot in those areas.

Furthermore, we have over $100 million in additional money for Community Living B.C. Those are additional dollars, over $100 million more over the next three years to support people with developmental disabilities. In Burnaby we have been doing a lot of things to support the non-profit organizations.

I’d like to say that our government has once again demonstrated that with hard work in developing our diverse economy, due diligence and fiscal responsibility…. I think this is about discipline, how to control our spending so that we have the resources to support those in need in society.

I would also like to say that we have a vision, a vision to support people with disabilities. We have the vision to become the most progressive place for people with disabilities in Canada and are working to achieve this through our ten-year action plan. It’s called Accessibility 2024.

One of the most recent initiatives…. Starting in January 2015, B.C. will become the first province in Canada to ensure people receiving disability assistance are able to calculate their earnings on an annual basis instead of monthly, reducing those barriers to employment. That would be more people qualifying for assistance.

Another effective way of supporting the ones in need is to support non-profit organizations in the communities. Many of them are carrying out our services, and a lot of social services and community activities are carried out by them.

[1655]

I am very grateful to say that organizations in Burnaby have received nearly $5 million last year, since last April, to support their ongoing programs and services, thanks to our community gaming grant program. Just recently I was at the Down Syndrome Research Foundation to present a $150,000 cheque to them. Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion recently got $100,000. Burnaby Minor Hockey Association got $100,000.

Other organizations — for example, the Burnaby Hospice Society, the Burnaby Volunteer Centre Society, Burnaby Firefighters Charitable Association, Charlford House Society for Women, Burnaby Fellowship Centre Society, Helping Families in Need Society, Burnaby Minor Lacrosse Club, Burnaby Seniors Outreach Services Society and including the Burnaby Lyric Opera Society — all received support from the gaming fund.
[ Page 5890 ]

Our recent investment in the community of Burnaby included half a million dollars to Simon Fraser University Childcare Society to create 24 spaces for children aged three to five in the SFU child care centre and $180,000 to Burnaby school district for a boiler replacement program in Aubrey Elementary and Forest Grove Elementary. All these investments help to make our community more healthy and vibrant.

Our government once again is creating a balanced budget by controlling spending. We have achieved this in Canada — one of the few. Other jurisdictions can’t even do it. I feel very comfortable at the prospect of our economy, with continuous growth in the different sectors and the great opportunity brought about by our diverse industry, which will create business and job opportunities for B.C.

I recently saw some support for our budget by our associations. For example, the Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C. yesterday put forward a press release to support our budget this year.

“‘We are pleased to see the Minister of Finance is continuing the commitment to balance the books and generate modest budget surpluses over the next three years,’ said Richard Rees, the president and CEO of CPABC. ‘With surpluses anticipated, the government will be able to pay down the province’s direct operating debt — the so-called credit card debt — by more than 50 percent, to $4.8 billion. This will in turn bring down the debt-to-GDP ratio to 16.6 percent in 2017-18, the lowest level since 1991.’”

The B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association put forward a press release yesterday. “The B.C. Road Builders are encouraged by the government’s recognition of investment in infrastructure in building a strong economy and creating jobs. While recognizing the need to fund health care, education and important social services, the budget also has provisions for building the infrastructure needed to support and expand our economy.” So the association offered its support for this 2015 budget, presented yesterday.

I also would like to give a quote from our local organization in Burnaby, the Burnaby Board of Trade. The president and CEO, Paul Holden, was in Victoria yesterday for the release of the new provincial budget, and he attended the budget speech by the Finance Minister in person right here.

“The BBOT is generally supportive of this stay-the-course budget and is especially pleased to see the province announce another balanced budget with a strong surplus.”

[1700]

I also quote from one of the statements, a paragraph in the press release.

“The BBOT believes that a balanced provincial budget serves to illustrate the strength of the B.C. economy and helps sets the province apart as an attractive place to do business when compared to other jurisdictions.”

This is a publication from the Burnaby Board of Trade, in their policy bulletin.

From the same press release, there’s another quote which is really specific to Burnaby.

“The budget also included important supports for the digital media and film and television industries, among others, which are two of Burnaby’s key business sectors. The BBOT has advocated in the past for additional supports for these industries and was therefore pleased to see the government announce an expansion of the digital animation or visual effects tax credit, as well as announce an extension to 2018 of the interactive digital media tax credit.

“The BBOT understands the importance of both the digital media and film and television sectors as cornerstones of our creative economy and will continue to advocate on their behalf.”

Those are very positive comments from the boards of trade and the industry sectors. I’m very pleased, as I said, to be part of this government, to have this balanced budget introduced. I’m very pleased to be part of this.

I would like to, at the end, give you another quote, by Andrey Pavlov. He’s a professor of finance at the Beedie School of Business at Simon Fraser University: “This balanced budget is good for all of us. I am pleasantly surprised that the government kept its promise to roll back the highest marginal tax rate to 2013 levels. While the actual tax implications are small, this sends a highly positive signal that our government is consistent and reliable.”

I support this balanced budget.

L. Popham: We’ve been in the Legislature for the last two weeks, and from what I’ve seen so far between the throne speech and the budget speech, the B.C. Liberals should really try and get nominated for an Academy Award for their personal performance of “Fifty Shades of Reality.”

Last week we got a throne speech that was not worth the time we spent listening — as the Leader of the Opposition said, time we’ll never get back. This throne speech was out of touch with reality for so many British Columbians. It painted a picture so vague that even Martyn Brown, ex-Premier Gordon Campbell’s chief of staff, couldn’t help but express his opinion by using a Thomas Edison quote: “A vision without execution is hallucination.” Many went even further by stating: “There wasn’t even a vision — just hallucination.”

Since the last election we’ve heard much about the tooth fairy–esque LNG dream — you know, the one where you put everything you’ve got under your pillow before you go to sleep at night and hope it pays off by morning. Every morning this government wakes up, looks under their pillows, takes a deep sigh and goes back to sleep. “Maybe tomorrow.”

It’s a shade of reality that manages to contradict real life in such an extreme way that even the B.C. Liberals have started to tone it down. They have toned down their “Wow, did we really say that?” predictions to a new message box: “We’re going to hope like hell this happens, or this is going to be a major screwup.” Basically, they’re just being forced to back-pedal on the Premier’s central preoccupation with LNG.

I now want to talk about B.C.’s diversified economy. The “all the eggs in one basket” approach is looking pretty amateurish, and now, according to the budget speech, they are adding a few more baskets to their collection.

[1705]

We all know it’s probably just Easter window dressing, and they’re hoping that the Easter bunny can help spread the word, but we know that with the B.C. Liberals, talk is cheap. This “Fifty Shades of Reality” government offers minimal solutions to the problems people and families are facing every day.

Every one of us runs a constituency office in this province. Every one of us knows about the types of issues coming through the door. Many of our constituents are people in crisis looking to us for solutions. Why was this government high-fiving itself all day yesterday, smug as all get-out?

Whether it be the need for housing, trouble finding a family doctor, concern for an ill family member trying to get care in a hospital hallway…. Maybe it’s a single parent struggling to find affordable child care so that they can work. We’ve seen people trying to raise a family at the same time as caring for a parent with dementia or Alzheimer’s. What about our constituents who are suffering from mental health problems, who are not able to navigate the system or get the care that they desperately need?

Who of us has not tried to find help for those in a crisis, only to come face to face with the B.C. Liberals’ dominant shade of reality — too little too late for too few? I bet we all have, every sitting MLA, every one of our 85 MLAs or, at least, every member who does not look away when confronted with the painful reality of those who need it most.

Only a “Fifty Shades of Reality” government celebrates success on budget day when in reality they’re depending on other people’s charity, like food banks and volunteer societies, as a critical part of social assistance. How fabulous to tell our province, as the Finance Minister did yesterday, that the government is sticking the course. How proud he is that he can claim to have balanced another budget. It’s something to celebrate, I guess, if you’re in the 2 percent.

The shade of reality experienced by most in B.C. is that wages are falling or stagnant. Young people are finding it hard to get good jobs here. Many of us have friends and family who are being forced apart to find employment in other provinces and countries.

While our economy has changed, our export intensity is still among the weakest in Canada. It’s heavily reliant on low-value commodities, but I didn’t hear anything about that in the budget. We in the opposition have made a case for a value-added economy, but it’s not something the B.C. Liberals are interested in at all.

In forestry we’ve expanded markets in China for B.C. lumber, but we keep shipping out raw logs while domestic mills starve. The value-added sector has been decimated, and the government has no strategy to bring it back. The unintended consequences of this type of thinking have an effect all around the province. Just ask farmers who are having trouble finding local sawdust for bedding or for blueberry plant mulch.

Our forests represent a quarter-trillion asset owned by the people of British Columbia, yet under the B.C. Liberals we get less and less and less — less jobs, less revenue — out of every tree that we cut. Half of the province’s independent, value-added wood processors have gone out of business since 2002. The ones who survive need government policy changes that will give them fair access to timber and fair access to the U.S. market.

Listening to the throne speech last week, I must admit I was surprised to hear members opposite trying to excite themselves once again with another repetition of their promise to reduce red tape.

The members opposite claim to hate red tape. Since 2001 they have been promising to cut red tape and congratulating themselves for a job well done along the way. Whenever the topic comes up, they huff and puff and beat their chests, yet today look at them. They sit clearly exhausted from all those years of backslapping, glad-handing and high-fiving each other for all their supposed cutting of red tape.

They’re able to only muster heckles and catcalls, wasting everybody’s time. Yet amazingly, we learn in this throne speech, those are the years of cutting red tape. After all those years, they still haven’t finished the job. They’ve had 14 years to cut red tape, and they still haven’t got the job done. This is clear evidence of incompetence, but it also shows that the B.C. Liberals can’t tell the difference between red tape on one hand and regulations essential to protecting public good and the environment on the other.

[1710]

Truth be told, much of what they call red tape is actually important and necessary regulation, like protections for vulnerable farmworkers — cuts to inspections of farmworker transportation led to an increase in terrible accidents like the one that killed three farmworkers in the Fraser Valley — or critical environmental regulations, like inspections and standards at mines, the kinds of regulations that were cut prior to the disaster at Mount Polley, a disaster where 25 million cubic metres of contaminated water and mine waste spilled into the surrounding waterways.

Despite their posturing, this B.C. Liberal government has unrolled miles and miles of their own red tape. There’s no better example of this than Multi-Material B.C. Last year the B.C. government gave MMBC monopoly-like powers on almost all of the residential recycling programs in B.C. In doing so, the government gave MMBC the power to demand, with the authority of the government, over $100 million annually from businesses operating in B.C. — another example of an indirect taxation.

To collect all this money, MMBC has forced a huge reporting and accounting regime onto B.C. businesses. How much new red tape are we talking about? The Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently gave MMBC a prize. MMBC won the top prize as one
[ Page 5892 ]
of the two worst red-tape offenders in the whole, entire country.

With one hand, the members opposite wave scissors in the air, boasting of their red-tape cutting skills. With the other hand, they tie new red tape tightly around B.C. businesses. If this government was sincere about reducing red tape, it would stop fighting our work to have the Auditor General review MMBC. Can this government be trusted when it talks about cutting red tape? No, and MMBC is the proof of that.

In the energy sector the B.C. Liberal government is making a risky $9 billion gamble by moving ahead with Site C without the hard numbers on the cost of this project or how it compares to alternative energy sources. B.C. Hydro should be studying how distributed projects in solar panels, geothermal, advances in building energy efficiencies can create more jobs around the province and provide greener power. Those are just the beginning of the questions that need to be answered and investigated. But they won’t be answered, because the B.C. Utilities Commission will not have a say.

If this project were to go ahead, it would come with huge sacrifices. There would be profound impacts on First Nations, massive loss of agricultural land and natural habitat that would be changed forever without actually knowing if we need Site C or if it’s a sound investment. How can we accept the changes that would affect our province forever?

Not sending the project to the BCUC for a proper cost-benefit analysis before spending at least $8 billion to $10 billion is irresponsible and unacceptable, but this is exactly what this government’s doing. Also, we will not have a chance to make the argument for our food-growing lands. Five thousand hectares of prime agriculture land in the Peace River would be flooded, and that’s hugely significant. Climate change means that we must update B.C.’s agricultural plan, and we’d be fools not to, given the state of the regions that we source from. Look at the recent history of drought in California. It’s devastating food production in that state and having continental impacts.

I believe that protecting and increasing B.C.’s food self-sufficiency should be a top priority for this government. Instead, the B.C. Liberals spent the last year removing protection for 90 percent of farmland in British Columbia.

B.C. has great potential. It’s been squandered by a Premier who puts her friends first, like wasting $350,000 on social media during the education labour dispute. The Minister of Education can make any claims he wants about public education — his own shades of reality. My kid has spent his entire educational career in the Premier’s era of attacking public education. As a parent, I’ve seen the reality of the damage she’s done firsthand over the last decade.

In order to treat public education the way it should be handled…. For starters, it’s to believe in it. You would have to truly believe that public education makes a stronger and more equal society. You have to truly believe that public education is the great equalizer. That would mean that you would have to have a vision of creating the largest middle-class population possible, making a society most equal and most resilient as it can be. But that’s not what those high fives were about yesterday.

[1715]

Now let’s get into the nitty-gritty of the Agriculture budget. Let’s start with what’s going on in agriculture in general. From my perspective, something is going wrong. Something just doesn’t make sense when we have more people than we’ve ever had on this planet, hungry people, yet farmers from around the world are struggling to make a living.

For over 50 years we’ve been transitioning into a more corporate global industrial model, a model that is touted as the model which is the only way to feed the world. Yet approximately one million children starve to death every year on this planet. So what is wrong?

Don’t get me wrong. I understand the global marketplace, I understand free enterprise, and I understand business. The B.C. Liberals like to claim that they have cornered the market on that philosophy. Yet they have walked away from one of the largest, most sustainable, economically viable sectors we have in B.C., and that’s the agriculture and food sector.

I think one of the problems is that with accepting the corporate agriculture model, which we see more so in the United States, and abandoning the other things that agriculture offers to communities, we abandon the community of agriculture, the culture of agriculture and the stewardship of agriculture.

I know that sustainable agriculture is successful and strong. When we support it, we have stronger communities. When we abandon real, on-the-ground agriculture in our communities across our province, we abandon the smaller economic drivers that make our communities whole. We lose economic potential in places like 100 Mile when we don’t support agriculture the way we should.

I’ve talked a lot in this chamber about procurement policies and the potential opportunities they open up. Look at the southwestern bioregion, which includes $50 million worth of purchasing annually just for hospital meals. That’s a real-life example of what we’re purchasing. Most of it comes from outside our province.

If we had a procurement policy that required 30 percent of all government-purchased meals to be grown, produced and processed in B.C., we would see the value of what we have as an economic driver. That would include all hospital meals, long-term-care meals, prison meals, etc. It adds up to an enormous amount that we’re already spending. It makes sense to be buying some of that at home.

With establishing this type of procurement contract, there is a built-in market established, and we can use dollars we already spend to incent value-added process-
[ Page 5893 ]
ing in B.C. We all know we have walked away from that in this province. Why? Well, the argument I hear most is that our labour force is too expensive, that we can’t afford to process here. My argument is that we can’t afford not to. Other jurisdictions are doing this, and they are seeing excellent results.

It’s politics, not impartial analysis, that led this government to focus on LNG to the exclusion of all other sectors in this province. It’s politics, and not a commitment to community and the environment, that pushes this government to sidestep agriculture. It’s politics right now that refuses to acknowledge that our agricultural potential in B.C. has not even come close to being tapped into.

Farmers know that climate change affects what we do. Farmers are on the ground, and they see it with their own eyes. Whether you believe it’s human-caused or not, we must take steps to mitigate the effects of climate change and to prepare ourselves the best that we can.

We must act to take advantage of the economic opportunities that will open up because of where we are situated in the world, but that’s not what this government is doing. When it comes to agriculture, this government has a plan, but it’s not a plan that makes agriculture stronger. It’s a plan to make sure that agriculture doesn’t get in the way of more important priorities.

In this budget we see that the dollars remain about the same on the surface. We’ve got about $80 million. Just so we’re all clear, in 2010 we had $85 million for Agriculture. The piecemeal strategy of the B.C. Liberal agriculture plan is alive and well. Although there is relief for the B.C. fruit tree industry, we see the B.C. nut industry being ignored and decimated due to lack of support or concern.

[1720]

This is not surprising, because this government doesn’t consider food security a topic of concern. “Let’s just order in, shall we?”

When you start to dig down, you realize that any new announcements of project funding are going to have to come from somewhere else in the existing Agriculture budget. Where is it going to come from? To me, it looks like the war declared on the agricultural land reserve is continuing along well.

The Agricultural Land Commission budget is being reduced by 3.1 percent. This is quite surprising, because anybody who has watched the past six months of obscene behaviour by this government with regards to the ALR and ALC will know very well that the new regional panel system set up by the Minister of Agriculture — most likely due to strict orders from the Minister for Core Review and his buddy, the MLA for Peace River North — is going to cost double what the old system cost.

Just think about how ironic that is. The Minister for Core Review did a review on the Agricultural Land Commission looking for efficiencies, as is the usual mandate of a core review, and came up with a system that’s going to cost a heck of a lot more.

Now, that’s baffling on the surface. But if you put the puzzle pieces together — and it’s a pretty basic puzzle — what would make more sense if one wanted to guarantee that agricultural land wasn’t such a pain when it came to priorities of this government? What would be better than putting a new system in place that “is more susceptible to political interference”?

If you need the inconvenience of agricultural land reserve moved out of the way for the LNG parade, then you better make sure you get control of the panels making the decisions on those exclusions. And there you have it, folks. Mission almost complete.

How will the commission fulfil its mandate now? The Auditor General made it very clear a few years back that the ALC was unable to fulfil its mandate because it was underfunded. The solution to this, in the eyes of today’s B.C. Liberals, is to jack up the operating costs of the commission and whittle down the budget. How tricky.

One day, when we talk about growing the economy in this province, just maybe “growing” will refer to our agriculture sector, as it should. So there you have it. The “Fifty Shades of Reality” of the 2015 budget is hardly a reflection of everyday life in B.C.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I am delighted to get up and speak to the budget and the implications of this budget on the people of British Columbia. But I can’t help but suggest that the previous member for Saanich South and the so-called tie to shades of whatever is an indication of how she wanders around in the fog and has not got her facts straight on many of the things that she referred to.

I think it was an inappropriate reference, and one that I think is not becoming of this House and the people who serve here, especially as a member of the House whose responsibility is to honour all people in our society. I was sorry that I heard that, and I think she should reflect on making that analogy one to talk about the budget speech.

That being said, we find ourselves at a place in the province of British Columbia where we are now with the third balanced budget that ensures the economic health and stability of this province for every single citizen. This is not about the elite. It is not about anything other than ensuring that we protect the fiscal environment in the province of British Columbia, that we keep promises we made. As the Minister of Finance said, those changes that were made, were made two years ago.

[1725]

The opposition voted against it at that time, and then they are claiming that we are doing something that we didn’t say we were going to do in a promise that we kept.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Members.
[ Page 5894 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I find it interesting….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Let’s have one speaker at a time, please.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I find it interesting that the members of the opposition will cherry-pick certain elements without even really understanding the impact of previous budgets and how they got us to the place of stability that we are at today.

The people of British Columbia — the taxpayers, the parents, the seniors, those on limited incomes — expect one thing from government. That is to take leadership. That is to really have a clear vision of where we need to go as a province and how we’re going to get there — how we protect the taxpayers when it comes to important elements like our credit rating, how it is important for people to know clearly where we want to go and how we’re going to get there. The budget reflects not only the vision of this government, but it reflects a clear path on how to get there.

I heard the previous speaker talk about “you have to care about education in order to be able to talk about it.” I know that this government, and I believe every member of the House, does care about the future of every young person. What we don’t agree with is the path on how to get there.

Let me give you an example. We had a labour dispute that the government didn’t want. We wanted to negotiate a settlement. We worked hard to get a negotiated settlement. It was not the government that took the teachers out on strike. It was their union. You know what? That is their democratic right to use the tools at their disposal to make their point. But to try and blame the government for a protracted strike is totally incorrect.

We were prepared. We were at the table whenever the BCTF was prepared to sit down and meaningfully negotiate with the negotiators at the table. The proof is in the pudding. It’s very clear that the government clearly said we want a negotiated settlement. We are not going to legislate. We are not going to listen to the opposition when they cry for binding arbitration, where neither the union nor the government on behalf of taxpayers had control over the public purse, which we’re charged to look after.

I find it interesting that the members opposite, now faced with the longest negotiated settlement in the history of the province, are critical of the government and saying that we created a climate where there was a strike. No, we created a climate where we clearly laid out the plan. We clearly laid out the fact that we needed to get a negotiated settlement to have stability, not for the government, but for every student, every parent and every teacher in the province. We believed, and do to this day, that the teachers of this province deserved a fair settlement that was negotiated at a table that took into account their needs and also the realities that the government has to consider on the taxpayers’ ability to pay.

Not only that, but we have the most negotiated settlements with public sector unions that we’ve ever had. Not only were we able to negotiate them; we also built in incentives. So if, indeed, what we say is going to happen — where our budget is going to be strong, where our future is strong, where economic growth is going to happen — we will provide the opportunity for all of those people in the public sector to share in the benefits of a growing economy. That is built into each and every one of those agreements.

I can assure you that if we had followed the NDP’s lead and had it arbitrated, that provision wouldn’t be in there, and every public sector worker in this province would not benefit from it. That’s why we stuck to our guns. That’s why we have a long-term negotiated settlement.

[1730]

Let me also say this, and I say it with all sincerity. I and our government absolutely respect the work of dedicated teachers throughout this province. I think one of the unfortunate things through any labour dispute is that suggestions are made that we don’t care about those people, that we’re trying to download more onto them that they can’t handle.

Exactly the opposite. The previous budget and this budget, taking into account the settlement that we were able to make, provides more money into education than we’ve ever had in this province — since 2001, $1.2 billion more than was spent in 2001.

Not only that. We’ve put some unique funds into the education system. The learning improvement fund has been increased to deal with the very issues that teachers have talked to me about and talked to many of my colleagues about. That is class composition. We have put money there to hire more teachers, more specialist teachers, more learning-assistance teachers in classrooms to deal with the special needs that exist in classrooms. We recognize that, and we’re investing in it.

Budget 2015 is our third consecutive balanced budget. We’re also on track to develop a surplus.

Now, I’ve heard it said in this House by members opposite: “Why don’t you take that surplus and invest it?” That is a typical NDP philosophy when it comes to finances. “If you’ve got the money, spend it.” And then, guess what. “Spend more, because if you just keep spending, everything will be wonderful.”

The reality is that this province would be bankrupt if we took that philosophy. That’s why the Minister of Finance, the Premier and the members of government have said we need a sound fiscal plan. We need to ensure that we manage that plan and that we also protect the interests of every British Columbian by keeping taxes low.

I’ve heard the discussion that we’re favouring a few. We favour small to medium business who are the great-
[ Page 5895 ]
est generators of employment in this province. How do we do that? By keeping their taxes low, by ensuring that they’re able to survive and continue to be able to provide jobs to the people who need them. There are people that are working in the province of British Columbia, in every community, because we have a sound fiscal plan, and we have a sound fiscal policy moving forward.

I believe that Budget 2015 has some remarkable things in it. Even at a time where oil prices are down, where revenues to governments are down, this government has been able to bring in a balanced budget.

All we need to do…. I invite members opposite to maybe read some things, watch the news once in a while, except their own clips, and see what’s going on in the province of Alberta. See the discussions that are going on, because they did exactly what the NDP would like us to do — to throw the fiscal policy to the wind.

I recognize that the province of Alberta made their decisions based on what they believed their revenue would be, but they have now found that that has changed almost overnight. Now they’re having a lot of different discussions than they had before.

If you look at Manitoba, an NDP government, and what they did and what kind of fiscal shape they’re in…. With the same attitude that we hear from members opposite, they are in trouble. Ontario is facing a number of those same challenges.

We are the only province that years ago said: “We’ve got a clear fiscal plan, a clear fiscal policy.”

We are going to build on that policy, and we’re going to make some hard decisions. But we’re doing it for one thing, and that is not to bankrupt the future economy of this province at the expense of every young person and every grandchild that I have, for their future, by saying: “Well, we’ll just spend, and you can worry about how to pay for it later.”

[1735]

That is not the way you build a sound policy. That is not the way you build a future for a province.

Because of our fiscal discipline, we’ve been able to find opportunities for investments. I hear the members opposite saying: “Oh, they are not doing anything for anyone.” Well, I’m going to…. I love to do this, Mr. Speaker, so you’ll bear with me, I know. Facts usually refute the kind of rhetoric that we’ve been hearing.

For example, on capital spending and seismic upgrades. I heard those comments from the Leader of the Opposition earlier today. Since 2001 we’ve committed more than $4.2 billion — that’s with a “b” — on school capital and maintenance projects throughout British Columbia. That’s $4.2 billion.

To date we’ve completed 108 — that’s 108 — new and replacement schools, 152 additions, 29 renovations and 27 site acquisitions. Why did we do that? That is to build for the future. That is to provide the kind of infrastructure that we need so that students have schools to go to.

I look at some of the growing districts — the one that I happen to serve in the city of Surrey — and there are 37 projects that are already underway in this province and growing districts. Mr. Speaker, $848 million to fund those projects in districts that include Surrey, Coquitlam — oh, not all Liberal ridings — greater Victoria, Sooke, Nanaimo-Ladysmith and New Westminster. To suggest that we are not investing in every community in this province is totally incorrect.

In Surrey — and again, I’ll get a little more specific — since 2001 we’ve invested more than $290 million in 49 projects and seismic upgrades, as well as 12 site acquisitions in the Surrey school district. Let me say this: have we met all the needs? No, we haven’t. We recognize how quickly a community like Surrey is growing. Fifteen hundred people per month come into the city of Surrey. I defy anyone that, five or six or ten years ago, would have predicted that kind of growth.

But you know what? People are coming into the city of Surrey, coming into the province of British Columbia, because they have confidence that they’re coming into a community and a province that is going to meet the needs of their families, whether it be in education, whether it be in health care or any of the other things that they need.

You know what? I know that already this last year we completed capital projects in Surrey to add over 1,660 student spaces worth a total of $44.5 million, two new elementary schools — Goldstone Parkelementary and Katzie elementary — plus additions to Fraser Heights and Panorama Ridge.

Last August we also committed another $64.6 million for Clayton North secondary in addition to three other elementary schools, and all of those things will create another 1,870 spaces. Is it enough? Absolutely not. But we are making strategic and targeted investments because we have a budget and a fiscal environment where we can do that in communities that need it.

Again, I have heard a lot about protecting students and their needs in classrooms. I just want to, again, put a few facts for the members opposite, and if they have their notepads, they can make notes.

[1740]

The six-year completion rate for special needs students in this province has increased by 86.2 percent and now is at 62.2 percent. It has increased because of a focus on meeting those needs. Is it where it should be? Absolutely not. We still have more work to do. Hence, we have our learning improvement fund. Hence, why the five-year collective agreement’s stability allows us to work with teachers throughout the province to meet the needs.

It also commits $125 million over the next five years to the learning improvement fund. Let me repeat that. That’s $125 million per year over the next five years, the life of this agreement, for us to work with the BCTF and teachers throughout this province to address class composition.
[ Page 5896 ]

To suggest that the Premier promised something that we are not living up to is, again, a complete travesty. We are meeting the need. We are focused on it, and we are giving the tools to school districts and administrators in schools and to teachers in the classroom to deal with that. When you look at the increase in teaching assistants, CUPE workers albeit…. But when you see the increase to give the teachers the help they need in the classroom, that is, again, dealing with class composition, not ignoring it.

You know what? There are now 9,400 educational assistants working in schools in this province — 9,400 — an increase to provide support of 2,800 full-time positions. That is 42 percent since 2001. So to suggest that we are not dealing with or investing in that issue…. We are.

In addition to this, of the $500 million that we built into our agreement, there is $400 million for a new educational fund to be used exclusively to hire more teachers, to hire teachers with specific skills and to increase their assignments to be able to deal with issues of composition. The educational assistants that I spoke about are also working to help us develop career programs, aboriginal education and special education programs.

I know that a balanced budget gives us the opportunity to do that. It gives us the confidence. It gives the confidence to the private sector to continue to invest in the province, so we can build our resources to make sure — not only in education but in health care and in other social services — that we can continue to meet the needs of the future.

We talk about our surpluses, and one of the worst things that we could do — and the Minister of Finance spoke to this — is to squander our surpluses to get votes. We’re not doing that. We are ensuring, like every family should, that they have the ability to meet the changes in their economic environment. That’s what we did. When the rest of the world was finding themselves at the place of almost bankruptcy — we’ve seen countries that have faced that — we have a solid foundation with a solid surplus that is going to protect us.

Last year alone, the forest fires in this province created a significant drain on the provincial economy. But you know what? The contingencies that we have in our fiscal plan allowed us to be able to deal with that. Nobody wants those kinds of situations, but we have to be ready for them. And we can’t mortgage our future by saying: “Well, we’ll just deal with it if it happens.” We know that these things happen, and we’re prepared to prepare for them.

When I think about five years of stability in the K-to-12 sector, I think about our opportunity to change the dynamic that has existed in this province for far too long.

[1745]

We had a forum just recently in Vancouver, and we invited representatives of the BCTF, the BCSTA, the B.C. Parent Advisory Councils. We invited the business community. We invited post-secondary educators. We invited people from a cross-section of our province to come in and talk about the future. We invited some experts from around the world to come and talk to us about where we sit in relationship to the rest of the world.

They said clearly that British Columbia is seen as one of the leaders, but they also said to us something that we knew, and that is: “You need to prepare for the future. You need to look at innovation. You need to look at educational transformation. And you need to do that in cooperation with all of the stakeholders that you have in your province.”

That’s why we invited that cross-section of people. I even heard the president of the BCTF, as we talked about innovation zones and some of the great things that are going on in the province…. When we talked about unique things that teachers throughout the province are doing, he said: “This is really good. We need to do more of it, but we need to have more money.” But you know what? The underlying message there from some of our guests that came and spoke to us: “Perhaps you need to look at what you have and use it more effectively.”

That is why, even in this budget, a very modest attempt on our part to work with the school districts, to realize a 0.05 — or maybe for those opposite who can’t figure out what that is, that’s a half a percent — on a $5 billion budget. We are saying that we are going to work together to find administrative savings. We’ve been talking about this, working on it, and quite honestly, there are some districts already that are doing a great job.

We’re going to build on best practices. We’re going to continue to focus on how we can find efficiencies. I don’t believe there’s a taxpayer in British Columbia that says to us: “Oh no, don’t look at how you might do it more efficiently. Don’t look at how you might be able to reallocate funds to where the priorities are.” That is at the heart of that policy and philosophy. We’ve been working with the school districts already to look at that, and we’ve made some great progress and more to come.

I think that one-half of 1 percent on a $5 billion budget is achievable, it’s realistic, it could be managed within our current fiscal environment, and the school districts can partner with us — because at the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer.

When you look at the budget again, the $564 million over the three-year term of the budget that we are investing in education includes the 33 percent increase in the learning improvement fund. That is because we have long-term stability in the system and we can work together with the BCTF and teachers. When you look at the increase in education spending, since 2001 — and I said it earlier — $1.2 billion more. And that is at a time when we have declining enrolment of over 75,000 students in this province.

Over that same period we have continued to still invest. We have the highest per-pupil spending that we’ve ever had in the province. We continue to work on initia-
[ Page 5897 ]
tives like the training and education savings grant, where parents and grandparents can invest in the future of their children’s education.

The government took the lead on that. This coming August parents will be able to apply for that. We have the support of the federal government and financial institutions to make sure that that investment by the province of B.C. is a kick-start for their children’s future education.

It’s always a challenge when you are government and you have to come in with a budget that recognizes the realities of the fiscal environment around the world and around us.

[1750]

What I do know is that the Minister of Finance, clearly, worked with cabinet colleagues, worked with other stakeholders, looked at what it was going to take to keep us on a sound fiscal plan.

I hear the members of the opposition talking about what we took away, but they forget that two years ago that was part of the budget. Now they’re dragging it up because they want the people of B.C. to think that we’re doing something that is unfair and unequitable. They’re dead wrong. They are dead wrong, and their figures don’t work.

They don’t know what fiscal planning and budgeting is all about. Their philosophy is: “Spend, spend, spend. Doesn’t matter. Raise taxes. Let’s raise taxes. Let’s put it on the backs of the people of British Columbia.”

I know they’re upset because they have nothing of any substance to offer. We have a balanced budget. We are proud of that balanced budget, and I support it, in the interest of every single taxpayer in this province.

K. Conroy: It’s interesting. The member for Surrey-Fleetwood said that this budget reflects a vision of the province. If that is indeed a fact, then I think most British Columbians see a vision that supports the wealthiest 2 percent of people in this province.

Now, I’ve heard ten different budgets presented in this House. I have to say, in keeping with the hockey theme from the Finance Minister, I think this one should have been sent back down to the farm team or the minors for some retweaking, or at least some intensive coaching.

Retweaking to rethink. Who is going to benefit the most from this budget? Will that be the hard-working British Columbians who struggle to make ends meet? Or will it be the wealthiest 2 percent, who will get an over $230 million tax break — a tax break they didn’t even ask for, yet they’re getting it.

While the minister talks about having a surplus, we need to ask: at what cost? Who has paid for this surplus in the budget? It’s obvious it’s not those 2 percent, who could afford it. No, it’s the rest of the province who have to pay for more and more. All the while, their wages aren’t keeping up.

B.C. is dead last when it comes to median wage growth. In fact, median wages are going down in this province. From 2006 to 2012 B.C. wages actually fell by 2.4 percent. Today the only provinces with a lower median income than B.C. are the Atlantic provinces.

Let’s not forget this Premier promised more jobs. The reality is that job growth has been incredibly slow since she launched her jobs plan — seventh place in Canada. British Columbia now has the lowest employment rate west of the Maritimes — the lowest in the country.

Since the Premier was sworn in, more than 38,000 people in B.C. have simply given up looking for work. More than 150,000 of the jobs lost during the 2008 recession have not been replaced. People are not finding jobs.

It’s fine to say we have lower taxes, but again, at what cost? This Budget 2015 makes lower- and middle-income families pay more in hidden taxes, fees and fares. Again, the highest-paid 2 percent are getting a $230 million tax break they didn’t even ask for.

MSP, hydro, ICBC, ferry fares, tuition and tobacco taxes are all going up, while the homeowner grant is going down. This equals a $1.1 billion hidden tax increase this year. This Liberal government says it’s not increasing taxes, but a $1.1 billion hidden tax increase has to come from somewhere, and that’s right from the pockets of hard-working British Columbians.

Let’s look at some of those fees that are costing British Columbians more. MSP premiums have doubled under the B.C. Liberals. For an average family in 2001, their MSP premium was $864 a year, and today it is over $1,700 a year, a 100 percent increase.

[1755]

In 2001 hydro costs were an average of $710 a year; and today, over $1,200 — a 74 percent increase. ICBC has gone up too. Folks that used to pay $518 in 2001 now pay $747 — an increase of 44 percent. Just those three increases can mean an average cost of over $1,600 a year to families in B.C.

That doesn’t even take into account that ferry fares have increased — and doubled on some routes. Even camping fees have gone up. It used to be that camping was an affordable way for families with kids to get away and have a holiday. But for more and more people, that just isn’t so.

I have people tell me they wouldn’t mind paying a little bit extra if they were at least just getting better service for it. B.C. is still the only province in Canada to charge medical service premiums, and they are continually increasing them — like I said, increasing them at a 100 percent rate.

MSP for a family has doubled what middle-income families pay in income tax. The rates increased 4 percent on January 1 of this year and will increase again each year by 4 percent — supposedly tied to health spending growth, even though the growth has been lower in recent years. The bottom line is that it’s an incredibly unfair system.

I have been raising this issue in this House for a number of years now, asking: why do people who make
[ Page 5898 ]
$30,000 a year pay the exact same amount as someone who’s paid $100,000 a year? It’s an unfair and extremely regressive tax on the people of this province. Again, the medical service tax has doubled since the Liberals have come into power.

Even though people are paying more, they are getting less — people who can’t even find a family doctor, as my colleague from New Westminster has so eloquently stated. In 2010 the government promised that every British Columbian would have access to a family doctor by 2015. That was the GP for Me program, and the Premier recommitted to doing that in the 2013 election.

Well, here we are. It’s 2015. Does every British Columbian have a family doctor? Not even close. Hundreds of thousands of people are having to line up at walk-in clinics for their basic medical care. That’s if they even have a walk-in clinic in their community to access. We know full well that there are very few or no drop-in clinics in many of the communities in the Interior. So where do people go? To the emergency. What does that cost?

I know it’s a real concern for people in the Interior. Communities are working with the health authorities to try to get family doctors to set up practice. It’s a frequent request in our constituency office: “Could you please help me get a family doctor?” Doctor’s offices themselves are asking for help to get through the process the government has in place to bring doctors in. Maybe they should look at cutting some of the red tape there.

In a province as wealthy as B.C., why do we still have overcrowded emergency rooms, people in hospital hallways waiting for care or spending weeks in a shower room instead of a proper room with facilities, like a toilet? Or is hallway medicine the new normal? Have we gone from the days of health care in the Tim Hortons to care in the hallways or shower room? Something to be proud of? I think not.

The Finance Minister said the province has to be innovative and explore new ways of delivering health care services, which seems to mean in this province that they’ll provide care in hallways or in shower rooms — again, nothing to be proud of.

The minister also reannounced the funds put into hospice facilities last year, which was a good thing for the communities that received them. There was no announcement for funding for hospice in the interior of the province though — communities that desperately need it. In the West Kootenays there aren’t any stand-alone hospice services. So the region is working together to build a facility in Castlegar. The city itself has even donated land for the facility to be built on.

I’m hoping that the phrase in the budget speech, “the government will provide additional funding to support hospice services for children and adults as part of our work towards doubling the number of beds by 2020,” is actually going to mean that needed funds will be coming to the Kootenays. I truly hope it’s not another empty promise.

I know the Liberals like to blame the government of the ’90s for everything wrong in this province. But here’s the reality. After 15 years of Liberal rule, you would think they would get it right, that they should have had enough time to right those so-called wrongs. Or are they just looking for a scapegoat to cover their own mistakes? It’s a common theme with this Premier that she’ll say one thing, do another and always find someone else to blame for their mistakes.

Many seniors in this province are still not getting the care they need. They need care in a proper facility for seniors and not in acute care hospital settings. Or just ensure proper home support. The government has been promising proper care for seniors for years, and it’s just not happening.

[1800]

Long-term-care maximum rates have increased by 93 percent since 2003, or as much as $13,500 a year. This government also changed the rate structure that requires seniors to pay 80 percent of their income for fees. Explain that to a couple who still live at home with one income, and suddenly one of them has to go into long-term care, pay 80 percent of their income but still needs to maintain their family home as the spouse doesn’t qualify for long-term care or is healthy enough to stay in the family home.

Sure, families are told they need to ask for a hardship exclusion, but we are often talking about seniors who have lived their entire lives never asking for anything and have a great deal of pride in that. To take their dignity from them with this fee structure is a sad commentary on how we treat our seniors.

Now seniors are paying an additional $75 deductible per year for prescription drugs, while all British Columbians are paying out of pocket for services previously covered, like eye exams, physiotherapy, chiropractic care or massage therapy.

Now, some folks can afford those extra costs or have extended benefits at work. But for others, it’s cost prohibitive and services become inaccessible — extremely shortsighted when you look at how these services can be preventative and ensure that people don’t end up in the acute care system at a much greater cost to the entire system.

Hydro increases. Well, I was going to say don’t get me started on Hydro, but I’m here, so here it is.

Besides increasing their fees, B.C. Hydro has been involved in some issues that makes one wonder. In our area the installation of smart meters, for example, has not been warmly greeted, to put it mildly. But let’s focus on the fees first.

From 2001 to 2015 there was a 74 percent increase in fees, an average of 36 percent for every year since the member from Kelowna became Premier in 2011. In late 2013, after saying there wouldn’t be any increases during the election, the Liberals announced rates going up by
[ Page 5899 ]
28 percent over the coming years. Tell that to folks on a fixed income. Tell them you are adding up to $300 a year to their hydro bill, and then add insult to injury with the smart-meter debacle.

We are all well aware that B.C. Hydro didn’t go through the BCUC process with the rollout of smart meters. They just brought them in whether the people of the province wanted them or not. Needless to say, there have been a number of issues that have been raised in regards to them.

In our area the primary issue is health concerns. In fact, a number of residents asked that they not be installed and that they be allowed to keep their analog meters. The response was an additional so-called legacy fund, which really is an oxymoron if I’ve ever seen one. Legacy funds are supposed to have a positive connotation, certainly not the negative one this fund has brought in. And the cost is higher than any other province in the country.

I actually want to quote my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway. He says:

“The fees being charged to participants in the meter choices program are out of step with what other utilities charge and don’t represent a reasonable cost recovery for reading the analog meters or the smart meters with the radio-off engaged. It’s clear that Hydro has set up this fee structure to punish customers who don’t agree with them. That’s not fair, and it isn’t something a public utility should be engaged in.

“B.C. Hydro customers pay $250 per year for radio-off smart-meter customers and $388 for legacy-meter customers. By comparison, Fortis charges $108 per year for radio-off customers. That’s a discrepancy that can’t be explained away.”

He asked the minister to work with B.C. Hydro to restructure those fees. Has that happened? No. In fact, it has become apparent that the Minister of Energy in fact agrees with the higher fees and has been quoted as saying he hopes that the higher fees will force people to get smart meters.

However, there are two different suggestions for lowering these fees: scaling back what seems to be an excessive security system for the analog meters and reducing the amount of time Hydro staff are called to physically read the meters, something Fortis already does for customers in the Okanagan and West Kootenays.

For whatever reason, this seems that it’s already happening in some parts of the Kootenays that are serviced by B.C. Hydro. I know constituents who kept their analog meters and haven’t had regular meter readings, even though they’re being charged for it. They hardly ever see a meter reader.

You have to ask too: what’s with the policy on cancelling service in winter months? In November a Hydro spokesman told media on Vancouver Island that their policy was to not cancel service between November and March. Yet in New Denver clients had their service cancelled in November.

[1805]

Craig Pettitt of New Denver, for example — he paid all of his consumption fees but withheld his legacy fees, waiting for those charges to be rationalized. There was no written notice, no telephone call or even a knock on the door as his power was disconnected while he was inside the house working on his computer. It’s cold in the Kootenays, and B.C. Hydro went ahead and shut off power without due warning.

One constituent happened to see the technician coming to cut off her power and was told: “If you go in right now and pay your legacy fees on line, I won’t cut you off.” How’s that for a threat to a senior in New Denver? To hook back up, people are being told: “It’ll cost you $350, and you have to get a new smart meter.” No recognition of the concerns of the smart meters, just an “it’s too bad” attitude and no confirmed dates as to when they’ll even come and install the meter and hook up your power.

This needs to stop. The government needs to step in and ensure that people are not being treated unfairly or penalized for standing up for their rights. We are talking about winter here — temperatures well below zero and having your power cut off, losing the food in your fridge or freezer.

Well, was there any support for these folks in the budget here? None at all. Just additional fee increases on top of their legacy fees, and still some folks in the community with their power cut off. One would hope in this day and age that there would be a respect for differences of opinion, especially when they affect one’s health.

Under this government, B.C. classrooms have become harder to teach in and harder to learn in, with some of the lowest funding of any Canadian province. Even though there was a supposed increase to education, boards of education are still being asked to come up with money and cut their own budgets to support this budget.

At a time when parents and young people are worried about opportunities to gain skills and training, the Liberal government, with this budget, is cutting $14 million from higher education. Colleges are struggling to make ends meet.

Selkirk College is the oldest community college in the province and has a long, proud history of providing excellent educational opportunities to students from the region and throughout the province. They are thrilled to be finally getting upgrades to some of their shop equipment in their trades programs, as they were training students on technology that was so old that none of it was being utilized out in the field. Students had to relearn how to operate 21st-century equipment once they got out in the field and started their jobs.

They have also learned to be very innovative. The Finance or Health Ministers could actually learn from them. They have brought in a new program, rural pre-medicine. They know that our health care system need doctors and doctors who want to practise in rural settings and that medical schools are looking for students with rural backgrounds.

These students can come to Castlegar at the campus there and take the comprehensive program of pre-medical studies which pairs academic excellence with rural health
[ Page 5900 ]
care mentorship and community service opportunities, all designed to give them everything they need to apply for a medical degree program. The region has embraced the program, and I for one am looking forward to seeing the first class of potential rural doctors graduating in three years.

I do want to touch on the issue of inequality and poverty in this province, which is getting worse, not better. B.C. has the highest level of wealth inequality and market income inequality in this country. Nearly 170,000, or one out of every five, children are growing up in poverty. Poverty for lone-parent families continues to rise, as about 50 percent of households in poverty are single-parent families.

In 2012, 16 percent of British Columbians lived in poverty. That’s over 695,000 people. This budget doesn’t give the opportunities that will see that change. One of the fastest-growing demographics of people in poverty in this province is senior women, another fact that this budget won’t change.

I asked some moms in my constituency what they thought about the early childhood tax benefit that’s starting April 1, where they would be getting up to $660 a year for each child under six to help offset the cost of child care. Some thought it was an April Fools’ joke, especially when I said it was $660 a year, not a month.

One mom with two kids under three, who is looking at finishing her nursing degree — a profession that we really need in this province, by the way — said her child costs were going to be, at a minimum, $1,200 a month. She said it would make much more sense to put the money into ensuring an affordable, accessible system of child care, like the $10-a-day program she’s heard about.

[1810]

Other moms who need child care repeated the same story, asking if the Finance Minister or anyone in government really knew how much good-quality child care costs — a good question, Mr. Speaker. A really good question.

I am pleased, though, that the Liberals have finally seen fit to abandon their callous practice of clawing back child support payments from low-income single parents. This was a straight cash grab, taking basic necessities from kids. This shameful policy should never have started, and the credit for ending it belongs entirely to those families who stepped forward and told their stories. I only wish, for them, that this would have been effective April 1 as opposed to September 1, but better late than never.

I’ve also been travelling across the province talking to people about their concerns and issues, and in every community people raise the issue of the nonexistent LNG. They ask how it is going to help their community or when it is going to come to fruition. Folks are tired of this government putting all their eggs in one basket and not looking at investing in the many other resources the rest of the province has.

From Cranbrook to Kamloops, Williams Lake to Penticton, people are worried. As I said, costs are rising. How is the proposed LNG going to actually benefit them? And what was that promise — 100,000 jobs, a $100 billion prosperity fund, revenues to eliminate the debt, that great big sign on the campaign bus: “Debt-free B.C.”? How are we doing on that one? Not so great. It sounds good, but none of it is reality.

Oh, right. “That’s not the fault of this government,” we have to be reminded. It’s the fault of the drop in oil. Not this government’s fault for offering people a pipedream that we might see someday. But when? Barely a mention about LNG in this year’s budget.

The cost of the Premier’s neglect has been felt in industries across the province, though. In forestry, 25,000 fewer people are working since 2001. In mining, 1,500 miners have been put out of work in the last four years. While the technology sector worldwide is growing, B.C. lags behind other provinces in graduating students from engineering, science and other tech programs.

Let’s see what’s actually in the budget for mining in B.C. Now, I do agree with the government that this sector does provide good-paying, family-supporting jobs across this province, from rural communities to corporate offices in Vancouver.

Teck is one of the largest employers in our region, employing over 1,500 people at the smelter in Trail and over 4,000 at the mines in the Elk Valley. They are also good corporate citizens, working with the municipalities of the region and ensuring that their generosity extends to the entire region when it comes to helping out non-profit groups, charities and projects.

I agree that this year will be “transformative for the mining and energy sector,” but it was also transformative last year. The breach of the tailings pond at Mount Polley has created a situation that is of real concern in the industry.

When talking to folks in the industry, they all talk about the effects this breach has had — how there were projects that were ready to go ahead that have now had to slow down due to the breach, potential mines that could have provided good, family-supporting jobs while operating in a environmentally sustainable way. And that’s what everyone wants, especially communities that are looking at the prospects of mines in their backyards: mines that are operated in an environmentally sustainable way.

We are not at a point in this world where we can get by without our natural resources. One just has to just look around this chamber to see the many things that need resources to be mined in order to be made: the copper for wiring; molybdenum for computers; zinc for our health; metallurgical coal for the steel that is in so many things, as well as our cars, bikes or buses that get us to work; or graphite for the batteries for energy-efficient hybrid vehicles. Even the clothes we are wearing could have petroleum by-products in them.
[ Page 5901 ]

I think everyone agrees that at this stage in our province, we cannot be totally resource-free, but we also agree that we must ensure that resources are mined, again, in the most environmentally sustainable manner possible.

This government was forced to increase funding to the mining division to improve the permitting process for major mines and increase staff and inspections after their mistakes at Mount Polley. In too many instances in this province, the guidelines, criteria and policies have either been reduced to the bare minimum or mines have not been adequately inspected — and only due to not enough people to do the work. One thing we all agree with is that we have an incredible civil service in this province who do the best they can in spite of the government’s reductions.

The Liberals have cut over 28 percent, an equivalent of over 2,000 full-time positions, from the ministries that take care of our land base, including the Ministry of Mines. Unfortunately, it took a disaster like the Mount Polley dam breach to force the Liberals to bring back much-needed boots on the ground to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

Meanwhile, there was nothing mentioned in the throne speech or the budget for the people of Mount Polley, who continue to suffer, even after being told personally by the Premier: “If there is anything at all I can do for you, let me know.”

[1815]

Well, they asked for help and were turned down. And the $50,000 the community was supposed to get? Well, that doesn’t seem to have even arrived yet at all. Businesses that are struggling to keep going have had to go it alone with no help from the government, even though it was offered to them. Again, a case of the Premier telling folks what they want to hear and then not following through.

I was there at the hall in Likely when the first report was presented to the community a few weeks ago. People were polite, but there was definitely an undercurrent of frustration. They need and want answers. This report supplied some of them but not all of them.

Then to listen to the government putting their spin on the blame all going on the glacial deposit where the dam was initially built…. That really incensed people. There were too many other issues, like the steepness of the walls of the dam, the inadequate buttressing and the serious failures in government monitoring.

Now, think of this. On August 5, 2014, the Mount Polley tailings storage facility breached, and it spilled over 25 million cubic metres of tailings, debris and water into Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake. The ministry had been warned. The engineering firm brought in had expressed concerns, and the people that worked at the mine had expressed concerns. Yet for whatever reasons, those warnings were not taken seriously.

This is a disaster that is a story of too little, too late. If there was earlier recognition of the need to construct the supporting buttress eight metres high in the centre of the perimeter embankment, the catastrophe may have been avoided. The report said if the buttress had been in place on August 3, 2014, the dam would have survived.

I don’t agree with the member for Kootenay East often, but I do in this instance, where he said that this type of breach cannot happen again in this province. This government has to ensure that they work with mining companies to make absolutely certain it doesn’t happen. This responsibility is theirs, on their watch.

Nor was there any support for the people of Lemon Creek or the Slocan Valley. It has been almost two years since a spill of jet fuel into Lemon Creek, and the people are still waiting for justice. In fact, instead of waiting on this government to get its act together, a local resident has taken matters into her own hands. Marilyn Burgoon has filed a suit under the federal Fisheries Act, which provides for private prosecution by individuals.

The spill of 33,000 gallons of jet fuel is a clear violation of section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act. This legislation says that “no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance” in any fish-bearing water. Well, in October a judge agreed with Marilyn and feels there is enough evidence to proceed.

Is that what this province has come to? Residents have to take the law into their own hands when the government doesn’t take responsibility? No responsibility for the part their own ministry played in this terrible situation or no responsibility for the ongoing aftermath of the spill on the individuals and businesses in the valley.

Kudos for Marilyn for having the courage to stand up, unlike the Minister of Environment, who keeps saying it’s the process — that whether it’s water or the spill in Lemon Creek, one has to let the process follow due course. The reality is that after almost two years, you would think the government would be there for people when they were needed.

I’ve been talking to a lot of families who are concerned about their parents and the care they need while also worrying about the education of their kids that they’re trying to raise, through funds to support them through post-secondary education.

The Premier might think she’s a comedian, but I don’t know of any young person or their family who thinks it is funny to either have that child struggling to get their education or trying to find a job once they do get the education. None of them that I know are sitting on a couch waiting to have things handed to them. Maybe in the circles the Premier travels in, but certainly not in the ones I have been travelling in lately.

For them to now hear that there really isn’t anything for them in this budget…. Well, that just adds insult to injury. And I think that for that reason this budget has been a total disrespect of the hard-working people in this province, the people in this province who work every
[ Page 5902 ]
day to pay taxes and make sure that they’re putting food on the table.

One of those issues is what’s happened to resident hunters in this province. Resident hunters are finding their allocation of hunting being taken away from them due to the allocation given to foreign hunters in this province, given to them through the guide-outfitters.

[1820]

I’ve talked about this in the House, but I think it begs questioning. What’s happening in this province when we see more and more resources being given away to the highest bidders, who inevitably are foreign highest bidders? It’s either raw logs…. And now we have this exact example with wild game, with our wildlife.

We know people are looking to fill their freezers for the winter. Good, taxpaying people in this province, resident hunters, are finding that they will have their ability to fill their freezers for the winter taken away. Does this budget help them at all? Not a chance. Not at all. For that reason, I will not be supporting this budget.

Hon. S. Anton: It is a pleasure to rise today to respond to balanced budget 2015. In fact, it was an honour to be here yesterday when the balanced budget was brought in. It is a remarkable thing in Canada to have, the third balanced budget. I felt so proud of our government and the people of British Columbia that we were able to bring forward and support the third balanced budget in British Columbia. Certainly, the hard-working residents of Vancouver-Fraserview appreciate, too, a government that keeps its house in order and thinks about prosperity and the well-being of families in British Columbia.

I just would like to start by thanking those around me. I did that the other day on the throne speech, but I’d like to mention two other groups of people today. One is the staff in the ministry. I feel like I am surrounded by good people all the time. The staff at the Ministry of Justice are superb. From top to bottom, they do a terrific job for everybody in British Columbia.

I didn’t remember to thank yesterday — and this is a terrible oversight — but I must thank my family: my dear husband, who has supported me for so many years in politics and to whom I’ve been married for 35 years; and of course, my children, who are not always near because they live in different places but continue to support me and follow my career with interest.

None of us are here without the teams behind us. I think that that is universally true. We have our team of our family, our friends, our volunteers and our supporters. I know that when we stand up I think we almost universally acknowledge them, because we’re not here without those people behind us — and our families in particular.

Budget 2015 represents our commitment to the people of British Columbia, a commitment to public safety and sound fiscal management. The Ministry of Justice’s budget will increase this year by about $16 million, as we continue to make the necessary investments to address cost pressures and maintain an effective justice system.

The other day I talked about justice innovation. Today I’m going to focus on public safety and, yes, that file that keeps on giving, the liquor file.

With our overall budget of almost $1.2 billion in Justice, we have consistently been able to bring forward positive change in this province through innovative programs and strong front-line services. Innovation is a theme that runs through everything that we do in Justice. Budget 2015 both builds on that in the coming year and continues our focus on public safety, as it remains a top priority for Justice.

Let me start with talking about violence against women. This past year British Columbia has taken concrete action towards the goal of ending violence against women. Specifically, we invest $70 million each year in prevention and intervention services for victims of crime. This funds 160 victim services programs across the province and helped 40,000 new clients last year. It supports programs that offer counselling and outreach for women, and 34,000 people were referred to these programs last year.

As you can see, our target investments are helping B.C.’s most vulnerable, and having stable finances in the province, having a balanced budget, allows us to maintain this funding year over year.

In our work on preventing violence against women we have made significant progress on the recommendations from the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. In the final update that was released a couple of months ago you can see that we have taken action on all of the major themes of that report — the themes of healing and compensation, improvements to policing, support for vulnerable women and supports for missing persons.

[1825]

These recommendations in the report have been a very strong focus for Justice over the last two years. For example, we were asked to think about compensation. We entered into a partnership with the government of Canada and the city of Vancouver to establish a fund to offer $50,000 in compensation to each of the living biological children of the women identified in the Oppal report.

I’m pleased to let this House know that, to date, 77 of the 85 individuals have been compensated or are going through the compensation process. No amount of money can bring back the loss of their mother, their loved one, but it can help people in moving forward in their lives, with education and other things that they choose to spend the funds on.

We were asked by the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry to make changes to policing. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that one of the terrible flaws that was found by the commissioner at the time was that police didn’t
[ Page 5903 ]
talk to each other well enough. They didn’t act together well enough. They have certainly made significant changes in the time since those terrible incidents happened, the terrible loss of the missing and murdered women on Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

We have continued to make improvements to policing with the recent changes to B.C.’s Police Act. This enabling legislation clarified government’s authority to sustain and expand integrated policing teams and other specific specialized policing services. It will foster a cooperative approach to policing, bolstering collaboration between municipalities and helping to further reduce crime — helping, indeed, to prevent a terrible thing like what happened with the missing and murdered women from happening again.

We were asked to improve our response to missing persons, so we have now introduced missing-persons legislation. We were asked to create additional supports for vulnerable women. Last year we were able to allocate $3½ million in civil forfeiture funds to help service providers to support vulnerable women in British Columbia. For example, we were able to provide $100,000 to the Carrier-Sekani Family Services to expand safety-training workshops for communities near Highway 16.

The civil forfeiture funds also provided funding for the creation of several specialized domestic violence units. All of this work is to help ensure that “missing” never again means “forsaken” in British Columbia.

As you can see, violence against women is a key concern of this government, but our work did not stop there. Recently I had the privilege of standing beside the Premier to announce the violence-free-B.C. strategy, a long-term vision for ending violence against women in our province.

This strategy is our path to creating a province where all women have the supports they need to help prevent violence, to assure them of the proper response if they’re in violent situations and to help them rebuild from the impacts of violence. Our province’s action on the strategy started with a promise of dedicated and ongoing civil forfeiture funds, including up to $3 million this year to support anti-violence and prevention initiatives.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

On that day, as well, we introduced the Surrey integrated domestic violence unit. In other words, Surrey now has a domestic violence unit, which is police — which they had already…. They had a domestic violence unit of police officers, but those police officers are now partnering with staff from the Surrey Women’s Centre. Those staff are a child care worker and social workers who will go out, partnered with the police, and take care and assist in serious domestic violence situations in Surrey.

That domestic violence unit joins five others in British Columbia. These are extremely valuable units to persons in British Columbia. They help women. They help children. They help families. They help communities. This work to end violence against women, while just the start, is delivering on both a throne speech commitment and one given to me by the Premier in my mandate letter.

Let me talk about policing for a moment. We are, as always, focused on keeping communities safe. This means continuing to invest in maintaining front-line police services. We know our work to date has been effective, as our crime rate is at its lowest in decades.

[1830]

In fact, in 2013, B.C.’s overall crime rate fell for the tenth straight year. The violent crime rate fell 10 percent, and the total number of homicides in British Columbia was the second-lowest in more than 40 years. That is good work going on in British Columbia. These statistics tell us that British Columbia is a safer place now than it has ever been.

In the course of my duties as Minister of Justice I have visited numerous police detachments and municipal departments in British Columbia. I am constantly impressed at the professionalism of the police officers who serve British Columbia, and I am constantly impressed at how well they are received and regarded by the communities that they serve.

Although our crime rate is down and the statistics are going in the right direction, it does not mean our work is done. That is why in 2013 the Premier appointed the MLA for Abbotsford South as the Parliamentary Secretary for Crime Reduction. I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for Crime Reduction for the hard work that he has done.

He has now completed his work with us and moved on to new challenges in the Ministry of Health but leaves us with a number of critical recommendations to consider with his report on crime reduction.

Leading up to this report, a blue-ribbon panel of public safety experts consulted over 600 individuals and studied crime reduction in British Columbia. I would like to thank those panel members. They did it on their own time, and they put hundreds of hours into the work that they did.

I’d like to thank, as well, the community groups — the numerous community groups who attended before the panel to give them advice as to how we might further crime reduction in British Columbia. They did stellar work in recommending ways that we can further reduce our already record-low crime rate.

We know that collaboration is key to ensuring that B.C.’s law enforcement agencies operate to the best of their abilities and keep our communities safe. As part of government’s initial response to the blue-ribbon panel report, we will be considering the creation of a regional, integrated community safety partnership pilot project. In other words, people working together do a better job than people working in silos.
[ Page 5904 ]

Beyond that, it’s clear that public safety is not solely limited to having officers on the streets. We must make sure that our officers have the tools they need to be effective.

That’s why this past year our government introduced Canada’s first comprehensive provincial standards governing police dog use. Yes, I had the first police dog in my office. I know, Madame Speaker, you take an interest in these things and would have appreciated that moment. These standards are designed to ensure that handlers, with their dogs, continue to be effective and accountable.

Maintaining public safety also means reaching out directly to vulnerable members of the public. We know that there is no better place to start than talking to youth about gangs and helping youth understand that a life of crime is not a viable future.

For example, the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit released its anti-gang campaign this year, and what a campaign it was. It’s called End Gang Life and uses impactful images and videos to inform vulnerable youth of the perils of getting involved in such dangerous lifestyle choices.

Not only does it help the youth, but it helps their families and loved ones. Sometimes families and loved ones are despairing and don’t know where to turn for help. The campaign helps them get advice and information to help get their family member out of their life of crime.

Our government is also partnering with police agencies to speak directly with youth. We made permanent this year the civil forfeiture office’s forfeited vehicle program. This program takes vehicles previously used in gang or drug activities and provides them to police for use in their anti-gang programs.

The vehicles are wrapped with anti-crime messages and graphics and then used by police to get the message out to young people about the dangers of a life of crime. We are making sure that the youth of British Columbia know that a life of crime is dangerous to them and a nightmare for their families.

I’ll talk about Corrections for a moment. We are served in a number of correctional institutions by an outstanding staff and excellent management of corrections facilities. Part of what they do and think about constantly to reduce crime is to target recidivism rates. Reducing reoffending was a topic identified in both the crime reduction report and the work done by the Parliamentary Secretary for Corrections, who I would like to thank for the delivery of his report.

[1835]

Specifically, the report that the Parliamentary Secretary for Corrections produced last year focused on the safety of B.C.’s corrections system and will help to guide our actions to both further reduce reoffending rates for inmates and create safer correctional facilities in communities.

Responding to this report, we will be increasing collaboration between B.C. Corrections and provincial post-secondary institutions to expand job-training options for offenders. One of the things that I have noticed and am constantly impressed with is the concern that corrections officers have for the inmates in their custody and their interest in having them get out of custody and not come back again — and be able to have a skill or something that can help them as they reintegrate into their communities.

We do know that work placement and reintegration is a difficult task for many inmates once they are released. Yet we also know that our province will have more than a million jobs available in the next seven years, and we’re working to help fill that demand. Helping offenders reintegrate into society more easily through better training and education opportunities is part of that. This is just one example of the considerable work B.C. Corrections has accomplished this past year.

Another significant improvement on the corrections front. We broke ground on a new facility, the Okanagan correctional centre. In fact, I saw a picture just today of a very impressive new building under construction — well under construction.

As part of our government’s B.C. jobs plan, we estimate that the correctional centre will generate 1,000 direct and indirect jobs during construction. Once it’s complete in 2016, the centre will also create more than 240 new full-time correctional positions. These are family-supporting, good-paying jobs that will have positive spinoffs throughout the economy, such as local coffee shops, businesses and service providers who will reap the benefits of having those positions in the community.

This project, part of our capital expansion plan which has increased correctional capacity around British Columbia, is a key part of our commitment to enhance public safety and build safer communities.

Let me talk about road safety for a moment. Our commitment to safe roads throughout British Columbia deserves mention because our government has set the goal of having the safest roads in North America by 2020.

We have clearly made significant progress in one specific area, and that is with our immediate roadside prohibition program. These laws are the toughest in Canada. We are being watched by the rest of the country, because people are very interested in what British Columbia is doing.

These laws continue to ensure that more British Columbians get home to their families alive, and the results speak for themselves: 227 lives saved and a 54 percent reduction in alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities since the new laws came into effect.

The IRP program was inspired by a tragedy in 2008, when little four-year-old Alexa Middelaer was killed by a drunk driver. This past fall I was fortunate to join with Alexa’s parents, Laurel and Michael Middelaer, and our road safety partners to unveil Alexa’s Bus. I must compliment Mr. and Mrs. Middelaer for their continued involvement and interest in making our roads safer.
[ Page 5905 ]

The mobile road safety unit — it’s a great big vehicle — is already out on the roads of our province being used as a tool in the fight against drinking and driving. It’s an educational vehicle, and it’s also an investigations vehicle. In other words, an impaired driver can be taken in and do the breathalyzer and so on inside the vehicle.

Of course, our dedication to public safety also reaches distracted driving, which is the second leading cause of death on British Columbia roads. Although there is quite a lot of messaging, not everybody seems to be getting the message to put the phone or their device away, so we took action.

In 2014 we increased the number of penalty points — well, from zero to three. We added three penalty points for all drivers who are caught talking on a hand-held device while driving. The penalty, which is combined with the $167 fine already in place, is now consistent with the fine and penalties given to drivers for texting. Is this enough?

Moving forward, we’re continuing to look at additional ways to deter this behaviour, such as increased fines and possibly other sanctions. Everybody knows how dangerous people are when they’re talking on their phone. They feel like it’s an innocuous activity, but everybody around them knows that it’s not. In fact, they likely know that it is not as well. We need to stop people from thinking that it’s okay to do that.

[1840]

Part of our public safety, of course, includes the court system. Our government is focused on providing a 21st-century justice system that helps British Columbians navigate their legal matters more effectively. We’re committed to supporting our courts and to ensuring that they are responsive to the unique needs of British Columbians throughout the province.

Budget 2015 allows us to do that. For instance, our budget increase of $2.4 million provides long-term budget stability to allow us to support Vancouver’s downtown community court. It was somewhat experimental, but the money is now in the budget, so the innovative court that brings together multiple agencies to address the needs of offenders in the community is able to continue in Vancouver’s downtown.

We are also increasing funding to address cost pressures in the judiciary and Crown counsel, and work continues on the tribunal transformation project as we implement a direction we announced in 2013 to treat administrative tribunals as an important sector of the justice system. By targeting funding to address pressure points, we are able to work towards our goal of a timely, efficient and accessible justice system for all British Columbians.

We do need to ensure that we have courtrooms where they are most needed, so last February we released a long-term court expansion plan for the lower Fraser Valley. The court capacity expansion project, developed by the five municipalities in the region, forecasts the need for additional courtroom capacity in Surrey, Abbotsford, the city, township of Langley and Chilliwack as part of an overall plan to improve access to justice in one of the fastest-growing regions in the province.

Government accepted recommendations contained in the project report to expand Surrey’s Provincial courthouse by five provincial courtrooms; to construct in Abbotsford a new 14-courtroom integrated courthouse with five Supreme and nine Provincial courtrooms; to build a new five-courtroom Provincial courthouse in Langley — which will please the Minister of Education; and to expand Chilliwack’s courthouse by two Provincial courtrooms. These are tangible, measurable outcomes that we have committed to which support British Columbians in accessing justice.

In 2014 the B.C. government appointed six new Provincial Court judges to ensure that the court is able to continue to address caseload pressures and improve access to justice.

We held two Justice Summits — the first, a collaborative discussion about the province’s family justice system, focused primarily on achieving early resolution on separation and divorce issues. The second focused on improving how the justice system responds to violence against women. I’d like to thank all of our justice partners who came to that — judges, lawyers, community organizations and people familiar with the area — who were able to help us in the thinking on these very important topics.

In the past year we announced funding for five legal aid projects through a targeted $6 million investment over the next two years. So we are working hard on all aspects of justice, from the buildings to what is delivered in the buildings to what people can access throughout British Columbia.

I do need to talk about liquor for a moment, because that also is a file of mine. Although I love to go around and talk to people about access to justice, funnily enough, they often want to talk to me about changes to British Columbia’s liquor laws. I don’t know why that is, but there it is.

The extensive public consultations we undertook as part of the liquor policy review garnered an enormous amount of response from British Columbians. In fact, it was one of the most successful public engagement campaigns in British Columbia’s history. British Columbians spoke, and we listened.

This year saw dozens of changes introduced, as we chip away at implementing the 73 recommendations from the Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor Policy Reform — who, in fact, has been ill. We wish him back soon. In fact, I very much wish him back soon because it’s a big file, and I look forward to him being back on the file.

One of the things we heard ring loud and clear during the consultations was: increase convenience for consumers. That’s why British Columbians will soon have
[ Page 5906 ]
the convenience of grabbing a bottle of local wine when they pick up their evening’s groceries. Changes are coming our way on April 1 when B.C.’s model for liquor sales in grocery stores starts to take effect.

We have adopted a two-part, made-in-B.C. model. First, we will have a store-within-a-store model, which will be able to sell all types of liquor while offering same-cart shopping. The second piece of the grocery model will allow independent wine stores, or VQA stores, to relocate or transfer their licence to an eligible grocery store as long as the licence is used to sell B.C.-grown and -produced wine.

[1845]

As with all of our liquor policy changes, we are delivering on our commitment to protect health and public safety, which is why we are making a requirement. All liquor transactions must be done at designated registers, and those registers must be staffed by employees who have Serving It Right certification and who are at least 19 years old.

We are also, on that same date, introducing a new wholesale liquor pricing model to create an equal footing for liquor retailers. This will increase competition, and along with the suite of changes we are making, it will benefit consumers.

We’re also bringing in changes that give licensees the ability to bring in customers during typically slower times of the day. This was the change so that hospitality can change their prices during the day. It used to be that you had to set your price at nine in the morning and you could not change it again until nine the next morning. Now you can change the price during the day as it suits your market. This is now called…. Of course, it’s often referred to as happy hour because that is a time when people do like to lower their prices to bring people in the door.

Along with the happy hour — of course, always taking into account health and public safety — we have introduced minimum pricing for liquor in bars and restaurants to ensure safe consumption levels. In other words, you can’t give it away.

Pubs and Legions can apply to allow minors with an accompanying adult into their establishment, creating new, safe environments for families to enjoy a meal together. We also heard from families that changes to summer festivals and markets were of interest, so we were able to do something about it. Now you can buy locally manufactured wine at a farmers market — a novel idea and very well received by consumers.

The other requirement was we used to make people sit in beer gardens, and it wasn’t a very good arrangement at large events. Now we are allowing site licensing or much broader licences for large events. This has been extremely well received by both event organizers and people who attend the events.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Anton: The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky does like that change very much because he has two very large events in his riding.

Early in February we launched a pilot program to make it easier for British Columbians to apply for special occasion licences. Applying for special occasion licences could be a bit of a nightmare. You went from the police to the municipality to the police. Now you can sit down at your computer at home and apply and get the licence. What a remarkable, novel idea. So we have a pilot underway, but we do expect it to be rolled out across British Columbia shortly. With over 25,000 special occasion licences issued every year, this will be a great convenience to British Columbians.

This type of convenience and change is what the people of British Columbia asked for, and it’s what we’re delivering. As with all our liquor changes, we are continuing to strike a careful balance, making changes to our liquor laws that increase convenience and selection while ensuring that the health, safety and best interests of British Columbians are kept top of mind.

I’m very proud of the work that’s been done on the liquor file. I’d like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor. I’d like to thank all the members of the public and all the stakeholders who have helped us with their advice and who continue to help us with their advice. I must say we have an extremely engaged group of stakeholders, and I do appreciate their ongoing input.

I look forward to delivering on our commitment to introduce legislative changes this session and to bringing forward the many changes yet to come. As I tell people, we are somewhat still open for business. If there are other things that people think we should be doing, this is a very good time to bring them forward.

I will just spend a moment on emergency management B.C. Emergency management B.C. has led numerous initiatives that deserve to be acknowledged, but I would like to start out by saying emergency management B.C. does an absolutely terrific job around B.C. responding to crises and coordinating responsive efforts to crises in British Columbia — hundreds of them every year. They do a terrific job, and they are universally well regarded. I’d like to thank emergency management B.C. for helping to keep British Columbia safe and on an even keel when bad things happen.

Continuing, though, on the topic of festivals and events and recognizing that more and more large-scale events are coming to our province, I would like to mention the work that EMBC has done with our multi-stakeholder group of 28 representatives to put together the major planned events guide, which is a checklist for organizers and local governments.

[1850]

This framework will help ensure that promoters and local authorities have the necessary permits and approvals in place and that they have made sure that safety con-
[ Page 5907 ]
cerns such as site security, medical aid and liquor control are all taken care of. For these very large events, there is a multiplicity of authorities that one needs and to have an event planning guide and to have some centralized organization of that helps organizations very much.

As the province’s emergency response lead, EMBC is always working to make British Columbia safer. That’s why one of its main priorities this past year and in the years ahead is to take action on the Auditor General’s report on earthquake preparedness. The Auditor General’s report provided nine recommendations for our government. Work is complete on two and underway on the seven others.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: You’re out of time.

Hon. S. Anton: I ran out of time. Let me just say Budget 2015 has been terrific for Justice and is terrific for British Columbia. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to say so.

J. Shin: It is with a profound sense of responsibility to rise in the House to speak on behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed and today, in response to the budget, this fourth session of the 40th parliament. I think I have just enough time to say all my thank-yous, so I think it works out nicely.

Each day is long and slow to pass with much work to be done in this job as a public servant. Two years seem to have just flown right by. During the first half of my term in office some things have changed, while some things remain the same. The latter of that will be my gratitude for not just my family and friends but my community at large, who raised, elected and supported me to serve in this capacity.

I must begin with thanks. As such, I ask for your patience. Assisting our residents in Burnaby-Lougheed is vital work that I do, in and out of my community office. That would not be possible without my incredible team of staff serving on the front line — Emma Lee, Sophie Song YiJeon, Nicholas Page, Michael MinWoo Chang.

I do want to take this opportunity to express well wishes to my full-time lead assistant Krystal Smith, who is moving on to a new opportunity, a brand new adventure at MP Kennedy Stewart’s office. She stood alongside me through many round tables, town halls, events, public forums and open houses. She was my rock through rain or shine. Congratulations to Krystal. I’m glad that she won’t be too far from us.

With that, I do want to officially welcome the newest member of our team, Reamick Lo, who has stepped up to join us in the trenches. Alongside her, I also want to thank my long-term volunteer, a regular volunteer who comes in every week, Tiffany Kim, and my UBC intern, Shila Avissa, for their great work in our office.

Of course, the amazing Susan Vasilev, my LA here in the Legislature, who wears many hats, from being an excellent meeting coordinator to my timely counsellor at times.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again — that public service is not a job that one clocks in and out of. I’ve carried this work with me 24-7 since day one, and two years going I feel like I’m eight years older, like so many other members in this House.

Often it’s not just my staff but also my constituency association team that share the workload as volunteers. I do want to acknowledge the dedication and commitment of that team as well, led by president Glen Porter and executives Paul Dayson, Greg Tueling, Victoria Banham, Joseph Lee, Duc Tran, Dr. Graham Hallson, Lil Cameron, Al Leong, Dr. Jeff Zurek, Craig Langston, Dolores Myles, our trustee Gary Wong, trustee Harman Pandher, Dr. Jin Na, Jason Hjalmarson and Sage Aaron.

We regularly publish full newsletters for our members, established an NDP club at SFU, and we held seven fundraisers last year.

My executives, two dozen strong, over the last three years, from the campaign trail to this day — we’ve really become the kind of family that I think, without a shadow of doubt, serves our families well by calling and fighting for a more just society.

Should I go on?

Interjections.

J. Shin: I have pressure from my colleagues. What that means is: noting the hour, I reserve my right to continue my response, and with that, I move adjournment of debate.

J. Shin moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.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