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)

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 19, Number 10

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

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2015

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Sturdy: I have the pleasure of introducing to the House today one of, certainly, West Vancouver–Sea to Sky’s most engaged citizens. Ruth Simons, up in the gallery today, has retired after 25 years in the insurance business and has served as a councillor in the village of Lions Bay. Currently, though, she is serving as a volunteer executive director of the Future of Howe Sound Society, and she’s doing an amazing job at that. Will the House please join me in making her feel welcome.

R. Austin: I have a number of introductions to make today. The first is Richard Prokopanko, who is no stranger to this House. He has for a long time been the director of government relations for what is now Rio Tinto Alcan. He’s visiting from Vancouver. Secondly, there’s Kariann Aarup, who’s the director of community and external affairs for western Canada for Rio Tinto Alcan. Thirdly, from Kitimat, in my riding, is Shawn Zettler. He’s the senior environmental lead for the Kitimat operations.

Finally, the irrepressible Gaby Poirier, who is general manager in charge of the B.C. operations. I want to state on the public record that rumours that Gaby spent all of last week removing snow until past midnight off the worksite are not to be believed.

Would everyone please join me in welcoming them.

[1005]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M202 — PARLIAMENTARY
CALENDAR ACT, 2015

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2015.

G. Holman: I move introduction of the Parliamentary Calendar Act for the first reading.

I’m pleased to introduce this bill, which will make a fall parliamentary session mandatory. Over the past four years there’s only been one fall session of this august body. Continually denying the fall session limits British Columbians the opportunity for them and their elected representatives to participate in the development of important public policy.

This bill will legislate an additional six weeks of motions, debates, statements, question periods and bills — all essential elements needed for an accountable government. British Columbians need their MLAs to be held accountable regarding their policy. By permanently establishing a fall session, this bill will contribute to that goal.

In closing, I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, two questions. First reading?

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: Referral to the order paper?

Bill M202, Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M203 — LEGISLATIVE STANDING
COMMITTEE REFORM ACT, 2015

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Legislative Standing Committee Reform Act, 2015.

G. Holman: My apologies, Madame Speaker. I’m a rookie at this, as you can tell.

I also move introduction of the Legislative Standing Committee Reform Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: I’m pleased to introduce this bill that would increase the number of standing committees of the Legislature and increase the power of these standing committees by allowing them more discretion to exercise their mandate.

Currently the standing committees of the Legislature have limited powers. They can only examine issues specifically referred to them by government. This limits the ability for MLAs to have a comprehensive analysis of issues. This narrow scope inhibits the general resourcefulness of the standing committees. They meet too infrequently and are not established at all in certain policy areas.

Standing committees play an essential role in the development of policy. This bill would expand the power of the legislative standing committees to allow them to perform their function without undue government interference. The bill would also expand the policy areas that standing committees cover to include the critical industries of forestry, agriculture, and arts and culture.
[ Page 5910 ]

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

Bill M203, Legislative Standing Committee Reform Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M204 — FIXED FALL ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Fixed Fall Election Amendment Act, 2015.

G. Holman: I also move the introduction of the Fixed Fall Election Amendment Act for the first time.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: I’m pleased to introduce the Fixed Fall Election Amendment Act, a bill that enshrines a longstanding commitment by New Democrats to move the fixed provincial election date from the spring to the fall in order to allow full scrutiny of government’s budget before a general election. I also want to acknowledge the very good work of the member for Delta South on this matter.

As it currently stands, our fixed election dates are in May while government budgets are presented mid-February. This allows government to table pre-election budgets without proper scrutiny, opening the door to exaggerated claims, hidden measures and post-election flip-flops such as the HST.

By moving the fixed election date to the beginning of October, it will allow for more scrutiny of the state of the province’s finances and ensure that the election also follows presentation of the public accounts. This will better ensure that the people of British Columbia have an opportunity to critically analyze the budget before they vote.

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

Bill M204, Fixed Fall Election Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

A. Weaver: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[1010]

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: With apologies for being late. I was outside with two grade 3 classes from Willows Elementary School who are in the precinct touring today. They are led by teacher Julie Helms, with 24 young, budding citizens of tomorrow, and Cathy Ireton has another class of 24.

Together, two of my colleagues and friends are visiting the House today, Jordana Dehan and her friend Estelle Barren. Would the House please make them welcome here today.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M205 — YOUTH VOTER
REGISTRATION ACT, 2015

R. Fleming presented a bill intituled Youth Voter Registration Act, 2015.

R. Fleming: I move introduction of the Youth Voter Registration Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

R. Fleming: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill, which if enacted, will have a lasting and positive effect on the engagement of young British Columbians. It is indeed complementary to the democratic reforms proposed by the member for Saanich North and the Islands. This bill would allow for the registration of British Columbians at the age of 16. Legislation like this already exists in other Canadian provinces.

In election after election, the 18-to-24-year-old demographic is consistently the lowest in voter participation in our province. In the 2011 report from Keith Archer, B.C.’s Chief Electoral Officer, to the Legislative Assembly several recommendations were made. It was noted that there was a positive correlation between registration and voting.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

R. Fleming: This bill would allow government, Elections B.C. and the Ministry of Education to work in conjunction with schools across the province. It would dramatically increase the number of registered voters by the time they reach the age of 18, when they become eligible to vote.

Currently voter registration is restricted to those who are already 18 years old. That means that when many youth become eligible to vote, they have already left school, and it is much more difficult to be enumerated. Under this bill, youth would already be preregistered, and it would encourage younger voters to take their civic duty to heart.
[ Page 5911 ]

I have had the opportunity to consult with several audiences of high school students on the intent of this bill, most recently at Reynolds Secondary School in my constituency. I’m pleased to report that there’s a unanimous consensus in favour of this measure. Young people have noted that this exists in several other provinces and has indeed increased youth voter participation. By tabling this bill today, it gives the opportunity for all members of the House on both sides to also consult with young people in high schools in their constituencies about the intent of this bill.

I look forward to second reading of the bill. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Bill M205, Youth Voter Registration Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SEEDY SATURDAY EVENT IN VICTORIA

C. James: It’s going to be a Seedy Saturday this weekend here in Victoria. Organized by the James Bay Market Society, our local version, the 22nd annual, is part of a national effort to bring attention to the importance of seed diversity.

Last year 1,800 people attended the event put on by more than 200 vendors and volunteers. This year’s event runs from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Victoria Conference Centre. Seedy Saturday was founded by the Seeds of Diversity Canada, an organization working to preserve seeds, particularly heirloom and endangered varieties.

This event supports gardeners and farmers to help them to grow, maintain and disseminate plant varieties, including vegetables, herbs and flowers. They also work to support local food systems and to increase awareness and knowledge about saving seeds.

Seedy Saturday helps people connect to the sources of their food, and it provides resources that gardeners of all levels need to grow their own. It’s a fabulous event, where old friends reconnect and people make new friends who have a shared passion for saving seeds and supporting local food security. Seedy Saturday is also a family-friendly day, where children love to get involved. New this year is the session on composting for five-to-eight-year-olds.

Attendees can purchase seeds from local vendors and backyard gardeners, exchange gardening books and learn from a fabulous roster of speakers.

Congratulations to the organizers, the volunteers and the participants who have grown Seedy Saturday over the last 22 years. The website jamesbaymarket.com/SeedySaturday is a great place if people want more information. With their nurturing care, it’s germinated into a celebration of community and a way to cultivate knowledge and expertise about our precious seeds.

[1015]

LUNAR NEW YEAR CELEBRATIONS

R. Lee: Today is the first day of the first month of the lunar new year. This lunar new year’s day is traditionally celebrated in many regions in the Asia-Pacific, including China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines. Many British Columbians have heritages traced back to the cultures of these regions.

The Chinese-Canadian community in British Columbia now extends the celebration into an almost month-long activity known as the spring festival.

Two weeks ago the Consul-General of China hosted a reception in Vancouver to celebrate the spring festival, followed by Tzu Chi Foundation of Canada with a blessing ceremony for volunteers.

On B.C.’s second Family Day many families were in the mood of celebration already. Last Friday the first global spring festival couplets competition had an awards ceremony in Burnaby. The top 36 Chinese couplets from over of 1,300 entries were recognized by a prestigious panel.

Over the last weekend I attended a few Chinese New Year celebrations, including those organized by the SFU Chinese Student and Scholars Association, the Jiangxi Fellowship Association, Fairchild-Aberdeen Square, Brentwood Town Centre in Burnaby and the Hauren Choir of Vancouver.

The lunar new year celebration is for all British Columbians. In the next few days the spring festival will be celebrated in many cities. The parade in Vancouver’s Chinatown this Sunday will probably be the largest event of the spring festival in Vancouver. Every year it attracts tens of thousands of spectators and participants. It begins at 11 a.m., but there will be activities starting at 9 a.m. at the Dr. Sun Yat-Sen Garden, ending with a celebration banquet in the evening.

I encourage all members of this House to join in the celebration of the arrival of the 4,712th Year of the Goat — or the ram or the sheep. No matter what you call it, in Mandarin we say Yang Nian.

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
RESIDENTS OF B.C.

J. Darcy: I’d like to join with the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows in recognizing Resident Awareness Week, and I want to congratulate the Professional Association of Residents of B.C., PAR-BC, for their excellent awareness campaign about the valuable work performed every day by resident doctors who have completed their medical degree and are now training in their specialty.
[ Page 5912 ]

Their posters say it very well: “I am a resident doctor. Part doctor, part learner. I care for you.”

PAR-BC has set up booths in hospitals and in sports facilities across the Lower Mainland, including one right now at the Canada Games Pool in New Westminster. They’re running ads on public transit. They have some great videos on their website at www.residentdoctorsbc.ca.

But what I’ve enjoyed most are the personal stories that they call “Humans of Residency,” featuring wonderful young people telling us why they decided to become physicians, what they do in their spare time and why they enjoy being medical residents.

“When I was young and my friends were all dreaming of becoming princesses and cowboys, I wanted to be a doctor,” said one woman, a second-year psychiatry student, “and that never changed.”

A second-year anesthesiology resident says: “Anesthesiology allows me to take care of a patient’s physical and emotional well-being. I provide comfort whether it’s in the OR with an epidural at birth.”

I love this one. “On Thursdays I volunteer at a long-term care facility doing manicures for elderly ladies. It helps me remember that people are more than just a collection of diseases.” Ain’t that the truth?

PAR-BC has adopted the spirit catcher as their emblem, invoking the great shamanistic tradition in First Nations culture of the northwest coast, a tradition which most assuredly began the history of healing in B.C.

Congratulations to PAR-BC on a great awareness campaign. Thank you to those young resident doctors embarking on careers in their chosen, caring professions.

OFF-ROAD VEHICLE USE IN
CHILLIWACK RIVER VALLEY

L. Throness: For several million people in the Lower Mainland, the scenic Chilliwack River Valley is their closest and most accessible wilderness area. There are about 35,000 off-road vehicles within a couple of hours’ travel of the Chilliwack River Valley, which in late years has become heavily frequented by ORVs.

[1020]

Recently I received a petition from the residents of Bell Acres, a quiet, longtime subdivision beside the Chilliwack River in the valley. My constituents complain of noise generated by off-road vehicles speeding up and down the forestry road just a few metres away across the river, to the extent that on many days people can’t carry on normal conversations in their own backyards. The impact on their lifestyles and even on property values is significant.

As the population in the Lower Mainland grows and off-road vehicles become more popular, such conflict will be inevitable. While any British Columbian is welcome to explore the beauty of this area of B.C., my own constituents also need and deserve the use and enjoyment of their property.

I want the residents of Bell Acres, as well as other constituents throughout the vast wilderness areas of my very large riding, to know that I am committed to the protection of their right to peace and quiet. As I have already been doing, I will continue to work with all parties in a positive way to find lasting solutions. My ideal is to strike this balance: that all British Columbians will continue to be welcome to enjoy the great outdoors near Chilliwack and that local residents, the people who elected me and to whom I am responsible, will be able to do the same.

LEGACY OF SUE RODRIGUEZ AND
COURT RULING ON ASSISTED SUICIDE

L. Popham: It is a great privilege today to rise in this House and speak to the legacy of Sue Rodriguez, a woman who lived and died right here on Vancouver Island. She is best known to all of us for her brave fight to have the power to end her own life 22 years ago. Her words came back to us this month on February 6, as a historic decision was made by the Supreme Court of Canada. The court ruled that Canadians have the right to doctor-assisted suicide.

“If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?” Ms. Rodriguez stated in an interview as she faced a grim death from ALS. This decision by the courts was exactly what she was asking and fighting for during the end of her life.

She was brave, and her values are ones now reflected by many Canadians today. She was ahead of her time, and she would have welcomed this decision as an important step forward for a progressive and compassionate Canada.

The unanimous Supreme Court decision opens the door for doctor-assisted dying. I rise to speak to this issue because this decision presents this Legislature with a possible challenge. The court has given the federal government a year to make some changes, and if that fails to happen, the opportunity to make change will come to the provinces.

It’s not an easy subject to talk about, much less to create policy and law for. It’s difficult because it forces us as individuals to think deeply about death, about our own death and about the death of our loved ones. It’s challenging because reasonable and good-hearted people can have radically different perspectives on this topic. Yet of course, it’s an obvious truth that we will all die. Sue Rodriguez’s great gift to us was her demand that we all face this challenge.

MISSION EARLY YEARS CENTRE

S. Gibson: I’m very excited to report on the Fraser Valley Child Development Centre in Mission and how thrilled we are to have one now in our community. It’s one of 12 selected around the province. The Mission
[ Page 5913 ]
Early Years Centre will be based out of the Windebank Elementary School, with the Fraser Valley Child Development Centre giving the leadership.

The Mission Early Years Centre will give families of children ages zero to six access to a range of early learning, health and family services in one convenient location. These services will include StrongStart, an early learning drop-in program that helps children prepare for kindergarten through play-based activities, including storytelling. I hope they have puppets, because I do puppets.

Other services include child care resources and referral, an aboriginal parent-tot drop-in program, as well as a literacy program. The Mission Early Years Centre will also be working on creating an outreach component — very important — through a bus reaching rural parts of the community.

It’s a proven fact that the odds of succeeding in the school system are greatly improved if a child has access to early learning resources. By taking a family-centred approach, understanding that no two children or families are the same, we acknowledge that every child deserves the best start possible in our province.

[1025]

R. Fleming: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Fleming: With us this morning — they should have arrived by now — is a group of 27 grade 6 students and seven adults, including their teacher, Mrs. Judy Rockwell, from Selkirk Montessori School. They’ve already had their own version of question period this morning. I observed earlier with our legislative tour guides. Now they’re here to observe our question period. I would ask the House to make them most welcome here this morning.

J. Darcy: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Darcy: They should be making their way in here at some point soon — grades 5 and 6 students from Lord Tweedsmuir Elementary School in New Westminster. I had the wonderful opportunity, as I do often, to go to these classrooms and try and explain to them, in the clearest possible way, what government does and what an MLA is, describing this chamber — to which one young girl in every class says: “That sounds scary. A chamber?”

In any case they are here today to actually see the chamber, tour this Legislature and get some idea of how government works. I would ask this House to please make them feel very welcome.

Oral Questions

HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
PROJECT ISSUES AND COSTS

J. Darcy: This government’s record on delivering new computer systems is, to be generous, extremely poor. BCeSIS was a colossal failure, costing the education system $97 million. The integrated case management system, ICM, was a boondoggle that cost the Ministry of Children and Families $182 million.

Now we’re hearing troubling information about the $842 million clinical and systems transformation project being developed by this government. Last spring the Health Minister insisted the program was on time and on budget. Does he stand by that statement, or will he admit that there are significant problems that are putting this entire expensive program at risk?

Hon. T. Lake: Having electronic health records for patients is really critical in today’s health care system. Many patients, many doctors, many nurses all recognize that we need to be able to access medical records when the patient needs that service.

The clinical and systems transformation project in the Lower Mainland will merge and create a system to allow a single patient record, whether they’re being treated through Providence Health Care services, Vancouver Coastal or the Provincial Health Services Authority. That system is about $842 million. It’s a very large system.

It is a difficult and complex project, as these IT projects often are. There are always challenges that are encountered, but I am confident that the group that is working together to bring in this system transformation will be doing it in a way that will provide a single patient record and be very successful in delivering modern health care to the people of the Lower Mainland.

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

J. Darcy: We all recognize the critical importance of electronic health records, but surely, if the hard-working people of British Columbia are paying $842 million for a system, they ought to be getting one that’s going to work.

Approximately $72 million per year for three years for that project is being taken out of the operating budget for Vancouver Coastal Health, diverted to capital to pay for this project. This is money that’s being taken out of patient care at the same time as this government closed community health centres and at the same time as home support for the frail elderly in their own home is being cut.

The original contract was signed in March 2013. Planned go-live date: September 2015. Two years ago the official opposition received a leaked confidential risk
[ Page 5914 ]
profile that assessed this project as high risk in 12 out of 13 categories.

[1030]

The government has clearly failed to do due diligence on this project. Why is this government diverting much-needed money out of patient care for a computer system that even its own analyst said was at high risk two years ago?

Hon. T. Lake: It was at the request of Vancouver Coastal that money was allotted to capital from operating to allow this project to go forward. They recognize that today’s modern treatment in the health care system is dependent upon systems of medical records that allow doctors, nurses and all health care providers to access information to make the best decisions possible.

Lots of things in health care are high risk. Lots of things are high risk. Surgeries done every day are high risk, but we do them because we want to get the best outcomes for patients.

This is a complex and very large project that will encounter some challenges along the way, as all of these transformation projects do. But I am confident that we will get to a place where we have a clinical and systems transformation to provide patient-centred, modern care to the people of the Lower Mainland.

Madame Speaker: Recognize the member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: It’s very difficult to hear the Minister of Health basically abandoning responsibility for a project. He says it’s the health authorities alone. This government has allocated $480 million. It’s in this year’s budget. It’s in this year’s service plan. He needs to take some responsibility.

We’ve obtained another leaked confidential memo that details what can only be described as a major dispute between the health authorities and the contractor IBM. It seems that all of the products developed by IBM for the CST have been rejected. The memo states that until the dispute is resolved to “mutual agreement,” the design work cannot begin and that no sites will go live in 2015 as originally planned.

Will the minister take responsibility and tell this House how much that delay is costing the health care system and patients in British Columbia? Take responsibility. Tell us the cost to patients.

Hon. T. Lake: I mentioned that this is a very complex project. To provide a single patient record for over one million people in the Lower Mainland is extremely complex. It will bring us into the modern age, the digital age, of providing health care to patients in the Lower Mainland.

I know there are concerns. There always are with a project this large. That’s why I met with the responsible health authority board chairs and CEOs to discuss the status of the project. My deputy and associate deputy were with me at that time. I followed that with a memo to the clinical services transformation project board to continue their work to try and overcome the challenges, work together, and they’re doing that. I have full confidence in this project.

D. Routley: It appears the Health Minister has lost control of this file, so I’d like to know if the Minister of Technology has had a chance to read or send any e-mails on this issue. The most recent internal memo shows that a few weeks ago the two sides were attempting to avoid a formal escalation process. It says: “If the parties are not able to reach an agreement, the options are mediation or arbitration.”

So after committing $842 million and diverting hundreds of millions of dollars from patient care, the process of actually building this system is bogged down. There seems to be no resolution in sight.

Does the Technology Minister believe that this new system is worth the risk and the enormous dollar figure the Liberals are committing to spending?

[1035]

Hon. T. Lake: I know this member has his own views on how to use technology, quite different than the way we use it.

This is a complex project. There are challenges that the sides are working on with the proponents. This is a very large and complex project. We have three health authorities working together. We have a project board that is working with the supplier. They will work through those problems, and they will create a modern electronic health record for the people of the Lower Mainland.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

D. Routley: Well, this ain’t a tweet, and this ain’t an e-mail. This, unlike most B.C. Liberal business, will be written down and recorded.

In fact, just like BCeSIS, just like ICM, the Liberals have committed…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

D. Routley: …hundreds of millions of dollars to a high-risk computer system, with no expectation that the gamble would pay off. They ignored risks laid out by their own analysts, committed hundreds of millions of dollars that could have been spent getting patients out of shower rooms and hospital hallways and providing better care for our seniors.
[ Page 5915 ]

Why hasn’t this government learned its lesson? Can the Technology Minister explain why the government didn’t do proper due diligence to ensure that this transformation would work before committing hundreds of millions of dollars that could have been spent on patient care?

Hon. T. Lake: It’s a little rich coming from a member of a party that ran a government that didn’t build one hospital. Oh yeah, they built two ferries that were never used. This computer system will be used.

This new patient information system will allow single electronic health records for patients in the Lower Mainland. Providence Health Care and Vancouver Coastal and the Provincial Health Services Authority are working together through a project board. They’re working through the challenges. I have great confidence that this project will be delivered to provide modern health care for the people of the Lower Mainland.

COMMENTS BY PREMIER
ON TransLink GOVERNANCE

G. Heyman: Yesterday in the midst of a referendum that the business community and many others have lined up to support because they know how important transit investment is to everyone, the Premier claimed: “TransLink belongs to the mayors and only the mayors. If there are problems that need to be addressed in TransLink, fix those problems, because it’s not a provincially run organization.”

As the minister well knows, in 2007 the Liberals booted the mayors from the board of directors and replaced them with government appointees. He also knows that only the government, by legislation, can change the board.

So my question is to the Minister of Transportation. Did you simply shrug and laugh at the Premier, as so many in the media did? Or have you taken the opportunity to explain her government’s own legislation to the Premier so she will not misspeak herself again?

Hon. T. Stone: You know, the people of Metro Vancouver have an outstanding opportunity in front of them. They have an opportunity to cast a vote in the upcoming plebiscite that, perhaps more than many other things, will actually have a huge influence on the growth of the region.

I know the members opposite are offended by the notion of providing the people of the region with that say, but this government is extremely proud that the people of Metro Vancouver are going to have a say over expansion of transit and transportation.

[1040]

Now, we are also proud of the fact that last year we significantly expanded the authorities and the powers of the Mayors Council. They now have two seats on the board of directors. The mayor of Vancouver and the mayor of Surrey are full participants in the TransLink board. And to correct a statement that has been made by members opposite about the TransLink board, every single member on that board is appointed by the Mayors Council. They are approved by the Mayors Council.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: The minister is putting up a brave front, but I fear that he’s having as much trouble understanding the legislation as his Premier. I mean, if minorities could make decisions, we’d have vastly different legislation in this chamber.

Reporters were quick with comments like, “Wow, that’s a basic wrong — an insight into the minds who brought us the referendum in the first place,” or simply: “She’s wrong.” Last year the minister declined to actually make TransLink accountable again. Perhaps the Premier missed that debate.

To the minister, everyone knows the Premier is either misinformed or she’ll say anything to deflect attention from her own responsibility, so which is it? Is she obfuscating yet again or simply wrong?

Hon. T. Stone: The inconsistency of the position of the member opposite and the NDP is, frankly, galling. Depending on the day of the week, we hear some senior members of the NDP say that they support the referendum. A few days later we hear senior members of the NDP who say they don’t support the referendum. We hear from the member for Vancouver-Fairview, who a year ago said the referendum has no chance of success, and now he appears to be a convert to the cause.

The fundamental issue in this plebiscite is: are the people of the region going to support the tax that the mayors say is needed to expand transit and transportation to address the reality that there will be a million more people coming to the region? It would be entirely helpful to the cause if the members opposite would come together and put out a consistent position on the issue.

RELEASE OF REPORT ON OIL AND GAS
INDUSTRY HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES

V. Huntington: I think it was the minister that changed his mind recently on one of those major files.

Liquefied natural gas has been a cornerstone in this government’s vision. Meanwhile the people in….

Interjection.

V. Huntington: Well, this might be one for the Minister of Health too.
[ Page 5916 ]

Meanwhile the people in northeastern B.C. still have serious concerns about the oil and gas industry’s impact on their health.

In 2012 the government released its first report on the northeast oil and gas human health risk assessment. The study found that many residents in northeastern B.C. attributed personal health problems such as asthma, bronchitis, cancer, stress and sleep deprivation directly to exposure to oil and gas operations. Others had concerns about unreported spills and contaminated water, to name just a very few.

Phase 2 of the assessment included both scientific research on how oil and gas operations are affecting human health in the northeast and a review of where government regulations may be falling short. This important report was supposed to have been completed a year ago, but we are still waiting for its release.

Would the Minister of Health tell the House why the report has not yet been made public?

[1045]

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for the question. Whenever we do development in any part of the province, but particularly where development is concentrated, given the topographical realities of the province of British Columbia, it’s important that we look at the impact on human health with this development.

The assessment has been managed with the highest standards of scientific integrity. We have applied scientific principles to analyze the possible health, operational and regulatory issues with oil and gas development. The recommendations are being reviewed, and the different ministries are being briefed. We hope to be able to release that report in the very near future.

Madame Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

V. Huntington: Northern British Columbians want to know whether the current regulation of the oil and gas industry does or does not protect their health. The government has the information and has so far refused to release it.

After an FOI request and 86 days of waiting we received zero pieces of information — nothing. When we asked for the data, the factual data, the ministry told us it wouldn’t make sense without the report.

Well, I want that data, and the government has a legal obligation to disclose factual data when it’s in the public interest. I promise the minister that I will have it properly interpreted so he doesn’t have to worry about me making sense of it all by myself.

The people of this province deserve to know about any human health risks and regulatory shortfalls the government may be hiding. If the minister isn’t engaging in some sort of cover-up, will he immediately release the report, phase 2 of the northeast oil and gas human health risk assessment report, complete with all supporting technical data and supplemental research?

Hon. T. Lake: For the member to suggest that there’s any kind of cover-up is absolutely ridiculous. I’ll say that from the top.

It’s important when you’re doing a report of this magnitude that the recommendations be reviewed by all the ministries involved. We have the Ministry of Health; we have the Ministry of Environment; we have the Ministry of Natural Gas Development and the Ministry of Energy. We need to make sure that all the ministries have reviewed all the recommendations.

Phase 3 of this process will be to take that report out to the public. That will be done when we have had careful review of the recommendations, and I hope we will be able to do that in the very near future.

WAIT TIMES FOR PHONE SERVICE
AT SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT MINISTRY

M. Mungall: Few MLA s have not heard stories of people waiting endlessly for someone to answer their call when they phone the Ministry of Social Development’s 1-800 number. In 2014 call wait times jumped from the average of eight to ten minutes to 34 minutes. Ed Lowe, a ministry client from here in Victoria, waited over an hour this past Monday before finally just hanging up. Clients are calling this the 1-800-USELESS number.

These wait times are unacceptable, Minister, and workers are overstretched in an understaffed ministry. To the minister: what are you going to do to fix this?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It is my great pleasure, and I appreciate the opportunity, to respond to the member opposite for the first time here in the House. I am honoured to serve in a ministry that cares for British Columbia’s most vulnerable citizens.

There are a number of reasons why those call times went up last year. The reality is the ministry receives 120,000 calls each month and 1.5 million calls every year.

[1050]

There was new technology in place. This new technology gives more options to our clients, allows them the callback feature and allows them to have times told to them — how long their wait time will be on the phone. I am currently up to date from staff who reported that the recent wait times are under ten minutes.

Madame Speaker: Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Well, one of the reasons that these call times are going up is because this ministry is reducing office hours. They’re reducing office hours in over 11 rural communities, mine being one of them. When clients can’t
[ Page 5917 ]
afford to stay on hold for so long with their pay-as-you-go cell phones, they go to advocates. Unfortunately, they, too, are sitting on hold for far too long and not able to help people while they wait.

Something needs to be done here. There are 51 qualified MSD employees who just got their layoff notices yesterday. Does the minister see a solution waiting to happen here? And if she does, when is she going to make it happen?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There certainly are certain peak times when callers will experience longer than normal wait times, especially leading up to and including the cheque issue days. But again, from the staff at the ministry, it indicates that there are only ten-minute wait times. We are continuing to look for ways to find and improve the service to ensure that we are treating our people fairly and respectfully, and a ten-minute wait time is acceptable.

LIQUOR SALES OUTLETS AND LICENCES

D. Eby: This Attorney General has been working overtime to create confusion and uncertainty in B.C.’s alcohol industry. Earlier this week the AG said: “We’re not increasing the number of liquor outlets in B.C., so anyone who has a licence is in pretty good shape.” But on December 19 she sent out a press release that said that new licences will be made available to grocery stores. Which is it? To the Attorney General, is she issuing new licences or not?

Hon. S. Anton: It has been a great pleasure to handle the liquor file and modernize liquor for the citizens of British Columbia. And one thing is clear: consumers are very happy about the changes that we are making. And there are significant changes coming. However, a change that is not coming is the number of liquor outlets. We have the moratorium until 2022. We have nearly 700 private liquor stores, we have nearly 200 government liquor stores, and we have some independent wine stores.

The stores that move into grocery will be the private liquor stores, or possibly a government store, but they will not be new licences. This joins all the many, many changes that we have made in British Columbia liquor laws to improve the liquor regime for customers, for the public, for manufacturers and, in fact, for our whole province.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

WHOLESALE PRICING
INFORMATION FOR WINERIES

D. Eby: Well, this has been a pleasure for the Attorney General, but I can assure her it has not been a pleasure for industry, especially those that read her December 19 press release to now find that that’s inaccurate.

Not only changing the number of liquor licences and then changing her mind on that, the Attorney General changed her mind about whether or not she was going to change wholesale prices in this province. After she decided to change wholesale prices, she distributed spreadsheets for wineries to use to see how the policy works. Well, the first one gave incorrect results. The second one left out key information for wineries to know what new retail costs will be.

The Attorney General told wineries that the government would give them the information they needed seven business days before the new policy was implemented. The B.C. Wine Institute finally intervened, e-mailing wineries, saying: “Ignore the Attorney General’s spreadsheets altogether.”

[1055]

Again, to the Attorney General, why is she creating such confusion in such an important B.C. industry?

Hon. S. Anton: At midnight on March 31 there will be a button pushed and a new regime in place, which is wholesale pricing. That wholesale pricing is something that….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. S. Anton: That wholesale pricing is something that has been sought for quite some time. The wholesale pricing, of course, means that the price will be equally applicable to government liquor stores, to private liquor stores and to independent wine stores. Everyone will buy it. At rural agency stores…. They will all buy that liquor at the same price.

This joins the many changes that we have made. Local manufacturers can sell at farmers markets. You can change your price of alcohol during the day. Imagine — you can now advertise a happy hour at four in the afternoon should you wish to. Liquor primaries may have children come in during the day to join their families for dinner. These are very positive changes for liquor in British Columbia, and yes indeed, things are changing.

CRAFT DISTILLERY COMMISSIONS
FOR SALES IN TASTING ROOMS

K. Conroy: Well, independent B.C. distilleries aren’t looking forward to that button being pushed, especially ones like Kootenay Country in the Slocan Valley that used to rely on an exemption under government policy that let them claim a 30 percent bonus commission for sales they made at their distillery tasting room. On April 1 the Attorney General is ending this commission
[ Page 5918 ]
— money they use to grow their business and compete head-on with big importers.

The B.C. Craft Distilling Association calls the decision devastating. Why is the Attorney General hurting small, family-owned distilleries and favouring distilling giants from outside B.C.?

Hon. S. Anton: I think all of us in British Columbia are very proud of our craft distilleries, our craft breweries and our local wine industry. It is a great benefit to employment. They produce terrific products in British Columbia which are widely enjoyed by British Columbians and others, and I fully expect that to continue after these changes are made.

[End of question period.]

L. Throness: I’d like to introduce a petition.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

A member is seeking the floor to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

L. Throness: A petition.

Madame Speaker: A petition. I’m sorry. That truly indicates that there is too much noise in this chamber.

Please proceed, Member.

Petitions

L. Throness: I want to present a petition today given to me by the residents of a subdivision in the Chilliwack River Valley in my riding called Bell Acres. It has been signed by 83 of my constituents, and it states the following: “We the homeowners and taxpayers of Bell Acres and others living across from the Tamihi staging area demand that the Tamihi off-road vehicle staging area be closed and moved far away from our homes.”

I present this for the consideration of this House.

Orders of the Day

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

[1100]

Budget Debate

(continued)

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

J. Shin: Today, February 19, is the lunar new year, celebrated by many British Columbians of Filipino, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean descent, among other countries. So I do want to start off by wishing the House a healthy and happy lunar new year as we welcome the Year of Blue Sheep.

Before I continue with my response to Budget 2015, I do want to thank the 53,000-some members of Burnaby-Lougheed community, many of whom I’ve gotten to know at their doorsteps, at their businesses, events and meetings over the past years. I do want to thank them again for sharing with me their ideas, their heartfelt concerns and good suggestions as well as telling me a dream or two that they have that they’re hoping to fulfil.

From growing illiteracy in our community to increasing social isolation of our seniors, from an unaffordable housing situation to tuition hikes, from Kinder Morgan pipeline risks to liquor policy changes, from the seismic upgrades outstanding in our schools to deferred maintenance at Simon Fraser University and Burnaby Hospital in my riding, issues in Burnaby-Lougheed are as diverse as our community and our population.

Their passion and care do continue to humble and inspire me in this job, and I do want to thank again each and every one of them who have lent their voice in exercising their civic rights.

On to this Budget 2015. I had much anticipation for it. I had the privilege of touring around the province last fall with members from all sides of this
[ Page 5919 ]
House, visiting dozens of communities and hearing from hundreds of individuals, businesses, organizations and stakeholders.

I certainly didn’t expect the members on the committee to agree on everything, but under the wonderful facilitation, I must say, by the two Chairs — the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill as well as the member for Penticton — I found my first experience serving on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services to be a good one. It was a pleasant experience, comparatively speaking, and one that I believe was on a collaborative note, which is always a welcome departure from what I’ve grown accustomed to in this House.

Many hours were spent on deliberating the key requests that we heard from different communities throughout the province, and I felt that our committee did earnestly try to articulate the best interests of British Columbians as they were conveyed to us during the public hearings. We’ve put forward what I, again, think was not only a thoughtful set but also a reasonable set of recommendations to the Ministry of Finance for Budget 2015 consideration.

For this past Tuesday’s budget announcement, I can genuinely testify that I listened with hope, first as a citizen of this province — myself in my own right — but before that, I’m also a member of the official opposition, with the duty to hold the government accountable.

I listened with hope, also, because over the past two years in this job I believe I had several chances, although it’s painfully limited sometimes. On whatever quasi or cursory level, with all members from all sides of this House, I managed to build some belief that we all have something in common here regardless of which party we are aligned with, that we are here with good intentions and that we work really hard for our province.

So you can imagine that I was disappointed that among the countless initiatives that we heard — I wasn’t alone; it was with many other members in this House — on the Finance Committee tour…. Also, it’s something that I hear from my community in Burnaby-Lougheed. Out of all of those great things to be done and where this government could have committed their dollars, the tax break to B.C.’s top 2 percent earners that nobody asked for — that took me by a big surprise. It wasn’t a pleasant one to know that that would come at the cost of $230 million out of our public treasury. I’m lost for words when it comes to that point.

The Premier’s idea of improving the lives of British Columbians is by giving the top 2 percent earners a tax break. I wonder if that could have gone to our schools, our roads, our hospitals, for our seniors, our students and our families. I’m shell-shocked.

[1105]

Every time I wrote that letter, stood up in the House, advocated for the programs and services that not just my families in Burnaby-Lougheed but, I believe, families across this province count on, too often the answer was that it can’t be done. “There is just no money. There’s not enough. Money doesn’t grow on trees. Times are tough.” We’ve heard it all, and I agree. I agree absolutely. I do.

There wasn’t enough money to keep the English-language-learning programs for the 9,000 British Columbians who asked for it. Last fall we had over 300 students and faculty gather from all corners of this province, asking the government to rethink and to consider investing in the immigrants who chose B.C. as their home.

We have jobs that can’t find people, yet we have professionals we attracted from around the globe who should be empowered by this government to be equipped with the language skills that they need in order to take up the jobs that are available so that they can contribute to our economy.

I was certain that the Minister of Advanced Education would put on that creative thinking hat that he asks all of our institutions to wear and come up with a real solution to this issue instead of continuing to dodge it. That’s the responsibility. I understand that there were some piecemeal-sized transitional funds to the ABE — but again, not ELL. There are some limited needs-based grants, but they’re not long-term, real solutions to the problem that we have at hand here.

I asked the minister then, and I’ll ask again. How is it that the ministry is still unaware that the community and settlement agency programs are (1) not available to Canadian citizens, as per the CIC guidelines; (2) they already have long, exhaustive wait-lists; (3) they cannot provide access to academic services or facilities, as in the case with the colleges; and lastly, they are not set up to provide the same kinds of academic pathways for students so that they can officially transition from language courses to academic and career-oriented programs?

Again, I’m not seeing that addressed in this Budget 2015 for our immigrant Canadians at VCC, at Camosun, at Douglas, at Kwantlen and more. To know that 56 percent of Burnaby-Lougheed, which I represent, is made up of those immigrant communities…. I really don’t think the word “disappointment” would express the pending hardship that students, faculty and schools will face this year and for more years to come unless the ministry acts on it.

The government says balancing the budget means making hard choices. I don’t, by any means, intend to undermine the difficulty of that task at hand. I fully understand that these are tough decisions to make — tough decisions like choosing to leave world-renowned institutions like Simon Fraser University moulding and crumbling; tough choices like having vital facilities like Burnaby Hospital, and many K-to-12 buildings like Montecito Elementary School in my riding, seismically unsafe, critical maintenance deferred and necessary upgrades still undone.

Of course, money certainly doesn’t grow on trees. I get that. It certainly doesn’t grow on trees — for the $20,000, just $20,000, that Pacific Post-Partum Support Society in my community needs in order to continue providing its phone counselling line to mothers and families who just need that listening pair of ears on the other line of the phone for that timely advice to get them past some of the darkest hours of their lives. I get that. There’s no money for that.

There is also no money for the growing illiteracy in our community. I’ve spoken on this before. There are four literacy levels, ranging from level 1, where individuals have great trouble reading. How great? So great that they may not be able to figure out the correct dosage that they need to administer for their child as they take their medicine, for example, based on the information that’s provided on the package. At level 2, people have limited skills, which means they’re only able to deal with the information if it’s clearly laid out using the simplest terms. Level 1 and level 2 are obviously not enough for people that fall under that criteria to take on the complex, daily activities that they need to face every day.

Level 3 is just when one would be considered to have the very minimum capacity to cope with the basic demands of everyday living, as well as caring and sticking to a job. What scares me is the fact that over 75 percent of Canadians fit into levels 1 to 3, with more than 40 percent of us falling below level 2, and this number is growing.

[1110]

Guess what. Times are too tough, according to the government, so the entire province must tackle this problem on a budget of $2 million — the entire province.
[ Page 5920 ]

What does this mean? It just means that our communities are called upon, once again, to fundraise more, to be more creative, to volunteer all your hours. At some point you wonder: where are our tax dollars going that should be providing the funds needed to pay for these services and programs?

Yes, I get it. I mean, I think any reasonable, well-intended British Columbian would understand the value of, of course, finding efficiency. I’m all about it: controlling spending, absolutely, and reducing the debt. So to some extent, we are willing to nod along to the government’s answers, be it: “The money doesn’t grow on trees” or “Times are tough” or “There’s no money” to “making hard choices.” But I think the real questions here are: when we say “finding efficiency,” where are those efficiencies found? When we say we are controlling spending, what are we cutting to control that spending? When we say we are reducing the debt, have we in fact reduced our debt, or has it been increasing?

When we look at the answers, I think it’s impossible not to be critical. I think that is what I’m hearing from my constituents. It’s not about how much they’re taxed. It’s not about the fees that are going up. I think there’s a real discontent and utter lack of faith. They feel as though with this government, and us politicians in general: do we really spend the public dollars honestly in the best way possible? I think that’s the critical concern there.

That’s the reason why, again, for the transit referendum issue, what I’m hearing is not about the 0.5 percent — or 1 percent or 2 percent or whatever increases that are imposed on us — to rally together, to make those investments that we need in transit. Really, the concern there is: “So what if we increase our taxes and bring more dollars to the table? Are they even going to spend it on the roads, on the bridges, on where we think the money should go?”

I think the concern is that people have lost faith completely. They think it’s going to go to CEOs. It’s going to go into areas anywhere other than where the money is supposed to be used.

That’s exactly why I think it’s outrageously disturbing that after the no to this, no to that — all the noes that I’ve heard — the government can turn right around and find money for…. I hate coming back to this, but I just still can’t get over the fact that the ex-Liberal MLA Ben Stewart’s car allowance is $3,000 per month. I don’t even know how to justify that.

It doesn’t stop there. Housing allowance is $6,000 per month. And while the ELL students are being told no, he gets $2,500 for Chinese lessons. I don’t know how to square that in my mind. I’m pretty sure the members opposite think the same, too, and ask those questions.

I don’t pretend to understand what’s going on in the cabinet and some of the questions that you must be having with the stakeholders that have a real say in how the budget is spent. But from where I stand, I do stand with my constituents and think: how is that okay?

Sure, $350,000 on running social media and Google ads to get the message out on the government’s stance and whatever facts that the government wants to present to the citizens. I get that. That is money that we have to do for marketing. We do advertising. I get it. But at a time where prudence is the key theme and we need to be watching how we spend every dime, again I’m having a hard time justifying that $350,000 investment for social media and Google ads when my community groups, like the Pacific Post-Partum group, are just asking for 20,000 bloody dollars, and there’s no money for that. I’ve been at it for two years, and there’s just no answer there.

Again, money seem to grow on trees if it means for…. I can’t keep track of all the CEOs and their severance packages and sweetheart deals and welcome bonuses. Times seem to never be tough enough to…. To be able to gamble $8.8 billion — not a million, a billion; it’s a mind-boggling number, in my mind — on the Site C project and to be able to commit to a project of that scale without an independent review — again, I don’t know.

[1115]

The Premier and the government think that $230 million worth of tax breaks for the top 2 percent of earners of this province might be the best way to spend public funds. Who knows? Maybe they have studies and statistics on that. I’m willing to learn all about the spinoff benefits that can possibly come from allocating a large sum like that for a tax break. I would love to learn and be enlightened.

I got calls from my friends and my colleagues — the doctors, the professors, the contractors — who make money well above $150,000 a year, and they were shocked. They said, for one, they don’t need this kind of tax break. They don’t remember asking for one or fighting for one. Lastly, they said that they would never take a tax cut over tax well spent as honest and thoughtful investment into our communities.

How about fixing that hallway medicine? Or even just making it a little better for the crowded classroom situation? How about just a couple of thousand bucks for us to fix that one hallway stretch in SFU that is just moulding? It looks like a scene out of Ghostbusters. Something looks like it’s been slammed into the wall and there’s green puke everywhere.

These are pictures that I’ve seen firsthand — myself and the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. We’ve seen it. We’ve visited these sites, and it’s there. It’s hard to believe that this is SFU, one of the most world-renowned facilities, with tons of international audiences that are judging us based on the kind of facilities that we have here in British Columbia.

Of course, we have the housing crisis. As my friend puts it…. My friend is a nurse, her partner is an accountant, and she’s packing it up and going back to Taiwan, she says. She said: “Jane, British Columbia is where you make six figures and can’t afford a house with a yard. B.C. is a place where you make six figures and you live poor.”
[ Page 5921 ]

For myself, too, I have a modest condo that I rented out. I’m in my mid-30s. I think it’s a good time for me to start thinking about maybe getting that house with a yard. I’ve got a big greyhound — a rescue greyhound. I would love to see him run in a fenced yard.

For me, I’ve given up on Burnaby, as much as I’m a resident of Burnaby. I can’t find a house that I can occupy for anything less than $800,000. Who knows? I might be the member for Burnaby-Lougheed, but I might need to get a place out in Mission or Maple Ridge or Chilliwack.

We do have a real housing crisis. In the face of the fact that the federal government is also pulling back on the subsidy that was available for co-op housing, and no clear answer from the government as to what we are going to be doing to over 3,000 residents on fixed or limited incomes — single moms, seniors in their community — that will be displaced without some sort of an action from this government, be it federal or provincial…. Figure it out, because these are real people’s lives that are at risk.

Again, I didn’t see anything in Budget 2015 that would give us some assurance that something will be done on that file.

So there we have it. With this budget, the rest of us — 98 percent of British Columbians, which amounts to 4.5 million British Columbians — will be paying for that $230 million tax break to the 2 percent richest. That includes most of us in this House, actually. It’s very disheartening to know that the tax break that some of us will be getting in this House will be paid for by the 4.5 million British Columbians by 4 percent MSP, 5.2 percent ICBC, 6 percent hydro increases and more tolls and more user fees, from ferries to tuition.

I had the pleasure of joining my very good friend Avtar Bains this past weekend. It was the annual Variety Show of Hearts Telethon. That initiative first began, I think, in the 1960s. At their first telethon they raised about $60,000. Well, I was thrilled that our community rallied just over one weekend, and they brought in close to $6 million. From $60,000 to $6 million — that’s a lot of generosity from our community.

[1120]

My friend, Avtar, also presented a big cheque from the funds that he raised through his restaurant, which means $5 from every meal went to this particular initiative. To have that $5 from every meal was, again, our community coming and choosing to eat at that diner. So it does really come from the community once again.

My heart was full standing on the stage at the Red Robinson theatre and joining the callers and the volunteers in the community in such a worthy initiative for the sick children of B.C. I was one of them. I was 16. My family couldn’t have afforded the cost for the treatments that it took to have me stand before you today. So I’m definitely a recipient of such generosity from the community, from the taxpayer dollars that went toward the vulnerable population, of which I was one of them.

There was part of me standing on that stage in front of the camera thinking: how many fundraisers do we need to go to? How many home lotteries does a community need to buy every year? There’s one for Vancouver General Hospital. There’s one for B.C. Children’s Hospital. There’s one for Surrey Memorial Hospital. I can’t keep track of all the home lotteries that we’ve got to buy to make sure we have decent facilities, decent equipment in our hospitals.

It just makes me wonder. Under this government, the services and infrastructure that I thought would be paid for by our tax dollars…. We do pay a good amount of taxes. We pay the GST, the PST. We pay the property transfer tax. We pay property tax. We pay our income tax. There are taxes all around, and there are fees all around.

That’s a lot of taxes that are going into our public treasury. Some of these things that we think should be paid for by those funds…. I don’t know. I think we have a population that’s growing to be more cynical and more pessimistic and growing unfaithful about the funds. Are they really being used the way they should be used?

I think these are legitimate questions. I’m not talking in this tone out of cynicism or just vain accusation. That’s not my intent here. I think those are some real questions we can ask.

Our families are paying more. We’re volunteering more. We are donating more. The wages are not keeping up; we know that. B.C., unfortunately, is dead last when it come to median wage growth. In fact, the median wages have gone down. Young people are finding it hard to get jobs here. I see so many of my former students getting a university degree, getting a licence, occupation, training. The next thing that they tell me is: “I can’t find a job, Jane. I’m going to go to Korea to teach English.”

We have jobs here that are being filled by temporary foreign workers at record speed and rate. I don’t envy the jobs that all of us are facing. It’s incredibly complex. Things are very tangled. I’m not pretending to say that I have a better solution. In fact, it’s a real struggle and a hard problem to solve. But I think we can do better. It’s the reason why I’m having this conversation with you in this House.

Let’s break this down. What does this Budget 2015 really mean for the 98 percent of my constituents in Burnaby-Lougheed as well as the rest of us in B.C.? The lower- and middle-income families will be paying more in 2015 compared to 2014. B.C. Hydro rates…. I can go through the numbers. They’re right in front of me. At the end of the day, hydro, MSP, ICBC alone — you’re looking at an average increase of $175 this year.

I get it. It sounds like a reasonable sum. It’s not too bad. But I also recognize the fact that that’s easy for me to say because I’m paid well. I never thought about MSP because it’s always been a part of my benefits package as faculty at institutions, as a college administrator. It was never a factor. It was never an issue.

[1125]

I know that as soon as I step out of my circle of influence or look into the eyes of the constituents that walk into my office, that reality is not the case for most of the people that are out there.

As governors, members in this House, I think we need to be critically aware of the fact that our reality, as it stands for us, is grossly different from that of the bulk of the British Columbians that are out there, and $175 is a lot of money. It’s a lot of money for a lot of these people. It could be the difference between being able to send your child with a full stomach or an empty stomach, choosing to walk an hour home or being able to afford a bus fare to get home.

In that one year, a $175 fee hike this year, but let’s also put that in perspective and see what the families are paying since 2001.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Shin: Oh, okay. I just want to leave one quick last minute…. It’s not a matter of affordability; it is a matter of priority. I do want to urge the government to re-evaluate its priorities and reconsider Budget 2015.

Hon. J. Rustad: It’s a pleasure to be able to rise and to speak in favour of Budget 2015.

We do a lot of things around the province, and of course, we’re away from family. As I mentioned earlier this week when I had a chance to respond to throne, as always, I want to thank my lovely wife and my family — in terms of support for being able to do this job — and my constituents.

It’s a tremendous honour and privilege to have the chance to be able to represent the good people of Nechako Lakes down in the Legislature and to be able to speak about the things that are important for my riding and to be able to be part of government, which makes decisions for the benefit of all British Columbians and certainly, as well, for my riding.

One of the things that you have to take in mind is that we spend a lot of time away from our riding, and our constituency assistants do a tremendous amount of work. In my office, I’ve been very fortunate to have two wonderful ladies who do work on behalf of me in my riding and on behalf of government. I really want to just take a moment and thank them.

Nadine Frenkel, who joined my team about a year and a half ago now, is doing a great job working on behalf of my constituents. Also, Judy King, who has been with me now, I think, for almost seven years, is retiring, coming up at the end of March.

This would be my last opportunity to thank Judy publicly for the great work that she’s done over the years and to say that it’s been much appreciated. I know the constituents have really appreciated your efforts, Judy, and I wish you all the best in your retirement.

I’m thinking about Budget 2015 and the things that are going on. But before I go into some details on that, I just want to take a moment and reflect on one of the big events that is happening in my riding, or in the north, and that is the Canada Winter Games. The Canada Winter Games are on at the moment, and they are absolutely spectacular. The volunteers and the organizing team for the games, I think, have done a tremendous job.

I had an opportunity to see the opening ceremonies, and it was really quite spectacular — the show that they put in place. My understanding is that all of the volunteers have been incredibly helpful for the people and for the athletes — over 2,400 athletes that are participating in these games, over 1,000 coaches, the families and everybody else that is there — around supporting them. It’s really great to be able to see what is going on over the 18 days.

I want to take just a moment to talk a little bit about one particular individual, Emily Dickson, who was born and raised in Burns Lake and who lives in Prince George now and who just recently won a gold medal, as well as her other achievements. I just want to say congratulations to her, as I want to say congratulations to all of the athletes who are participating and who are achieving — whether it’s medals or personal bests — throughout these games. [Applause.]

To the Minister of Community and Sport, thank you very much for that.

[1130]

Onto the budget. The member opposite who was just speaking — the member for Burnaby-Lougheed, I believe it was — was talking about some changes in taxation. I find it very interesting, because one of the things that is most important when you come into this job is to talk about the things you’re going to do and then deliver on the things that you’re going to do.

Part of what we put in place two years ago to help us get to a balanced budget was a temporary tax increase. We implemented a tax increase to help us get through, to be able to make sure that we protect the people in the province and the programs and services that we offer as we strive to get to a balanced budget. This budget is now our third balanced budget in a row, a feat that no other jurisdiction in Canada has been able to achieve. To help us get to that, we needed to do a short-term, two-year increase to those who are earning over $150,000. We said to them: “This is important. This is a priority. We’re going to have to do this.”

We put this tax in, but we intentionally put a sunset clause in place. That has been well known for a long period of time, but for some reason, the members opposite just don’t seem to — whether they haven’t read it or whether they’ve just got short memories — understand what a temporary increase is, that there was already a sunset clause in place. They also don’t seem to understand that it’s important to actually keep promises. That is one of the things that we did in this budget: to reverse
[ Page 5923 ]
that increase as was promised, as was already in place and planned.

The other thing I wanted to just touch on was…. The member opposite also talked about Site C and called it this $8.8 billion gamble.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Rustad: I wish the member opposite would perhaps do a little bit of research and work prior to coming in and speaking in the chamber about Site C.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Rustad: Site C has been a project that has been studied more than any other project in B.C.’s history. Over 30 years of studies and work and input and feedback and consultation and more studies and more reviews went on for this particular project, to build up the case for why Site C was the right thing to do for the province of British Columbia. After 30 years’ work under the NDP, work under the Social Credit, work under the B.C. Liberals, this government came to a decision to say that for the interests of the ratepayers and for the people of British Columbia, this was the right project to support, to be able to meet not only our short-term needs but, going forward, to leave a legacy for future generations.

If you went back and looked at the decisions that were made around our existing dam infrastructures that were built 50 and 60 years ago, I think you’ll see some of the same comments from the people on the other side about those projects — just saying that they’re not needed, that they’re expensive, that they’re risky, that they’re a gamble. They turned into an enormous economic asset and an enormous benefit for the province of British Columbia. It just goes to show that the ideas from the other side really, truly deserve to be living in the previous century.

Site C will provide that stability for power for the province. It’ll help to keep us one of the most competitive jurisdictions anywhere in North America, which helps to support industries like forestry, like agriculture, and other industries that desperately need the use of electricity and need those rates to be kept low.

Budget 2015. When I look through the budget and what’s been put forward, I find it easy to be able to support the way the budget was structured and the way it comes out. The budget is designed to meet our promises on our wage increases, meet our promises to be able to support our public sector in the great work that they do for the people of the province, as well as provide some modest changes to those who need it and at the same time making sure we maintain our fiscal responsibility.

It’s the right type of budget, and it’s the right type of thing to do, given the fiscal environment that we have. When you look around the world, and you look at the challenges that are happening, it’s almost unheard of to be able to see that type of stability come forward — recent drops in energy prices that we’ve seen, the various instabilities that we’ve seen for places, like what’s going on in Europe and other places, even the slowdown in China. All of those have an impact on us, but, through prudent fiscal management, we’re able to bring forward a budget that meets the needs of our province and that does so in a fiscally responsible way.

[1135]

There are many important components in that budget that I think are important for my riding of Nechako Lakes. Nechako Lakes is very dependent upon forestry and agriculture and mining. Being able to move forward and continue to support the mining industry through the flow-through credits and other measures that are taken in this budget, being able to increase the budgeting for permitting and going through that process — all of these things continue to help support a robust mining sector that has much potential for growth.

In my riding we’re hoping to be able to see construction on a new mine here start within a couple of years in the south of Vanderhoof. These types of steps will help make it easier for that final investment decision to come about and see that project move forward.

In forestry and other resource developments, this budget continues to support the industries that we have and helps to diversify and grow these types of activities we have in the riding.

I just want to take a second to talk a little bit about L&M Lumber. L&M Lumber is a company that has been around for a long time now in Vanderhoof. It’s a company that has been incredibly innovative. It’s taken what opportunities it could find — small-diameter wood or other types of products — and really created a financial and an economic success story through this.

They’ve added on a pellet facility that was one of the early pellet facilities built in the area. They’ve recently just added on a power plant. All of these types of innovations have really helped to show true leadership in the forest industry in how it can balance and utilize the resources to the best of its ability to be able to continue to generate jobs and support the community of Vanderhoof.

I think it’s a great story. I’m seeing other mills now following its lead — doing the type of innovation and approaches and trying to do the same type of investments — because they see how it will benefit industry over time.

One of the pieces, as well, that I want to take a second to talk about is natural gas. We don’t extract natural gas in Nechako Lakes. There is some potential in the Nechako Basin for natural gas and oil, but at this stage that’s still some time out into the future. But we do, you know, experience what’s happening with natural gas extraction up in the northeast of the province and the need to be able to find a new market for this gas.
[ Page 5924 ]

If we do not open up the liquefied natural gas opportunity, the fear and the risk is that we will lose the parts of the industry that we already have. There’s certainly a lot of natural gas that’s being discovered all around the world, in particular in North America, in the east side of North America, so the demand for our gas is decreasing.

The only way we can make sure we not only assure the security of those jobs and that economic development in the northeast is to be able to find those new markets, which is what developing liquefied natural gas is all about.

It’s really quite a shame when I hear the members opposite. It’s been almost two years now since the last election, and I think they’ve maybe asked one question about liquefied natural gas in this House. They’ve asked no questions about natural gas development and the support of it. It’s really a shame that they would ignore something that is so critical for this department.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Rustad: I see that we’ve woken up the members opposite…

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Rustad: …with this, because it struck a little too close to home.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. J. Rustad: Natural gas is something that is fundamental and strong. The unfortunate part is…. I mean, as we move this thing forward, you can almost see that they ignore it, they don’t ask any questions about it, they don’t want to come out and take positions on it, which is truly a shame, because of, particularly, what it means for my riding.

As the natural gas industry develops and as liquefied natural gas develops, the opportunity for these gas pipelines through my riding is phenomenal. The jobs that will be created; the extra resources, both the short-term and long-term components of that; and the benefits that come forward are truly phenomenal. It will be quite a boon for my area of the province, as we’ll see 300 or 400 kilometres of these pipelines come through my riding.

From my perspective, like I say, for the people in rural B.C. and particularly the people in northern B.C., it’s extremely disappointing to see the indifference that we get from the opposition with regards to what this could mean for our province.

As we go forward, though, with this, of course we see both the potential for liquefied natural gas and other resource activities that are happening throughout the area. It means that we need to continue to invest in infrastructure.

[1140]

I’m very pleased that throughout my riding we’ve seen, on average, about $10 million to $12 million a year being spent on road improvements, whether that’s to do passing lanes, resurfacing, putting in safety components along the roads or left-hand turning lanes — all kinds of changes that have truly improved how we can move goods through my riding but also how we can make sure that residents are travelling safer along the roads.

It’s something that I’m very pleased that Budget 2015 enables us to continue to support. Through having a balanced budget, we are able to make those kinds of reinvestments — right across the province but, specifically, for Nechako Lakes — to be able to improve things for the people of the riding.

Those infrastructures, of course, go beyond that into, also, components of education and advanced education and things like health. We recently celebrated the opening of the new hospital in Burns Lake. Those types of investments are only made by having fiscal responsibility and being able to reinvest into our province.

These are just some of the reasons why I’m supportive of Budget 2015 and that I think that we have not only done the right thing for the people in the province but have set a great example for the rest of Canada.

Through my work in the ministry, I want to link this a little bit to my riding as well as to the budget. There is an increase that’s come to my budget through Budget 2015, and that’s going to be great. It’s going to help us to be able to continue to expand our relationships and the things that we do with First Nations. But I want to focus a little bit on some of the reason why we talk about the economy and economics so much.

When you think about changes and you think about improving things like social services or trying to change some of the socioeconomic conditions for First Nations, there is no better way to do this than to change the economic conditions and to have First Nations participating more in the economy, to have them more engaged, seeing revenue-sharing coming off of activities happening on the land base and allowing them to be able to truly unleash an entrepreneurial attitude — or opportunities, I guess you could say — within their nations.

The Haisla Nation, for example, about eight or nine years ago made a decision to change the status quo. They decided they would embrace going after economic development and activities. They went from 65 to 70 percent unemployment down to about 15 percent unemployment, or lower.

They’ve completely changed the socioeconomic conditions. They’re able to help to support their people. They’re seeing infrastructure being able to be supported and built. Their people are out building houses and buying houses and buying vehicles and building futures for not only them but for their nation. It’s very, very encouraging.

I’m seeing more and more nations doing the same thing. The Wet’suwet’en First Nation recently set up an
[ Page 5925 ]
economic development opportunity. They’re looking to try to take advantage of the natural gas lines that come through, looking to be able to build the partnerships and create opportunities for their people to build a future and to change those conditions.

Same with the Skin Tyee and Nee Tahi Buhn — other bands that are in my riding. What they’re trying to achieve I applaud. It’s the right thing to be doing.

Our government is trying to support these activities by working with these nations — working through new government-to-government relations; working with revenue-sharing, particularly on the pipeline benefits; looking at training; and looking at things like the environment and how we can do things better.

All of this is a stepping stone toward changing our relations between the province and First Nations. All of it is designed around how First Nations can create self-determination, how they can be more engaged on the land, more engaged in the economy, protecting the environment and their culture and, at the same time, really building those futures for their people.

Just recently I had a meeting with the Chief of Stellat’en First Nation, which is in the Fraser Lake area. He explained it to me. He said what he is hoping through this is that…. He wants to be able to supplement, take control, of educational opportunities for his kids.

[1145]

He wants to see the nation being able to support their families. He wants to see the nation truly being able to determine its own future. He’s hopeful that, through agreements that we can reach, we will not only be able to support that, but we’ll be able to find long-term solutions through the types of relationships that we can build. It’s very encouraging to hear those kinds of words because of what it can mean.

I’ll give you another example of the importance of this type of activity. Just recently I had an opportunity to go down and visit the community of Ashcroft and to meet with the Ashcroft First Nation. They are a band who has entered into some agreements with the province on revenue-sharing, whether it’s on economic community developments for mining or forestry or other types of things. They’ve taken the revenue that’s come from that and reinvested in business opportunities. They’re growing their economic potential, and they’re doing it because they know it helps change people’s lives. It helps to improve conditions. It’s why we need to continue to focus on the economy and on those sorts of developments.

So whether it’s the liquefied natural gas opportunities and what we’re doing there, how we’re looking at forestry and trying to enhance things like revenue-sharing and woodland tenures and the opportunity for nations to be able to build a forest economy, whether it’s working in mining and trying to have more First Nations engaged in it…. Just for everyone’s interest, they might find it interesting to know that the mining industry across Canada actually employs more First Nations people than any other industry. It’s phenomenal in terms of what that has been able to do for so many nations.

Clean energy is another thing that we’re proud of investing in, and we’re going to continue to make investments. We’ve invested more than $5.2 million already through the First Nations clean energy fund. We’ve got over 25 revenue-sharing agreements now on clean energy with nations.

I think about the Tahltan, for example. Just recently we made an announcement of $500,000 through the clean energy fund that we have so that they can take an equity position in an upcoming clean energy project within their area. Of course, they already have revenue-sharing and agreements with Forrest Kerr and other projects in their riding, and it is, once again, changing how nations work, how they work with us as a government and how they can build the future for their people.

I want to take a moment, because I was talking about mining in particular. I want to take a moment, actually, to just talk about Mount Polley.

When that accident happened at Mount Polley, it was a terrible accident that has certainly impacted that area. We reached out to the nations, and we developed a letter of understanding with them, changing the way that we will work in partnership and how we will work together to look at the information, to try to deal with the information and come up with solutions, as well as a commitment to go even beyond that and have an engagement with other nations around the province about what we should do in the mining industry for the future.

How could the mining industry have changes that can be more inclusive of the priorities and things that First Nations are concerned about, while at the same time working with the actual industry to make sure that it is sustainable and supportable? Those are discussions now that we will have coming up in the future.

But when I talked to Chief Sellars about this agreement when it was introduced, she said that this is the way she wished governments had worked with the nations when the non-aboriginal people first came to British Columbia. So it’s a proud thing to be involved in, to think about how our relationships are changing to try to develop something that is far more collaborative and that is far more respectful.

Mount Polley is, of course, just one example of some of those sorts of things that we’re doing and the innovations that we’re taking. The Tsilhqot’in decision is another one. Once again, we’ve reached out. We’ve created the letter of understanding that’s come from the Tsilhqot’in case. We’re working towards a protocol agreement.

When we did the exoneration of the chiefs, I was up talking with Chief Joe Alphonse about the future. He talked about it in terms of trying to find a way to reach a peace accord. It wasn’t so much a treaty. It was sort of components or thoughts like that, but it’s really thinking about how we change something that happened 150
[ Page 5926 ]
years ago and build a relationship and come to an accord or an understanding that both the Tsilhqot’in people and us as a province can be proud of about how we can work together and build the future.

[1150]

It’s a lot of work. There’s a tremendous amount that needs to be done, working through that, but it’s important to recognize the steps that are needed to be taken along the way and how we’re moving forward and changing those relationships.

Similarly, whenever I’m out working with the nations, visiting with nations, they always are interested in training and in jobs and seeing a difference. I was talking with one Chief from up in the Peace country, and his comment was: “Why can’t we move forward a mining project? Why can’t we set up a company, go to the market, raise money, develop a mine and see it come into production and then see the benefits flow back?”

I celebrate that kind of thinking. Why not do that? Why not find ways to be able to engage and develop and be able to support your people? It’s very encouraging thinking that I think we’re seeing coming forward and very progressive thinking by many of the leaders, really, around the province.

As I look through the rest of what we have in front of us in 2015, it’s going to be an important year. There’s a lot of work in front of us to be done. There are a lot of things that I think will continue to take shape as this year unfolds, like the work with the Northern Shuswap Tribal Council and Mount Polley around mining; work with the Tsilhqot’in about how we give life to the title, how we address all the complexities that need to be supported around that between the various levels of government; work with our treaty nations and how they can continue to progress, the types of things that they’re trying to do; how we work with other nations that want to try to achieve treaty — nations like the Northern Shuswap Tribal Council or Oweekeno or Te’mexw or Kitselas and Kitsumkalum — and how we can try to find ways to further and advance those agreements.

It’s an exciting year. There are lot of things that are to be done before us, and I think that Budget 2015 has really set the stage and enabled us to be able to dream and think about how we can do these things, how we can improve the relationships in the context of the economic opportunities that we have within the province.

We’re on the right track. We have introduced balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility, and at the same time, we are supporting families. We are supporting communities, supporting our First Nation partners and finding ways to be able to do things in a balanced approach. It’s the right thing to do, and it’s why I’m very proud to be able to support Budget 2015.

B. Ralston: I’d like to begin by quoting a prominent British Columbian, and then perhaps we’ll ask the members opposite to guess which socialist demagogue said this. “A growing number of the middle class and those who are trying to achieve that status really feel they are not sharing or participating in that prosperity.”

That was said in mid-November by who? Any guesses? Well, there are no answers over there.

Someone who sat in the Finance Minister’s chair, Carole Taylor, said that just in November of last year. She understands something that apparently the Finance Minister and those in the executive council over there don’t understand, and they seem somewhat surprised. The Finance Minister seems somewhat taken aback by the reaction to the decision of the government to relieve the top-income earners, the top 2 percent, those earning in excess of $150,000 taxable, of the increase that was put into effect in 2013. There’s some sense that….

I think the Finance Minister said, “Well, it’s not in this year’s budget,” as though he were powerless to extend it. In fact, in the budget speech there are several examples where things that wouldn’t have been in the budget, were there not a decision to extend it, were taken.

For example, on page 9 of the budget speech, the printed version, the mining flow-through share tax credit was extended for one year. Now, I personally support that, but that was a decision that was made to extend that. The new mine allowance was extended for four years.

[1155]

Similarly, at page 12 of the budget — and I’ll just quote this one directly because it makes the point, I think, the most accurately: “Second, the interactive digital media tax credit introduced in 2010 was set to expire this year. Instead, we’re extending it to 2018 to continue offsetting the costs of developing video games and other digital media products.” I support that extension as well, and indeed, that was in our platform.

The option for the Finance Minister to extend that two-year decision was there, and he chose not to take it. To suggest that somehow he is powerless — he had no ability, it was in a previous budget, he couldn’t do it — is just simply false, and there are examples that I’ve just given in the budget where it was done.

He said, in the budget speech in 2013: “Starting in January 2013 we will enact a temporary two-year increase in the personal…tax rate on income above $150,000 a year. The rate will increase by 2.1 percent to 16.8 percent from 14.7 percent, for 2014 and 2015 only. Even with this increase, B.C.’s top marginal rate will still be very competitive.”

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

There was an acknowledgment that that wasn’t going to cause undue concern among top income earners such that they might — although it’s hard to believe that they would make that decision, given the weather in eastern Canada — move to Saskatchewan or move to Ontario
[ Page 5927 ]
because of that very slight increase in the top marginal rate. In fact, on our side, we campaigned on increasing that rate, not to 16.8 percent but to 19 percent — so a slight difference — again, not really upsetting the competitive tax regime between provinces but slightly higher. Certainly, we campaigned on that.

I note the Speaker in the chair giving me a suggestion that I move adjournment of the debate, which I do, and I reserve my right to continue after 1:30.

B. Ralston moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

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

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