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)

Monday, February 23, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 2

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

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Cadieux: On behalf of the Speaker and myself, I’d like to welcome Erin Arnold to the precinct today. Erin does work with the Public Service Agency as a safety adviser, but she’s also very active with the Pacific Post-Partum Society, where she has been co-chair for seven years. She’s on the executive of the parent advisory committee at General Gordon Elementary where her seven-year-old son, Kegun, is a student. She also works one day a week at the Helping Spirit Lodge Society, an aboriginal women’s transition house.

She’s interested in politics — not only in politics, but in women in politics. As such, I am mentoring Erin with the Canadian Women Voters Congress as she considers her future in the political realm.

Please, I would ask the House to make Erin very welcome.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome members of the Alliance of B.C. Students that are here for three days meeting with MLAs. The alliance represents over 140,000 post-secondary students in British Columbia. They’re here to talk about issues that are of importance to them, like affordability, accessibility of post-secondary education, needs-based grants, tuition, student loans, interest rates, student housing, graduate student scholarships and a number of other issues.

[1335]

I’m going to introduce some of them right now, and certainly not all of them. I’m afraid we’re probably going to miss a few that are here today.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome Brittany Barnes, Zach Renwick, Sacha Fabry and Ben Glassen from Capilano; as well as Samantha Myran from Langara College; Dylan Thiessen and Ryan Petersen from University of the Fraser Valley. I think I saw Tyra Bermudez of BCIT Student Association.

I hope that the House will make all of these great, young student leaders very welcome today.

Hon. T. Lake: I am very pleased to rise in the House today and introduce some leaders from the B.C. Care Providers Association and Bayshore home health. They’ve come to Victoria for tonight’s B.C. Care Awards, which celebrate the dedication, innovation and excellence of front-line workers and staff in continuing care across the province.

Today in the gallery we have Daniel Fontaine, who’s the CEO of the Care Providers Association; Dave Cheperdak, who’s the president of the association’s board of directors; Elissa Gamble, who is the director of regional development for Bayshore home health; and a very special guest, Wendy Miller, who is a registered personal care aide with Bayshore home health and the winner of the B.C. Care Providers Association Care Provider of the Year Award. Would the House please make them very welcome.

L. Krog: I’d ask the House to assist me in welcoming today a fairly frequent visitor here. Amongst the many new feathers to her cap has been added the vice-presidency of the Nanaimo-Ladysmith federal NDP Riding Association as of Saturday. Avery Valerio is here today legitimately, because it’s a pro-D day in Nanaimo.

D. Eby: It’s my pleasure to introduce a number of the students who are here today for meetings and who come from the University of British Columbia, which is right in my constituency. Bahareh Jokar is from the UBC AMS. Neal Yonson, Tobias Friedel and Colum Connolly are all from the UBC grad student association. A pleasure to have you here today.

One more person to welcome from my constituency as well is Erin Arnold — a pleasure to hear the Minister of Children and Family Development introduce her. Of course, it’s all of our responsibility to make sure that there are more women in politics. I wanted to add that she is a strong advocate for child care in our community and provincially. It is certainly my great pleasure to have her here today. Will the House please make all these wonderful people from Vancouver–Point Grey welcome.

K. Conroy: I’m excited today to be able to announce that our daughter had a baby girl this morning, and she wanted me to make sure I made it really clear that, although it’s our eighth grandchild, it’s only her fifth. She was 7 pounds 7 ounces. As soon as Dad gets home — he’s working in Kitimat and missed the birth, but he’s on his way — they’re going to come up with a name, and I’ll let people know. Would the House please join me in making baby girl Batchelor very welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

COUNCIL OF SENIOR CITIZENS
ORGANIZATIONS OF B.C.

D. Plecas: Last Friday I had the good fortune of meeting with the executive of COSCO. That is the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of British Columbia. I met with the president, 70-year-old Lorraine Logan; the treasurer, 82-year-old Sheila Pither; and the secretary, 69-year-old Annette O’Connor. What an inspiring group of people, and what fantastic work they do.
[ Page 5984 ]

COSCO is the largest federation of seniors organizations in the province, and it’s been advocating for seniors for over 50 years. Their mandate is to assemble, coordinate and advance proposals and resolutions concerned with the welfare of elder citizens and submit them to government bodies. Their purpose is also to advance the social and physical welfare of elder citizens in the province.

One of the ways in which they meet their mandate is by organizing and facilitating workshops around the province. Workshops are all organized and facilitated by volunteer seniors. In fact, since they started doing these workshops in 2007, they have organized and facilitated more than 1,200 workshops, with over 21,000 seniors participating.

[1340]

They want to do more. They want to put on workshops for more seniors all across the province. Notably, some of these workshops have been delivered in Mandarin, Cantonese and Punjabi, and they cover an incredibly broad range of topics. What is very impressive is that COSCO has no paid staff. As the executive was telling me, COSCO is all about seniors doing this themselves by volunteering for seniors.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors to the Minister of Health, I ask all members of this House to recognize COSCO for their high level of commitment and dedication to their fellow seniors in British Columbia. Let’s all be as supportive as we possibly can.

BLADERUNNERS TRAINING PROGRAM
FOR AT-RISK YOUTH

J. Kwan: BladeRunners is an internationally recognized, award-winning trades-training employment program that was established with the vision of the late Jim Green during the Glen Clark administration. It is a training program that provides at-risk youth the training, skills, credentials, support and opportunities to succeed in the workforce. It also has a mandate to promote workplace equity and has a long history of having aboriginal youth and young women in the trades.

BladeRunners recently celebrated its 20th year of success in the very building that BladeRunners participants helped to construct — the home of the Vancouver Canucks: Rogers Arena. We celebrated the many people who have found their place in the workforce, who’ve made remarkable achievements and built pride in their accomplishments while building the landmarks of our city. In Vancouver that includes Rogers Arena, the Woodward’s redevelopment and the Shangri-La tower.

The key to the success of BladeRunners is in no small measure the result of the dedication of the entire staff team. Garry Jobin, who has been an incredible anchor in supporting the participants, and his staff at BladeRunners provide more than just mentorship. They are there for the participants all the time, any time, 24-7. All the young people say it is because of the supportive family feel that is a big part of what makes BladeRunners a success.

One beautiful success story is a young man named Malcolm Lowe. Malcolm was born in B.C. but actually grew up in California. He’s had his share of troubles and spent time in state prison. Malcolm became involved in the BladeRunners program, and now Malcolm is an assistant site foreman at the Telus Garden project. His story is one of many over the years.

BladeRunners takes a holistic approach to helping people find not just jobs but careers. I want to recognize Laura Stannard, Peter Norris and Richard Saunders who, in their early days, worked day and night to bring BladeRunners into reality. Finally, sincere thanks go to the employers for believing in the program and the young people. This is a great model for a jobs plan, and it’s one that works.

CANADIAN SOCIETY AND VALUES

G. Hogg: Canada consistently ranks amongst the best countries in the world, whether it is by the OECD’s better life index or the United Nations human development index. Our multicultural, pluralistic and democratic society is the envy of many. We have found ways to ensure that people of different beliefs, backgrounds and social positions mix with each other in the course of their everyday lives.

Democracy does not require perfect equality, but it does require that we share common spaces and a common life, common places and common events, shared experiences like cultural and sporting events, festivals and celebrations, weddings and even elections that help us to forge understanding, respect and compassion. Common experiences and encounters are how we learn to abide our differences, to support the common good and to take care of each other. They are the values and experiences that make us the envy of so many, and they should not be taken for granted.

Our marketplace economy has served us well. We have made remarkable advances and created great wealth. But if we allow ourselves to become a market-based society, we stand to jeopardize our sense of citizenship, of civic duty and of civil society. We do have societal values well worth protecting. A county in California allows its prisoners to pay $72 a night to upgrade their jail cell — an example of market values influencing civil society.

We have a strong sense of civic responsibility and citizenship. We make commitments and contributions to our civil society, a civil society that relies on volunteers, on donations, on goodwill and on the connections that enhance our social capital and community life, a society that ensures that we continue to rank amongst the very best countries in the world. It needs us to support it as much as we need it to support us.

[1345]

NANAIMO FISH AND GAME
PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION

L. Krog: On February 14 my wife and I, being the romantic couple we are, went out to celebrate. Where did we go? We went to the Nanaimo Fish and Game Protective Association’s annual fundraising dinner. Where else in a single meal can you eat bear, can you eat elk, can you eat duck, can you eat venison and — my wife’s favourite — cougar? [Laughter.]

The members laugh. I speak the truth, as I always do in this chamber.

The Nanaimo Fish and Game Protective Association has 1,900 members and was founded 110 years ago in my community — 110 years of work in the community, and people out on the land protecting the environment before we even used the term.

I mention that because I want to also remind this chamber that the founding president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, which now has over 46,000 members in the province, was none other than Ted Barsby from Nanaimo — the first provincial president. Since then we’ve had two further presidents: the late Bob Peterson, a fine man; and Bob Morris, who’s still alive and well and was out assisting with the draw on February 14.

I just want to say to the members that I hope they all have active fish and game clubs in their ridings that have done as much good work for the community, that have consistently supported environmental causes and that represent the wishes and needs of their members and provide the programs in their communities that help support all those active hunters, fishers and conservationists in British Columbia.

ROLGEAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY

J. Tegart: For Manufacturing Week in October of last year, I had the privilege of touring Rolgear Manufacturing Inc., a family-owned manufacturing company located in Ashcroft, in the heart of my riding of Fraser-Nicola.

Rolgear produces a full line of ratcheting screwdrivers using patented technology. Although there are other ratcheting products on the market, the patented ratcheting mechanism used in Rolgear’s screwdrivers is the key difference. The Rolgear ratchet uses roller bearings instead of gears, making it silent, smooth and friction-free.

Rolgear manufactures multi-bit screwdrivers, ratchet bits and drivers, nut drivers and single-blade ratcheting screwdrivers. This small company has four full-time local employees plus a commission sales and marketing force of ten.

Rolgear Manufacturing was founded in 2009 by Robert Suter, who has a background in tool design that dates back to 1988. Robert took his innovative design idea to a hardware trade show in Las Vegas in 2010, and the response was overwhelming. Rolgear screwdrivers and bits are now available in roughly 300 stores across Canada and the United States, including Home Hardware Stores and Lee Valley Tools.

Robert’s wife, Angela, says one of the advantages of operating in a small town is her ability to ride her bike to the local post office down the street to send out shipments across North America. Global market forces encountered by nearly every manufacturer have forced Rolgear to consider relocating production to Asia, but they’ve resisted this pressure in order to support B.C. families, and for that, we applaud them.

I ask the House to join me in recognizing this innovative, made-in-B.C. manufacturer that calls Ashcroft home.

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN
AND YOUTH AND WORK OF
CHILDREN OF THE STREET SOCIETY

S. Robinson: Did you know that one in five youth are sexually solicited on line and that 75 percent of them do not even tell a parent about it? In January of this year, in response to this alarming statistic, the Children of the Street Society launched an awareness campaign for parents and community members about on-line predators. This is the latest campaign in this society’s 20-year history.

Children of the Street Society is dedicated to preventing the sexual exploitation and human trafficking of children and youth in British Columbia. They use education strategies, public awareness initiatives and family support. This amazing organization makes its home in Coquitlam-Maillardville but serves the entire province.

[1350]

Children of the Street Society was founded in 1995 when a group of parents united after their children were drawn into the sex trade in the Lower Mainland. Recognizing that this tragic occurrence can happen to any child in the community, Children of the Street Society began providing a series of workshops aimed at educating children and youth to prevent young people from being drawn into the sex trade.

Over the years the society’s workshops expanded, and they now educate parents, caregivers, teachers, service providers, police, government, community agencies and even the hospitality industry. As a result of increased community awareness of the sexual exploitation of children, a greater need for support was later identified, and now the Children of the Street Society offers support services to youth, parents and caregivers.

Since its inception Children of the Street Society has worked hard to influence changes to the Child, Family and Community Service Act around the issue of sexual exploitation. They have been successful federally, which resulted in amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada. Their advocacy efforts helped to bring changes to the Canadian Criminal Code which resulted in new legis-
[ Page 5986 ]
lation in 2008, raising the legal age of sexual consent in Canada from 14 to 16 years of age.

The Children of the Street Society is celebrating 20 years of excellent service to our province on March 5 at their annual Celebration of Success, an evening event to kick off the B.C. annual Stop the Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth Awareness Week. I invite the chamber to join me in many successes in this work.

Oral Questions

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
FUNDING AND ACCESSIBILITY

J. Horgan: This morning the Minister of Advanced Education and some of his colleagues took to the airwaves to talk about their proud, proud record, as they say, on post-secondary education. But the parents and students I talk to see the world in a little bit different colour than the minister responsible. In fact, over the past two years this government has reduced by $32 million the money that traditionally has been transferred to post-secondary institutions, reducing opportunities for kids, reducing opportunities to get out of a cycle of poverty.

My question to the Minister of Advanced Education: if budgets are all about choices and this government genuinely believes its rhetoric that it’s providing opportunities for young people, why in the world would you reduce funding to post-secondary education?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Week in, week out, year after year, balanced budget after balanced budget after balanced budget, this government has committed itself to higher education.

If the member, the Leader of the Opposition, had taken the time to read page 17 of the budget documents, combined with page 20, he would have realized that we’re putting $92 million more into advanced education. In fact, this government is now spending $1.961 billion on advanced education — more than $5.3 million per day.

Sadly, I must suggest that on this assignment, the Leader of the Opposition gets somewhere between a D and an F.

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

J. Horgan: A sermon from the minister responsible. He’s been several weeks on the job. I know he was picking up the ball that was fumbled by his colleague, and I can well imagine that’s been a challenge.

What’s the record? What’s the record on post-secondary education? Tuition fees have doubled on the watch of the people on the other side — doubled. Go and talk to single-parent families about how tough it is to find tuition. The minister said that debt is manageable for students today. By his reckoning, $20,000 coming out of university is manageable. BMO’s student survey said it’s $35,000, but let’s go with the conservative estimate of the Conservative minister. Oh, I’m sorry — the B.C. Liberal minister. Now, $20,000 on the backs of young people does not add opportunity; it reduces it.

Once again: why would you make choices to reduce funding and add debt burden? Why wouldn’t you, as other provinces have done, eliminate the interest rate on those loans, and do it today?

[1355]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s rather sad when we see the opposition, in a desperate attempt to resuscitate their relevance, simply toying with the facts.

British Columbia students pay less than one-third of the cost of their higher education. We have the fourth-lowest tuition in the country. We have an average tuition for university of $5,100 per year; an average college tuition of $3,000 per year. We’ve had a 2 percent cap on tuition growth for years now, and it will continue as long as this government is in power.

The net effect of this is we have students who stand to make massive lifetime gains and earnings who are incurring a very reasonable cost of their education. A Red Seal apprentice who completes a Red Seal program increases their lifetime earnings by $524,000 after investing $6,000 in tuition. Seventy percent of our students incur no financial aid costs going through university or college. The facts speak for themselves. The Leader of the Opposition needs to do his homework.

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

J. Horgan: It’s delightful to see a Minister of Advanced Education getting up. Even if the numbers are a bit skewed, at least he’s getting up without the aid of the Minister of Finance and the various investigations that are underway.

Let’s go to the students at Kwantlen for a minute, if we could. Those students have seen dollars removed from classrooms for investigations, dollars removed from classrooms for lawyers, dollars removed from classrooms for lobbyists. They’ve also seen an increase in the cost of adult basic education — again, opportunities squandered by this government.

Young people looking to get the breakthrough that the minister suggests will happen are not getting those opportunities as a result of the decisions that this government is making. Again, my question with respect specifically to the students at Kwantlen: does the minister have anything to say to them about the dollars squandered because of the behaviour of the previous minister that could have gone into classrooms and provided the opportunities that kids deserve today?
[ Page 5987 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Having had this job for some six weeks, and now that we’re in the third week of the session, it would seem that the homework assignments given to the NDP caucus research department are completely falling flat. These issues have been canvassed at length in this House.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Now we’re going to hear some ad hominem abuse from the other side rather than substantive questions. This side, of course, would never engage in that.

The adult basic education scenario is that this government has provided nearly $7 million in transitional funding for institutions involved in adult basic education. A grant program of $7.6 million has been established so that a family of two with an income below $26,000 will get a complete grant for ABE.

Similarly, a family of two with two children with an income less than $37,000 a year will pay nothing for adult basic education. It’s time to do your homework.

KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY CONTRACT
WITH LOBBYIST

K. Corrigan: Despite being a well-connected political appointee to the Kwantlen board, the Minister of Citizens’ Services apparently didn’t think that he could just pick up the phone and call members of this government about issues affecting Kwantlen. Instead, as the chair of the human resources committee, he decided to spend some of Kwantlen’s operating grant to hire Mark Jiles and the Bluestone Group to lobby the B.C. Liberals on his behalf.

My question to the Minister of Advanced Education: can he please explain to this House why the now Minister of Citizens’ Services, a then political appointee of the B.C. Liberals, would need to spend student money to lobby the B.C. Liberals?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s been a great pleasure as the newly appointed minister to tour 22 of the 25 institutions in the province and talk directly to the students.

[1400]

Notwithstanding the weather at airports all over British Columbia, the students have told me that they are getting excellent value for money, that they are satisfied with their education. In particular, the students at Kwantlen told me that they found it a thoroughly effective and efficient organization, and they are proud to be students at Kwantlen.

We, of course, respect the University Act and the fact that these institutions are autonomous bodies that can do as they please with their budget so long as they meet our expectations.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The members opposite laugh, but they shouldn’t be laughing about 444,000 students receiving first-class post-secondary education right here in British Columbia at a very reasonable cost.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: An interesting expenditure of funds. I guess Kwantlen University could spend it how they wanted. According to the contract we obtained under FOI, the minister paid Mr. Jiles to “facilitate opportunities for Kwantlen to develop important relationships with key individuals,” including the member for Vancouver-Langara, the Minister of Children and Family Development, the member for Richmond-Steveston, the Minister of Energy and Mines, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. According to Mr. Jiles, he offered Kwantlen access to “his strong relationships with these MLAs and ministers.” For this, he was paid $176,000.

To the Minister of Advanced Education, does he think that $176,000 of students’ money was a fair sum to pay for Kwantlen to access the B.C. Liberals?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We all know that members of this House do their best to make themselves available to interests and constituents and students and faculty members as much as we possibly can.

I have spent the last six weeks doing exactly that, touring institutions throughout the province, looking at their physical facilities, talking to the administration, talking to the faculty and, particularly, talking to the students. I have gone out of the way to make myself available to these institutions, to their students, to their stakeholders, to their boards. I suggest the members opposite do the same.

S. Hammell: The Minister of Citizens’ Services’ decision to provide Mark Jiles with money meant for students is troubling, but even more troubling is what he and his former colleagues on the Kwantlen board got for that rather princely sum.

We asked Kwantlen for the record of any and all work products produced by Mr. Jiles. Apparently he produced, over 3½ years of work for Kwantlen, four pages. I’ll repeat it: four pages.

To the minister, does he think that at $44,000 a page, Kwantlen students received value for their money from Mr. Jiles?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Kwantlen Polytechnic University is one of the institutions we are very pleased and proud of because it is entrepreneurial.
[ Page 5988 ]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: The members will come to order.

Minister, please take your seat.

Please continue.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The members opposite have had a good giggle, and perhaps that’s because they can’t find their dictionaries to look up words like “commercial,” “accounting,” “entrepreneurialism,” “development,” “donors” or “philanthropy.”

In fact, Kwantlen is now in the process of building an entirely new fashion design institute, one-third of which will be funded by philanthropy. This is the kind of relationship we encourage and the kind of relationship that institutions and universities build with their communities by engaging with their communities.

[1405]

The members opposite quashed that to the maximum possible degree during their time in advanced education, and we are left picking up the legacy of ten years of failure on the other side.

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

S. Hammell: Wow.

Perhaps it was never about the paper. Perhaps the real value Mr. Jiles offered the Minister of Citizens’ Services lay in his ability to develop important relationships with the 15 B.C. Liberal MLAs he listed in his contract — $176,000 for 15 B.C. Liberal introductions.

To the Minister of Advanced Education, does he think that $12,000 per handshake is good value for the students at Kwantlen?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again, we’re seeing a fundamental attitude revealed on the other side of the House. Once again, we’re seeing the members opposite decry, dismiss, challenge the idea that institutions should be out developing relationships and building philanthropy. If these institutions….

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Now, the members opposite are having a good laugh today, but the truly laughable record….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The truly laughable record is that when this government came to power, our universities and colleges were facing crushing burdens in terms of class size, the lack of access to classes because of the constraints that the members opposite had put on the sector, and students leaving the province because they couldn’t get the programs they needed. We have rectified that, and we are proud of that.

ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
BY KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY LOBBYIST

D. Eby: Mr. Jiles’s expertise did not end there. According to the contract, the Minister of Citizens’ Services expected Mr. Jiles to “monitor monthly caucus and cabinet meetings.” Now, most of the information the opposition requests about cabinet is redacted or refused, but for the right price, Mr. Jiles could get that information for the Minister of Citizens’ Services.

To the Minister of Advanced Education, can he tell the House why the Minister of Citizens’ Services, himself a B.C. Liberal political appointee — soon to be a candidate — had to pay a lobbyist to be briefed on government’s activities?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Well, this is a fine question coming from the member who represents the Point Grey campus of UBC. UBC, of course, is our flagship institution in the province — about 50,000 students, a $2 billion budget, of which this government provides $583 million.

UBC has built itself up to be in the top 40 institutions in the world. That’s because UBC engages in extensive outreach to its alumni and others to build its funding base so that it can be a truly first-class, excellent institution, rather than the kind of mediocrity the members opposite encourage.

D. Eby: I’m afraid we’ve entirely lost the Minister of Advanced Education here. We’re talking about Kwantlen Polytechnic University.

You know, it’s really a mystery as to why the Minister of Citizens’ Services had to pay a consultant to lobby the B.C. Liberals. As a political appointee himself who reported to a cabinet minister, he should have been able to just pick up the phone when he needed information or help.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education tell this House: what sort of special access did Mr. Jiles have to the government that the Minister of Citizens’ Services did not have as the vice-chair of the Kwantlen board?

[1410]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Now, the member opposite comes perilously close, in his language used to describe board members of our higher education institutions…. We have 25 institutions with hundreds of board members who selflessly give of their time to promote higher education in the province of British Columbia. This is an onerous task and almost entirely unpaid.
[ Page 5989 ]

The members opposite heckle and cackle and giggle like a flock of chickens. It’s time for the members opposite to stick to their knitting and figure out how to conduct question period.

REGULATION OF PARTY BUS INDUSTRY

G. Heyman: Last November the Justice Minister told reporters that her government was seriously looking at stronger regulations for the party bus industry. She said: “The Minister of Transportation is following this issue, he is interested in it, and he is looking to see what kind of positive changes he can make.”

This industry, despite repeated infractions and unsafe practices among many operators, is not even subject to the same oversight as taxis or limousines. As graduation parties fast approach, can the Minister of Transportation tell this House what progress he is making on this issue?

Hon. T. Stone: I have said in the House a number of times that we obviously understand the pain that the Raymond family has gone through and the loss that they have suffered. They have certainly met a number of times with various members of this government, myself included.

We are absolutely aware of the impending grad season that’s coming fast upon us. I want to say this to the House: we continue to remind British Columbians that it is illegal to consume alcohol aboard any vehicle in British Columbia — period. That is the law.

Secondly, through the passenger transportation branch, we continue to meet on a regular basis with party bus operators and make sure that they’re aware of their obligations, which is the safe transport of their passengers.

Thirdly, we are undertaking a review of passenger transportation branch regulations with the goal being to see if we can tighten up those regulations to ensure that the operation of these types of vehicles is even safer for the travelling public. Work is underway on that front.

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

G. Heyman: The Justice Minister talks about the minister looking at positive changes, and the minister refers to an industry that’s clearly unsafe being made even safer than it already is. So I assume the positive changes are not very much at all.

The minister may not be aware that this month in neighbouring Washington state, the Senate Transportation Committee approved a bill to regulate their party bus industry. It’s expected that a common bill will shortly pass in both houses. Washington state has seen party bus incidents but no fatalities to date. Their legislators decided to act proactively after a review of jurisdictions — including British Columbia, where we have had numerous unsafe incidents, where Shannon Raymond and Ernest Azoadam lost their young lives.

Will the minister follow the example of Washington state, or will he wait for more tragedies before he finally acts to protect children in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Stone: The fact that is that when you compare the jurisdiction of Washington state and the jurisdiction of British Columbia, in many respects we already have regulations in place that they don’t have south of the border. For example, it is not illegal in Washington state to have alcohol in certain types of vehicles, including what we all refer to as party buses. It is illegal to have alcohol in those vehicles here in British Columbia today.

[1415]

Furthermore, as I have said and I will say again, safety is our number one priority here. We are working rigorously within the Ministry of Transportation, with the passenger transportation branch — along with the other agency partners, including the Ministry of Justice, ICBC and law enforcement — to remind the operators of their obligations and to see if there is a way for us to tighten up additional regulations to make these vehicles even safer than they are today.

ASSESSMENT PROGRAM AT BULKLEY
VALLEY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE
AND BUDGET PRIORITIES

D. Donaldson: The Bulkley Valley Child Development Centre has supported children and families through the intake process for the Northern Health Assessment Network for more than nine years. In this program a social worker works with a family of a child with specialized needs, such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, to navigate the assessment process. The Bulkley Valley Child Development Centre has been informed that the Liberal government has cut the funding for the program and replaced it with a phone line operated from Prince George, more than 500 kilometres away.

Can the Minister of Children and Families explain why her government has cut this vital program to some of my community’s most vulnerable children?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As is always the case in British Columbia, the priority of the Ministry of Children and Family Development is the safety and security of vulnerable children in British Columbia. That is the first and foremost priority. In order to do that work, we spend more than $1 billion annually on supporting children and youth with special needs.

Since 2001 the funding for children and youth with special needs has nearly doubled, and our spending is now over $292 million. We work in collaboration with other ministries to provide a continuum of services
[ Page 5990 ]
for children and their families. We have over 90 services and supports for families with children who have special needs. We’re going to continue to do that work. Those services are accessed by more than 30,000 children every year.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Let’s put this in perspective. Let’s talk priorities. The Bulkley Valley Child Development Centre is a not-for-profit, run by a volunteer board, running programs for people where they live. This government made a conscious decision to cut this program. They decided that a $230 million tax cut to the highest paid, the 2 percent, was more important than $11,000 for some of the most vulnerable children. That is this government’s priority.

A longtime social worker in the Bulkley Valley has pointed out: “It is very likely many vulnerable children will be weeded out of the program due to the simple fact that they are unable to understand or follow through with the process being suggested to them over the phone.” Can the minister explain why some of B.C.’s most vulnerable children are left behind by her government’s appalling priorities?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Once again, the opposition chooses to disregard facts and instead chooses to use anger and loud voices to present their point. The reality is that the Ministry of Children and Family Development is one of the very few ministries that has seen budget increases in the last number of years. In fact, this year our budget is increasing by over $39 million. That is because we absolutely believe in supporting the most vulnerable British Columbians.

[1420]

M. Karagianis: Well, I have a couple of facts for the minister. The majority of these children who will access these services are First Nations. They live on reserves, and an overwhelming number of them live in poverty. Many of these families don’t even have a phone, so giving them a phone number to call is a little bit like Marie Antoinette saying to feed the commoners cake.

The reality is this government chose very deliberately in this budget to give a $230 million tax break to B.C.’s top earners and consider that money well spent. But apparently, $11,000 for children who have developmental challenges is not worth it.

Now, if they had done any consultation with the Bulkley Valley Child Development Centre, they would have been told some facts. First of all, they would have been told that it’s impossible for this kind of service to be delivered over the phone. They would have said that clients are unwilling to share that level of sensitive information over the phone.

Will the minister do the right thing and ensure that the Bulkley Valley Child Development Centre gets the money it needs to continue to fund this important program on the ground, in the community where they need it?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I’ve stated, supporting the most vulnerable British Columbians — and, in this ministry’s case, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, supporting children and families in British Columbia — to ensure that they are safe and have the supports and services they need is a priority. That’s why our budget has increased this year by $39 million.

This government is proud of the fact that we have a third balanced budget. The reason we’re proud of that is not because that will benefit all British Columbians. But in fact, because of a balanced budget, we are able to invest in services for British Columbia’s most vulnerable, in ensuring that we can set priorities where they need to be. That is on providing the supports and services to British Columbia’s vulnerable people. That’s indeed what we’ve done.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

A. Weaver: I have a petition I’d like to table. I have a petition of 6,662 British Columbians calling on the government to replace the regressive MSP premium poll tax with a more fair and equitable option to fund health care services in British Columbia.

Reports from Committees

M. Morris: I have the honour to present a report by the Special Committee to Review the Independent Investigations Office.

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

Motion approved.

M. Morris: I’d like to make a few comments before moving adoption.

This report contains the results of the committee’s review of the administration and general operations of the independent investigations office. The IIO was established in 2011 and began its work in 2012 as an independent, civilian-led office to investigate serious incidents involving police members.

The committee consulted with stakeholders and individual British Columbians who provided valuable input into our work and recommendations. The report contains recommendations regarding the administration and general operations of the IIO as well as the chief civilian director’s progress towards civilianization of the IIO.
[ Page 5991 ]

The committee expressed concern in its report and to the Ministry of Justice about recent reports of human resources and operational challenges at the IIO. Our report recommends that the Ministry of Justice continue to review the IIO’s human resource practices and report publicly within one year on actions taken to address the IIO’s human resource issues.

Given the importance of civilian oversight of serious police incidents, the committee also proposed that the Police Act be amended to require a comprehensive statutory review of the independent investigations office by a special committee of the Legislative Assembly at least once every six years.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation and thanks to everyone who participated in the consultations. I would also like to recognize the hard work of all the committee members, particularly the Deputy Chair, the member for Vancouver–West End.

[1425]

As Chair, I’m pleased that we’ve all been able to work collaboratively as a group on this important issue. I look forward to the implementation of the committee’s recommendations and believe they will enhance civilian oversight of police services in B.C. to the benefit of all British Columbians.

With that, I move adoption of the report.

Madame Speaker: Moving adoption of the report with leave. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

S. Chandra Herbert: I would like to join with the Chair and, indeed, the entire committee in thanking all of those community members, police members, families who’ve been involved in trying circumstances, the Justice Ministry and everybody else who has a concern for seeing that justice be done, including when there are challenges within the legal and law enforcement divisions.

It’s very important work that the independent investigations office does. We reviewed it at an interesting time, two years into the formation of it, and found continued widespread support for the civilianization of the independent investigations office, as well as, of course, consistent support for a high level of investigative work and for ensuring that everybody had adequate training and support to do their job well.

I just want to thank the Chair for his work and thank all those that brought their ideas for ways to improve the administration of the independent investigations office. I look forward to the report being adopted and, ideally, followed by the Ministry of Justice. Thank you, hon. Speaker. I move seconding the report.

Madame Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call continuing debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

Hon. B. Bennett: I was up on my feet on Thursday, and I really felt that the members at the time on both sides of the House weren’t giving me their full attention. I think they were all thinking about maybe chasing the ferry and getting on an airplane and going home. I am sure that we’ll have everybody’s undivided attention for the rest of my probably not-so-scintillating comments.

I started, in my speech last Thursday, talking about the ministry. It’s a good opportunity for a minister to stand in this House and just talk about the ministry that the minister is in charge of. I had dealt with the energy side with B.C. Hydro, the BCUC review, Powerex, Site C and a number of energy-related issues. It’s too bad that the whole opposition couldn’t have been present for that part of the speech. I think it was quite edifying.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Today I’m going to switch to mining. Budget 2015 provides a lift to the mining component of the Ministry of Energy and Mines — a $6 million lift, specifically. We are also authorized by Budget 2015-16 to collect $3 million in fees for a new process that we’re going to put in place and are putting in place currently to deal with major mine applications and also major mine expansions.

I should say that this is part and parcel of a long tradition in this government of trying to find ways to stay competitive with the rest of the world in terms of attracting mining investment. It is a very competitive field — particularly, as is the case today, when commodity prices are down. One of the ways we can do that is to make sure that our process is, if not fast, then at least reliable and that we get to a yes or a no in a reasonable amount of time.

I did want to mention that sometimes I think that we look for things to be proud of here in B.C., and there are a lot of things to be proud of. One of the things that I think we sometimes overlook is the mining expertise that we actually have in this province. When you look at the city of Vancouver, you’ll find about 1,200 head offices located there.

[1430]

You’ll find, probably, the single greatest collection of engineering expertise, legal expertise, financial expertise, environmental expertise — all the way down the line.
[ Page 5992 ]
Everything that you need to know about the mining industry is located in Vancouver in large numbers, and the rest of the world looks at Vancouver as being a centre of excellence for mining. So when we do think about what we’re best at in this province, we ought to always include mining, because we are one of if not the best centres of mining excellence in the world.

Now, I have heard a few speeches on the budget and a few speeches in response to the throne speech. I’ve heard one particular phrase from the opposition that’s been repeated over and over ad nauseam, something about putting all the eggs, the economic eggs, in the LNG basket. It’s a pleasure for me to be able to correct that erroneous impression that the opposition seems to have by talking about the number of mines that have been built since 2011 and the number that, I believe, will be built over the next few years.

Since 2011 in this province mines have opened, have been built: Copper Mountain, New Afton, Mount Milligan, Bonanza Ledge and Yellow Giant. These latter two are not large mines, but they’re mines nonetheless, and they’re producing as we speak. That’s a total of five new mines since 2011.

I don’t know that there’s another four-year period at any time in this province’s history where we’ve had that many mines open.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: Am I done?

Deputy Speaker: You are done, yes.

Hon. B. Bennett: You don’t say. Well, that’s too bad. Thank you, hon. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to get up and talk, even for a very brief time, about the third consecutive balanced budget here in British Columbia.

A. Dix: It’s good to lead off this afternoon’s debate, following that short intervention by the Minister of Energy, the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, and after a question period where the Minister of Advanced Education defended, apparently, his government’s priorities in the area — which is the high rate of return you get from a lobbyist’s education, I think, while seeing dramatic increases in tuition fees.

That difference, that approach, that privileging of an elitist approach to the economy we see reflected, I think, not in B.C. society, not in our communities, surely not in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway. But we see it reflected in a budget which sees inequality and acts to increase inequality, which sees people struggling and makes their struggles worse, which in fact fails to address the fundamental issues facing the residents of Vancouver-Kingsway and of constituencies across British Columbia.

I’m very proud to represent Vancouver-Kingsway. I think that the people of Vancouver-Kingsway work extraordinarily hard, struggle a great deal in these times. We have developed and worked together to develop just an extraordinary community that works together in a way, I think, that communities around the world don’t do as successfully.

My constituency, I think it’s fair to say, if you look at all of the electoral districts not just in Canada but in the world, is one of the most diverse — people whose families, like mine, have come from around the world and yet work together in schools, in neighbourhood houses and community centres to create extraordinary things.

I just think of some of the individuals. This weekend I had the honour to speak at a memorial service for a woman named Bobbi Senft. Bobbi’s family is unusual in the Collingwood area of my constituency in that they’ve lived there for well over 100 years. In fact, Bobbi’s family has gone to and has had children going to Carleton Elementary School almost continuously since, if you can believe it, the 19th century. The school opened in 1896, and their family have continued to stay there generation after generation, going to that school.

[1435]

Many of the things, many of the best things, that happened in Collingwood are the result of Bobbi’s work. Her and her sister Jackie McHugh’s dad had been the fire chief in the area of Fire Hall No. 15. Bobbi and Jackie acted to ensure and save the heritage Fire Hall No. 15 on behalf of the people in the area. They mobilized people. They helped to save Carleton Elementary School when many people, including, alas, the current Premier, wanted it to be closed.

They acted to build a neighbourhood house where none existed. That neighbourhood house started in a house owned by Bobbi Senft on Church Street in my riding. She worked in local schools. She was, as she called it, the administrative secretary at Graham Bruce Elementary School for a couple of decades and at Garibaldi Annex before that and influenced a generation of children in our community.

She worked hard during the day. She never stopped working afterwards. She never left the school before five o’clock. And then she went home and raised her family with her husband, Terry, and contributed enormously in the community.

I think of another friend of mine that lives in the riding, just down the street from me. He works at St. Michael’s care home in Burnaby where, sadly, Bobbi passed away in December. A number of months ago he wanted to save money for his daughter’s wedding. He works at St. Michael’s.

Of course, because his work wasn’t seen as valuable as other kinds of work, he lost significantly in the time of this government as a result of Bill 29, another piece of legislation. He worked hard during the day. He wanted and was struggling to get some extra money to help with
[ Page 5993 ]
his daughter’s wedding. He ended up working the night shift at Save-on-Foods on Marine Way on the way from Vancouver-Kingsway to New Westminster.

I think of another constituent of mine who works every day from 4 a.m. to 11 a.m. at UBC in food services and then returns to Surrey to run his restaurant.

I think of families like Ann Wong’s, who works hard, has built her own business, has raised a family, leads the local PAC, contributes enormously to the community, works hard in an area where housing costs have spiralled in a way that I think is uncommon around the world. It’s unbelievably expensive to live. She and many other people contribute, I think, enormously.

I think of another person that I met just this weekend on her way who also works in a care home, providing critical care as a care aide 37½ hours a week and then, she tells me, works 17 hours a week cleaning other people’s homes so she can pay for the home that she shares with another family.

Those are the struggles people have. And they’re not down. They’re not negative. But surely they deserve respect.

Now, all of the people I’ve mentioned have been supporters and voted for me in the last election, although, of course, there are many people in Vancouver-Kingsway who don’t. I got 57 percent of the vote, which means by definition 43 percent of the people didn’t vote. But I respect all of them. It takes all people to build a community. That’s why I was surprised to hear the Premier divide people in the way that she has.

Think of those people and what they contribute. And then think of the joke of the Premier, talking about people who she says don’t have any ambition for the future and really don’t have any expectation for themselves. “By the time he’s 31 years old, if he’s still doing that, he’s no longer a teenager; he’s a New Democrat.”

Well, the truth is that that approach to people who work hard…. I don’t think there has been a time in our memory when people have had to work as hard to pay for their homes in this province, work as hard to pay their bills in this province as they do now, and that deserves, I think, more respect than they’re getting from the government.

[1440]

So 710,000 people voted for the NDP in the last election. They are hard-working, they contribute to the province, and I don’t think they deserve the Premier’s scorn. If it was just jokes at fundraisers, that would be fine. But it is reflected, that attitude, in the very budget we see here today.

The principal fiscal measure in this budget is a tax cut of $236 million for the top 2 percent of income earners — $236 million laser-focused, as the Premier likes to say, at the top 2 percent of income earners.

Now, who in British Columbia…? Members of the committee that went around British Columbia to talk about the budget — was there a single witness who said: “$236 million for the top 2 percent of income earners, those earning over $150,000 a year”?

Let’s be clear. The majority of that money goes to the top 1 percent of income earners. We’re talking north of $800,000 a year. Who in British Columbia said that that’s where the struggle should be? And who in British Columbia…? Name a single person in British Columbia who said, “You should make up that $236 million,” for example, “by increasing again MSP premiums” — which are paid, as everybody knows, overwhelmingly by the middle class. So you have a $236 million tax cut paid for in part, almost half of it, by a $128 million lift in MSP premiums.

You would say: “Well, this may just be this budget. Something happened.” The Minister of Finance seems to think that it happened. It was some sort of law of nature that this tax cut happened. He had no control of it. It had to happen. He couldn’t have done anything else. That is his suggestion.

Maybe you would think that high-income earners should be the priority in British Columbia. If the government had campaigned on that, I suppose maybe they would have more credibility in suggesting that. But in fact, if you look at the top 1 percent of income earners, who got the biggest bang from this budget, they were the ones who benefited from this budget — in difficult financial times where everyone is struggling, particularly in Metro Vancouver because of the cost of housing for both renters and homeowners. It’s the top 1 percent that benefited.

What did the government…? What was the conclusion? What were the circumstances that led into that? Was it a series of tax increases over the years on top income earners? In fact, no. The average person in the top 1 percent, the principal beneficiary of this budget, had received between 2001 and 2011 a $41,000 annual tax cut. And yet it wasn’t enough. So the government took a little bit of that back for two years to help them to get through an election, and then it goes right back to them. That was the benefit.

In fact, if you see what happened, if you see that tax transfer over time and then consider the issue of MSP premiums, which have grown not only in cost for the middle class…. For people earning $40,000 and $50,000 and $60,000 a year, it’s a growing burden. When you’re having to pay for housing in Vancouver-Kingsway, that is a significant cost.

Those premiums, for the average family, have increased. They’ve doubled, increasing by $864 over time. They’ve gone from about $900 million in the provincial budget to $2.4 billion this year, and that $1.5 billion has been shifted to a flat tax on the middle class.

It’s different. You can pay that increase, if you think of that $864 increase and you’ve received a $41,000 tax cut, out of the tax cut. But if you’re a middle-class British Columbian, that’s not the case.
[ Page 5994 ]

So what we’ve had is a strategy, at a time when British Columbia leads the country in inequality, when people are struggling in the community, when entrepreneurs in the community — such as my constituents — are struggling to get by and trying to create work in creating jobs for others…. You have a government that has focused its attention, as the Premier would say — what does she say? — laser-like on the top 1 percent.

[1445]

It is, I think, out of step with the needs of British Columbians, as expressed not just by the Finance Committee but by anyone who talks to people in the province. I talked to people in the province over the weekend, as we all did. It’s simply out of step, those two measures — an increase in flat tax on the middle class and the other fee and rate increases that also have followed from that, on the one hand, and dramatic cuts in the marginal tax rates for the top 1 percent. That is a government that is out of touch with what people are thinking in the province.

Now, of course, if it was only MSP premiums and if it was only the government focusing on the top 1 percent, that might be one thing. But go through the list. A massive increase in MSP premiums, as we’ve suggested — significant, indeed — and massive increases over time in B.C. Hydro rates. We’ll return to this matter because the minister appears proud of government policies that have caused this increase in recent years, making life less affordable for the average family.

Significant increases in ICBC rates, significant increases in ferry fares and bridge tolls and camping fees. And of course, as we learned today, very significant increases in tuition and cuts to the very grants that were designed to ensure that people have access to the very lift of education we’ve talked about. That has been their policy. It has been elitist all around. It has been, unfortunately, a policy that is not supporting — at least, after the elections — the middle class. And you see this throughout the initiative.

Now, let’s just speak about those B.C. Hydro rate increases. Let’s just talk about the government’s management of hydro rates. As you know, this has been a crucial matter for the government.

They, in the period from 2001 to 2011, promoted a self-sufficiency policy at B.C. Hydro that, in fact, forced the utility (a) to not be able to develop its own resources and (b) to buy power it didn’t need at high prices. And the government seemed shocked…. Hon. Speaker, you’d say: “Well, this sounds partisan to me.” But in fact, it was the very conclusion the minister himself came to when he announced the most recent rate increase — that the government’s self-sufficiency policy had, in fact, been a disaster.

Unfortunately, it’s not the minister or the government that has to pay. No, they raised hydro rates to protect the dividend for the government. It’s the people of B.C. that had to pay for that colossal failure. Again, this is a resource that has been built, this is a company that has been built, by workers in B.C. — people who’ve built the dams, who’ve paid the taxes. The ratepayers of B.C. — they’ve paid for B.C. Hydro.

What we saw in the period since this government has been in office is the transferring of that benefit to a few people who, shockingly, are friends of the government. So what you have now is a situation that I think was well described. But this isn’t Marvin Shaffer’s analysis. This is just what B.C. Hydro documents say of a utility, because of those policies, losing $250 million a year from those very private power purchases paid for by ratepayers.

What do we have in terms of hydro rate increases? Well, a 74 percent increase in the average bill, rising to 94 percent by 2018 and, when you consider what the Liberals said before they came to office, processes that have been totally taken out of the hands of the B.C. Utilities Commission — those rate increases. Projects, many of which have gone disastrously over budget, such as the ones I’ve talked about, were in fact also taken out of the hands of the B.C. Utilities Commission and have never delivered what the government promised them to deliver.

You’ll recall, hon. Speaker — people will remember this because it has echoes of the current debate about LNG — on B.C. Hydro, the promises of the early part of the Liberal regime — that the success of the IPP project was going to lead to the elimination of the provincial sales tax. I mean, they were going to eliminate it with that, and it ended up costing us hundreds of millions of dollars more a year — billions of dollars more.

[1450]

They said it was going to get rid of the sales tax. It didn’t. This is why the people of B.C. take so seriously the Premier’s comments about getting rid of the property transfer tax, getting rid of B.C.’s debt, getting rid of the provincial sales tax today. These are the promises that the Premier ran on in the last election campaign. Those were the promises, and in fact, since the last election we’ve gone in the exact opposite direction.

Now, the government has said, the minister has said: “I couldn’t do anything about this tax cut”— laser-focused on the top 1 percent. “I couldn’t do anything about it. It was just there. I couldn’t change that. It’s impossible. Government can’t do anything.” At least, they can’t do that. But they can produce a service plan before the last election which said how much they were going to take from B.C. Hydro customers and completely revise it after the election, with a 28 percent rate increase.

They can claim, as the Premier did, that they were wrestling hydro rate increases to the ground before the last election, and then after the election see massive rate increases. Just by way of comparison — I don’t expect that people will be unfair to the government — there were rate increases, of course, in the NDP government — B.C. Hydro. The rate increase over that period was 5.6 percent, over nine years. That was the rate increase then.

Since these policies have been brought into place —
[ Page 5995 ]
policies that avoided scrutiny by the BCUC, policies that forced B.C. Hydro to buy expensive power — we’ve seen these dramatic rate increases, which don’t only hurt families, although they surely hurt families. But they do more than just hurt families, I’d argue. They also make all of B.C. businesses less competitive. They are, in fact, job-killers as decisions.

The government argued that they were creating jobs with these measures. But when you buy something at a high price that you can’t sell it for, of course the people who have to pay, which includes B.C. families and B.C. businesses, are going to see the overall productivity of the province’s economy decline as a result of those very policies.

What you had before the election was a budget tabled then, which said one set of things about B.C. Hydro, that they completely rewrote after the election to the detriment of the middle-class family in B.C., the average family in my constituency. We saw a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest 1 percent in the budget. Then we saw a transfer of wealth from all British Columbians to some private power providers over the previous period that caused those very rate increases.

We’ve seen a shift in the tax burden to flat taxes in general and away from progressive taxation. That’s been the government’s policy over time. Unbelievably, after 13 years of it, they don’t think they’ve done enough, so they have this budget for the 1 percent.

The final thing — and this is, of course, well understood. Because of the deferral accounts they created, because of what they said before the election and because of the rate increases they’ve imposed on B.C. Hydro in that period, the government, which throughout this debate has talked about balancing the budget three times…. It’s predicated on that very illusion.

As the previous Auditor General said — and the distinguished Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, who is beside me, may be able to get this exactly — those deferral accounts create the illusion of profit where none actually exists — the illusion of profit where none actually exists. That is the sand on which this edifice stands.

We have, therefore, a strategy for the economy which punishes those who need a break and benefits those who need it less. That’s the strategy on the economy. But what do you say…? You would say: “Is that the only impact of this budget?” Well, we’ve seen…. I think the responses of the Minister of Advanced Education in question period illustrate this on the very issue of the budget — and the responses of the Minister of Education.

We see a budget that also takes away from the very means, the very ladder of economic success, that people need in this province.

[1455]

If you are a child or a student or a high school student in this province or someone going to post-secondary or returning to post-secondary education, you pay the price when the government does what it has done here — not just, by the way, directly. The government has imposed new costs on all schools. These very hydro rate increases we talk about also are being paid by public schools, taking money out of the classroom to pay for the government’s friends.

Also, in spite of the fact that they haven’t funded education in the past, in spite of the fact that they’ve engaged in more than a decade of division on public education — you see the results of that in this budget as well — the government decided to claw back, after the longest strike in B.C. history in education, further money which school boards might reasonably have used to protect programs in the classroom. They said: “That’s not going to be money designated for the classroom. We’re going to claw it back. We’re going to get you with B.C. Hydro rate increases, we’re going to engage in division, and we’re going to claw money back in education.”

At the very time, to use what the Minister of Advanced Education said in question period, when people need education more than ever before, we are going to make it harder for people to go — harder for the people in my constituency to afford to get a post-secondary education; harder for people to get the access to the language education they need, the English language learning they need to succeed in society; harder for students to get access to the education they need in public school classrooms right now.

That’s what this budget is about. It is a budget that is against what we call social mobility, which is really, at its core, the dream of Canada — the idea that one generation can do better than another generation. This budget is at war with that social mobility. It is also the great entrepreneurial force of our economy, that idea of people moving forward. Taking those opportunities away is, I think, a profound mistake.

I want to finish just by mentioning the government’s other laser focus in this budget. Their first laser focus, as we know, was a tax cut laser focused on the top 1 percent of income earners, those earning over $800,000 a year. That was their top priority in the budget.

Their second, continuing priority — their central preoccupation, their laser focus — was LNG. But you see in the budget that laser focus means different things, first of all, for the Premier than everybody else. Of course, they were late with the royalty regime, a year later than they said they’d be. So laser focus means a different thing. You know, meeting deadlines — a bit of a problem there. Let’s just say that it’s a central preoccupation — maybe that’s better than laser focus — for the Premier on this question.

We’ve seen, budget on to budget after the election, less emphasis on this. But what we’ve seen from the government is that in spite of their struggles to deliver on skills training, which they had abandoned for the better part of a decade….
[ Page 5996 ]

Interjection.

A. Dix: Well, apprenticeship rates in the first ten years of the Liberal government were cut in half — completion rates. That’s not a record of great success. That is a significant problem that the government is facing now and that B.C. young people in particular but all B.C. workers are facing now — the intentional decline of standards of the government on that key issue of skills training.

The other consequence has been a failure of the government to address the needs and the importance of other industries, from forestry…. The government really ignores, on the jobs question, 25,000 jobs lost since the government came into office in forestry. A failure to address key issues of the forest’s future and to invest in the land, the land that we own, that is our birthright, that we should put on to new generations. A failure to address those issues.

We’ve had throne speeches where they haven’t even mentioned forestry. Cuts to the forestry budget. In fact, the government’s laser focus on LNG, even though it allowed them to miss virtually all of their deadlines on the question, did succeed in one degree. It allowed them to ignore forestry. It allowed them to ignore high tech. It allowed them to ignore other key sectors of the economy.

Other key sectors of the economy include, of course, the agriculture sector, where the government’s only approach — again, we see a decline in the commission budget here — was to weaken the agricultural land reserve and our future.

[1500]

In conclusion, I would say this. This government and this budget fail to meet the priorities of the people of Vancouver-Kingsway. Its laser focus on the top 1 percent of income earners — those earning over $800,000 a year — at the expense of average British Columbians is a significant problem. Its failure to invest in public education, at a time when even the Minister of Advanced Education acknowledges that it’s more important than ever before, is a significant problem.

Its failure to understand the struggles — day-to-day struggles — of people who are optimistic about their future, who act with optimism and compassion and commitment and entrepreneurial spirit in their communities but find themselves weighed down by government whacking away at their purchasing power….

They have expressed their priorities. They are not our priorities. That’s why we’ll be voting against this budget.

D. Barnett: I’m pleased to rise today and have the opportunity to respond to the budget.

Our government supports economic development. Communities in the province, such as in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, need to be safe and secure in order to succeed. Safety and security come through developing a strong economy. They say that the third time is the charm, and balancing our third consecutive budget in a row is not only charming, but it is a result of our government’s continued hard work, with a projected surplus of $879 million.

We are grateful for the opportunity that British Columbians gave us. We have listened. We have a plan, and we are delivering on the commitments that we made to the people of British Columbia. We did this with fiscal prudence and a strong vision.

Prudent fiscal management supports B.C.’s triple-A credit rating, which allows more taxpayer dollars to be spent on direct services rather than debt-servicing costs. Fiscal responsibility requires discipline. We are balancing the budget because that is the very heart of fiscal responsibility.

Because of our government’s strong fiscal discipline, we’re able to find room for modest investments that strengthen and encourage growth in key economic sectors, such as resource development. We’ve leveraged the knowledge and skills of British Columbians and the strengths of our natural resources. With this budget, we are continuing to build on these advantages.

Our government is extending the mining flow-through tax credit for an additional year by developing our natural resources responsibly, working with industry and harnessing the power of the private sector.

Forestry has always been the backbone of the economy of the Cariboo and reflects the ecological and the cultural diversity of our province. Our diversified forest industry is so strong that our region has a reality show, Timber Kings. That shows the incredible skills and talents of those building magnificent log homes for buyers around the world that boosted the Williams Lake economy.

There are 51 community forests in B.C. that play an active role in the forest sector through harvesting and supplying logs for the market. In the Cariboo region we have community forests in 100 Mile House, Clinton, Iskut First Nation, Likely-Xatśūll, Tatla Lake and the city of Williams Lake and the Williams Lake Indian Band as partners, and in Wells-Barkerville.

There are also important and growing opportunities for employment and economic growth while enhancing the working relationships between communities and local First Nations. In 100 Mile House we have West Fraser Sawmills, 100 Mile Lumber and Chasm Sawmills, Ainsworth–100 Mile House OSB plant. A number of log home builders in the area also rely on timber from the timber supply area.

[1505]

We also have four lumber mills: two Tolko Industries, West Fraser Mills, West Chilcotin Forest Products, Tolko chip mill, Pinnacle Renewable Energy Group pellet mill, West Fraser plywood and veneer sawmills, Sigurdson Mill sawmill and River West in a thriving softwood lumber industry.

The Northwest Energy cogeneration plant, operating in Williams Lake since 1993, is the largest biomass plant in North America and sells energy to B.C. Hydro. It con-
[ Page 5997 ]
sumes 600,000 tonnes of wood waste to generate 66 watts of electricity.

We have a plan. We laid it out. Why does it matter? It matters because if we respect taxpayers, we can’t simply assume that these costs will be dealt with by taxpayers alone. We need to responsibly develop resources in British Columbia so that we can give British Columbians the kinds of advantages that they expect and deserve.

As we continue to build and diversify our natural resource industries, we’re making sure that First Nations are partners in advancing economic prosperity. We continue to make slow but steady progress on the treaty front. In the meantime, B.C. is the first province in Canada to share provincial revenue from mining, forestry and clean energy projects with First Nation communities. We now have more than 200 revenue-sharing agreements in place, ensuring that First Nations benefit directly from the work taking place in their traditional territories.

We also have been tireless advocates for diversifying our markets. Thanks to those efforts, we have seen great success in China and hope to duplicate that success in India.

Forestry is another traditional mainstay of our rural communities. More than 40 percent of the province’s regional economies is based on forestry activities, through more than 6,600 businesses.

The NDP say they care about forestry, jobs and communities. Well, how did they deal with mitigating the pine beetle epidemic? Back in the ’90s local communities, industry, foresters and mayors said, “Let’s go in and manage the beetles,” even though they were in a class A park, but the NDP said no. The result? Devastation.

It was agreed to give Carrier Lumber about $75 million in cash and other benefits to compensate for timber rights improperly confiscated by the opposition in 1993. The settlement stems from a 1999 court ruling that found that the NDP government abused its authority by taking away cutting rights. The government then tried to cover this up, the court found, by failing to disclose more than 2,000 relevant documents. This is NDP forestry.

Our government’s initiative for responsible forestry is a step in the right direction to create long-lived wood products that store carbon for decades and even centuries. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations for Rural Development, I will continue to be a voice for rural communities in our Legislature. As a resident of the beautiful Cariboo-Chilcotin, the interests of rural communities have always been important to me. Rural British Columbians are generous, hard-working people with a pioneer spirit. Whether they’re ranchers, miners, teachers or doctors, they’re independent and proud. It is the rural parts of British Columbia that give our province its unique character.

Employment in rural communities is one of the main benefits of community forests. According to the upcoming report by Natural Resources Canada, the industry average of jobs per metres cubed is 0.2 jobs for 1,000 metres cubed. These jobs are exclusively in forestry, logging and support services.

[1510]

The mining industry is important to British Columbians. An average salary today in the mining industry is over $114,000 a year, up from $81,000 in 2001. We actually have approximately 20 percent of all the mineral exploration investment in Canada happening right here in British Columbia, in rural British Columbia. Extending for one year the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit will provide an incentive for mineral exploration.

In addition, a base budget increase of $6.3 million annually to the Ministry of Mines and Energy to support continued improvements to permitting, the regulatory oversight, including increased of mine inspections. Under the previous NDP government, mining was decimated in B.C. The mining workforce shrunk by 36 percent, and mining executives ranked B.C. as the most antagonistic place in the world to invest in mining.

Our province has the most diverse agrifoods industry in Canada, providing approximately 60,000 jobs, generating roughly $11.6 billion a year for our province’s economy. We are further committing to $2 million to our Buy Local program to help farmers and food processors promote their B.C. products.

Our health care system. More than 800,000 residents, or 20 percent of the province, do not pay MSP premiums because of premium assistance. When we help seniors, we help everybody. Over the past decade we have focused on expanding the range of care options available for seniors in order to meet this increased demand, while supporting healthy aging to improve the quality of life for all B.C. seniors, helping them remain independent for as long as possible.

Our government has reduced the rate of health funding increases to an annual average of under 3 percent from a high of nearly 8 percent in the mid-2000s.

The budget reaffirms the B.C. government’s commitment to health care, with nearly a $3 billion increase to the Ministry of Health’s spending over three years. Our province continues to have the best health care outcomes anywhere, including the longest life expectancy in Canada and the country’s lowest mortality rates for cancer and heart disease. I am proud to say that B.C. ranks third in the world for health performance. In 2015, this year, health care funding again is at a record level of $19.2 billion, more than double the amount spent in 2000-2001.

When it comes to transportation, our government has invested $2.9 billion in transportation investments. With Highway 97, the Cariboo region is benefiting every day, as motorists are safer now and have more effective connections to work and home.

In the Cariboo region four-laning three sections south
[ Page 5998 ]
of 100 Mile House has included 70 Mile North, starting north of Willow Road. That was completed in October 2013. Stormy Road North and Bullock Lake Road projects were also completed in October 2013.

Over the next three years construction will start on four-laning between Carson Drive and Fox Mountain, in Williams Lake, as well as four-laning the south boundary of the Williams Lake Indian Reserve and Lexington Road. In addition, on Highway 20 at Alexis Creek, in the Chilcotin, and at Anahim Lake Airport there was $4 million of resurfacing of approximately 11 kilometres, including extending the runway pavement at Anahim airport, that was completed in the fall of 2012.

On Highway 20, in the Chilcotin west of Riske Creek, there was also $3.5 million of resurfacing of approximately 12 kilometres that was completed in the fall of 2013, and there were four projects delivered along Highway 20 in 2014. We installed a dynamic messaging sign just west of Williams Lake on Highway 20 at a total cost of $340,000. The Ministry of Transportation provided $300,000 of that.

[1515]

We brushed the highway corridor in the Tatla Lake area of the Chilcotin. We seal-coated 92.84 lane-kilometres between Tatla Lake and Puntzi Lake at a total expenditure of $1.89 million. We resurfaced and paved 39.2 lane-kilometres between Anahim IR and Lees Corner, in the Chilcotin, investing $5.33 million. I’m proud of the work that has been done by the Ministry of Transportation on Highway 20 for the people of the Chilcotin, for their safety and for transportation and to create economic growth.

Our tourism sector in British Columbia employs more than 132,000 British Columbians — almost one in every 15 jobs in our province — and generates $13.9 billion in revenue. Our government believes that the tourism sector can continue to create jobs, opportunity and prosperity for British Columbians in every corner of the province.

In the Cariboo-Chilcotin freshwater fishing is one of the many attractions. With this budget we are delivering on our commitment to direct all revenues from freshwater fishing licences, approximately $10 million a year, to the Freshwater Fisheries Society for conservation activities. Freshwater sport fishing generates approximately $500 million a year in economic activity, much of that taking place in rural British Columbia and in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

British Columbians expect their tax dollars to be used wisely and that every available education dollar is going to help children in the classroom, whether it is in K to 12 or post-secondary. We are engineering our education system and training so that B.C. students and workers have the skills to be first in line for jobs in a growing economy.

This budget delivers significant funding for education, up $576 million over three years. Total funding to school districts will top $5 billion next year. That’s $1.2 billion more per year that goes towards school districts, such as school district 27 in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

More than 70 percent of those jobs will require some form of post-secondary education, and 44 percent of those jobs will be skilled trades and technical occupations. As part of that plan, Budget 2015 extends the training tax credit, which benefits both employers and apprentices, to the end of 2017. We are also extending the enhanced credit, which provides an additional 50 percent for First Nations individuals, people with disabilities and their employees.

With this budget, we are reaffirming our commitment to keep our province on the right track of expanded growth and opportunity, ensuring that British Columbia stays the best place to live, work and raise a family. The 2015 budget truly does reaffirm our commitment to keep our province on the right track of expanding growth, opportunity and prosperity in the most balanced way.

D. Routley: It’s indeed always an honour to rise to speak in the B.C. Legislature. We represent citizens of our province and their best interests. No matter what the subject, it is indeed, of course, an honour to stand in this place — it is so gracious and lovely, elegant — in order to raise up the interests of British Columbians. I would like to thank the citizens of the communities I represent for the opportunity to stand here and represent their interests. It’s always, as I said, a great honour to do so.

Of course, I’d like to thank my family, my partner Leanne and our children; my staff, my constituency assistants in the constituency, who do so much to serve so many people with so many issues; and, of course, the staff here in the Legislature — everyone from our caucus staff to the security staff, the dining room staff and all the other people involved in taking care of the B.C. Legislature.

[1520]

I taught English in Japan. When I was in Japan I met a bicycle frame builder. I came back to Canada and had the rights to his product and began selling his product throughout North America. I distributed bicycles throughout the United States and across Canada, and it was a great learning experience for me.

I learned a lot about dealing with people from different cultures and different marketplaces, but I also learned a lot about marketing. And one of the things I learned, which was a little bit counterintuitive, is that a lot of companies will advertise their weaknesses. They will confront what’s a perceived weakness and advertise it as though it were a strength.

A perfect example of this is a popular banking commercial in Canada that shows a green leather armchair. That’s to represent the experience of going into that particular bank. You will feel as though you’re being offered a green leather armchair. In fact, this is exactly opposite to the way most people feel about going into the bank and standing in a lineup and having to deal with their
[ Page 5999 ]
issues and waiting a long time, usually, to do that. This is a counterintuitive kind of advertising, and it’s called inside-out marketing.

Looking at the record of the B.C. Liberal government, I think I could say that they are true masters of inside-out marketing. They take their weakness, and they advertise it as a strength. I’m going to give you some examples of that.

They have spared no amount of energy — and expense to the public — to advertise things such as a jobs plan, when indeed we’re seventh in the nation in creating jobs. They’ve spent and spared no excess in advertising their intention to create a debt-free B.C. They ran a campaign on debt-free B.C. They painted a bus “Debt-free B.C.” And yet the truth is that they have increased the debt faster than any government in B.C. history.

These are perfect examples of inside-out advertising, inside-out marketing. It is interesting. It might even be comical to comment on this if it weren’t tragic, because the government has a lofty responsibility to defend the public interest of British Columbia. I would suggest that creating an illusion around such important issues as debt financing, as job creation, as the core industries of the province, and creating an illusion that’s based on an opposite reality is hardly the responsible thing to do and hardly what people expect from their government.

We have seen, in my constituency, so many issues ignored by this government, or if not ignored, made far worse than they had been.

Forestry. We see a 500 percent increase in raw log exports — this while mills in my constituency close because of a lack of fibre, this as profitable pulp mills like Harmac Pacific in my constituency suffer fibre shortages that threaten their operation and their viability. Those businesses must watch closed sawmill sites being used as loading sites to load raw logs for export to other countries. That’s the reality of what the B.C. Liberals have done to my constituency.

I’m from Nanaimo–North Cowichan, which is, of course, a very ferry-dependent area on Vancouver Island. I represent several Gulf Islands as well. We’ve seen Ferries create an economic and social crisis on the coast of British Columbia.

[1525]

The major routes of this province have seen 74 percent increases in fares, and small routes in my constituency have seen over 100 percent increases in fares. This has, of course, as anyone would predict, led to lower ridership and increased losses for B.C. Ferries that have been answered by yet higher fares and lower ridership — a downward spiral. That’s what has been delivered to the constituency of Nanaimo–North Cowichan by the B.C. Liberal government.

In health care, seniors throughout my constituency face shortages in services. People have come to my office, nurses have come to my office, and asked that they be allowed to call a paramedic to rescue their senior relative from care. That’s how badly care has descended in my constituency — and not because people aren’t dedicated to their jobs. The people who are giving service to our seniors are absolutely dedicated to the point of injuring themselves and making themselves sick through the workload that has been put on them in order to meet basic needs and, even then, fail to do that. That’s what has been given to Nanaimo–North Cowichan by the B.C. Liberal government.

In education we’ve seen a starvation of budgets that leads to deficits every single year — the closure of small schools, decreased and deteriorated services and buildings. That’s what has been delivered to my constituency of Nanaimo–North Cowichan by the B.C. Liberal government.

What are the priorities? Well, the government in this budget has answered one great call. They have offered to the highest 2 percent wage earners a $ $236 million tax cut. We see the highest wage earners of British Columbia being offered $236 million, while post-secondary budgets are starved, while K-to-12 education budgets are starved. There’s a children-in-care crisis in this province that’s directly attributable to a lack of resources. This is what the B.C. Liberal government has delivered to British Columbia with successive budgets and throne speeches that have ignored the priorities and values of British Columbians and have answered only the most elite interests of our province.

The government’s focus for the last three years has been all LNG, all of the time. All LNG, all of the time. If a ministry’s plan didn’t equate to increased access or development of LNG, it just didn’t matter, and it wasn’t heard.

Well, that didn’t work out, so now the buzzword was “Site C.” Site C was the buzzword. “Why are you talking about LNG? We’re talking about Site C.”

Then we moved the laser-like focus of the government to the word “diversity.” All of those industries that have been neglected by the government’s obsessive focus on LNG and the placing of every egg of British Columbia in one basket were answered with the word “diversity.”

Inside-out marketing. A debt-free B.C. Well, what are the economic numbers? In job creation, this province is seventh in percentage of people who are gainfully employed. We have the lowest wage growth of any province west of the Maritimes. And 38,500 British Columbians have given up looking for work since the current Premier came to office.

In terms of income, between 2006 and 2012 we’ve seen the worst income growth in the country. In fact, income has gone down by 2.4 percent. In Vancouver workers have lost 3 percent of their income. In Victoria they’ve lost 4.8 percent of their income. In Abbotsford workers have lost 5.1 percent of their income.

British Columbians have the lowest confidence in retiring of the people of any province in this country.
[ Page 6000 ]
University grads in British Columbia face the lowest wealth growth of any province in Canada. B.C. families have the highest consumer and mortgage debt of any province in Canada. Forty-seven percent of British Columbians live paycheque to paycheque.

[1530]

We have been, for 12 years, mostly first but at least second, with the highest numbers of children living in poverty. So 19.4 percent of British Columbians live below the poverty line. Half the children in poverty in this province have at least one parent working.

Let’s not leave corporations out of this. Even in terms of corporate profit growth, during the NDP decade of ’91 to 2001 corporate profits rose 12.7 percent; under the B.C. Liberals, 10.5 percent. These are the outcomes. This is the definition of inside-out marketing.

While the government has been obsessively focused on LNG and ignoring the industries that have been the core of this province, specifically forestry…. We’ve seen a deterioration of that industry as well. Last year there were over $12 billion worth of forestry products exported. The total natural gas export value was $1.7 billion, yet that is deserving of the obsessive focus of this government.

Fifty percent of the value-added businesses in the forest sector in this province have gone bankrupt since the B.C. Liberals took power. There has been a 40 percent decline of employment in the value-added sector of forestry since the B.C. Liberals took power and a 30 percent decline in forestry employment overall. There has been a 60 percent decline in sales of forest products since the B.C. Liberals took power, and 206 mills have closed.

From 2001 to 2013 there was a loss of 21,000 jobs in forestry, many of them on Vancouver Island, many of them in the constituency of Nanaimo–North Cowichan, which I represent. Forty percent of the jobs in the value-added industry have been lost.

There has been a 500 percent increase in the export of raw logs. Approximately eight million cubic metres per year are now exported. That’s enough to fill loaded logging trucks bumper to bumper from Vancouver to Winnipeg and back. This is what the government boasts.

What do we get from the most renewable resource in our province? The core industry, the core resource industry of our province. The most renewable natural resource industry available to any jurisdiction — forests. Forests that grow and regrow. Forests that, when they thrive, are the lungs of the planet and the heart of a thriving B.C. economy. What do we get for that resource? How is it stewarded?

Well, in terms of jobs per cubic metre harvested in this province, Quebec gets three times as many jobs for every cubic metre harvested. Ontario is doing even better. Ontario gets four times as many jobs for every cubic metre of wood harvested. Yet this is our core industry, and it has been neglected to the point of failure by a government obsessed with a pipedream.

What is the state of our forest health? We have two million hectares of public lands that have not been planted. What is the investment in the future of the most renewable industry and resource this province has? What is the investment in the future of the economy of British Columbia and the well-being of our communities? Two million hectares of public lands that have been logged and not replanted.

We face an impending fibre shortage after the pine beetle infestation, a likely loss of 60 percent of the annual cut. Yet this government has failed to make the most basic investment in the future — planting trees. Not only is it a great investment in the future; it’s a great investment in job creation.

[1535]

I said earlier that I’d spent time teaching English in Japan, and that led me to develop a business that distributed products throughout North America. Well, I went to Japan because I had planted trees with a crew of people who spent their springtimes planting trees and their winters in Japan teaching English. I planted trees for 4½ years, and I know that there are at least a quarter-million trees out there that I helped create. Likely, having been some 30 years ago, they’re already being harvested, at the rate that this government is cutting trees for export as raw logs.

That is tragic. This is the core of our economy. It’s the core of the well-being of the future of British Columbia. It would be the greatest contribution we could make to countering the effects of climate change to have a healthy, thriving forest that absorbed carbon from the atmosphere and provided jobs for British Columbia into perpetuity. Unfortunately, that investment has been neglected and that great resource, worth a quarter of a trillion dollars to the people of British Columbia, has been allowed to degrade and deteriorate.

While they’re focused on the 2 percent — as a speaker earlier said, a laser-like focus on the 2 percent who now receive a $236 million tax break — what’s happening to our debt? The Premier spent a lot of time talking during the election and since about not passing the debt of today to the children of tomorrow. Practically every B.C. Liberal member who has spoken to the budget or throne has echoed those words. Yet more inside-out marketing, because the reality is that we’ve seen the fastest increase in debt in B.C. history.

Of course, debt can be good, and debt can be bad. We need to make investments for the future, but we have to be serious about a serious and important issue. We have to be transparent and honest about the state of affairs in this province, something the B.C. Liberal government is incapable, it seems, of doing.

While they say they believe in a debt-free B.C., while they say they will have LNG plants up and running tomorrow that will create fabulous wealth and prosperity funds that will pay off the provincial debt, B.C. Hydro
[ Page 6001 ]
debt…. Every other problem in the province will be answered by this pipedream. While that’s happening, while the Premier has been in office we have seen an $18 billion increase in debt, the fastest increase in B.C. history. March 31, 2011, the debt was $45.2 billion. The estimated debt at the end of March 2015 will be $63.4 billion. So much for not passing the debt of today onto the children of tomorrow.

I’m sure the children of tomorrow who will benefit from some of the investments of today will be willing to contribute, but wouldn’t it be nice if the people of today were told the truth at least once in a while about what the government is doing, about what the government intends?

Another fertile ground for cynicism is the B.C. government’s claim of an $800 million surplus this year. An $800 million surplus — how did the government arrive at that figure?

B.C. Hydro. Despite its mounting debt, despite billions of dollars of deferral accounts that have been created under the B.C. Liberals, the government is taking $635 million from B.C. Hydro. The previous Auditor General called this “creating an illusion of profit where there is none,” forcing B.C. Hydro to take on debt and forcing B.C. Hydro ratepayers to pay for B.C. Liberal claims of a surplus that doesn’t really exist.

It’s $635 million from Hydro, and from all of those ICBC ratepayers in the province, $210 million. So that’s $845 million from Crown corporations to create an $800 million surplus.

[1540]

This is the great performance of the economic wizards of the other side, the B.C. Liberal government, that mount debt faster than any government in history and yet claim that we will see a debt-free B.C., that shows a surplus of $800 million while they take $845 million from ratepayers, that gives away $236 million to the highest 2 percent of wage earners in this province. And the rest of us pay. The rest of British Columbians pay for that with increased fees that are a penalty as a regressive tax increase, the worst of which would be MSP premiums.

In 2001 the average family paid $864 for MSP premiums. After this budget they will pay $1,728, an $864 increase — an increase of exactly 100 percent. They are the ones who are paying so that the B.C. Liberals can exercise inside-out marketing and claim a balanced budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people of this province.

B.C. Hydro ratepayers. In 2001 the average family paid $710. After this budget that number will be $1,234, an increase of $524 or 74 percent. So much for low taxes.

ICBC ratepayers. The average family paid $518 in 2001 and this year $747 — a $229 increase, a 44 percent increase.

Ferry fares. The major routes have seen a 71 percent increase. The minor routes, as I said earlier, have seen more than a 100 percent increase. It has led to devastation of Gulf Island communities like the ones I represent, where property values are plummeting, where businesses, particularly tourism-based businesses, are suffering and closing.

In terms of another investment in the future, the most essential human capital investment in the future, post-secondary education tuition has increased under the B.C. Liberals by 115 percent. That’s what this government has delivered to the lovely province of British Columbia.

Rather than fulfil the promises they’ve made…. The list of broken promises is too long to list in a half-hour response to the budget or the throne — not to sell B.C. Rail, not to bring in HST to the province, not to tear up contracts, on and on and on. Decisions and broken promises that have not only led to horrific consequences in people’s lives but have cost the purse of this province hundreds of millions of dollars in lost court battles defending those improper and illegal decisions.

Before the election this government was fully committed to everything LNG — all LNG, all the time. We were told that the money from LNG would start to flow in 2017. We were told that we would have three plants up and running in 2020. The first one, we were assured, would be operating in 2015. That looks hardly likely, as nothing has been even approved for building. No final investment decisions have been made, and we’re more than halfway through the period.

The prosperity fund, we were told, would exceed $100 billion. It would eliminate the provincial debt. It would eliminate the provincial sales tax. We would have a debt-free B.C. 15 years from today, the Premier said on April 15, 2013. Yet we’ve seen this massive increase in debt.

The prosperity fund would eliminate the debt of B.C. Hydro, and yet the government just took $635 million more from a Crown corporation that’s losing money, forcing B.C. Hydro to take on even more debt to pay for B.C. Liberal broken promises and the inside-out marketing of their agenda. The prosperity fund would eliminate the B.C. Ferries debt.

[1545]

LNG, we were told by the Premier, would create 100,000 jobs. Now the answer from the government on questions of LNG is: “Petronas who? LNG what? We’re talking about diversity. Let’s talk about Site C. Let’s talk about forestry.”

What happened to the laser-like focus? Every one of the ministers of this government had a letter of expectation given to them by the Premier that included a direction to direct the efforts of their ministry to realize an LNG industry for this province. Even the Ministry of Children and Family Development was told that somehow their ministry must contribute to the development of an LNG industry.

It was such a sure thing, but now it’s a chance. Now it’s a potential opportunity. Now we’re going to talk about diversity. Now we’re going to talk about forestry. Now we’re
[ Page 6002 ]
going to talk about an industry that, under the neglect of the B.C. Liberals, has failed. It is failing and is likely to continue to fail, with a lack of investment, a lack of attention, a lack of planning and a lack of concern.

These are the outcomes. This is the reality. Inside-out marketing might be cute for a bank commercial — a green, leather armchair that advertises the comfortable experience of going and standing in the lineup at the bank. But when it comes to the business of the B.C. government — when it comes to the business of the Ministry of Children and Family Development; of health care, responsible for our seniors; of Finance, responsible for making things fair for British Columbians, not just beneficial to the top 2 percent wage earners; and when it comes to children living in care in the crisis that we see in British Columbia — I think the province deserves much better.

I understand that it’s a very difficult task to make this province work for everyone. I understand that these issues are complex. But I also understand that British Columbians are aware of that, and they accept that there will be difficulties. They accept that there will be failures. But I don’t think…. I hope they will never accept that this will be simply an exercise in deceit, that we simply tell people what they want to hear and then do the opposite, that we promise benefit and deliver these poor outcomes.

I will be voting against the budget. I will be voting against the budget because I will be voting for the interests of the people I represent, who have been neglected and ignored by the B.C. Liberal government.

L. Throness: It is always a pleasure and a privilege to stand here on behalf of my constituents and speak. Any time I look at this place, I am always awed by this chamber. I worked in the Legislature as a political staffer 30 years ago, and if I could have thought then that I would be here now speaking, I would have been awed then too. So it’s always a privilege and always part of a lifetime fulfilment to be here speaking and to represent my constituents.

I want to speak to the budget, of course. At budget time we talk a lot about finances and affordability, so I want to begin by addressing living costs for a moment. I want to talk about costs of living in praise of my own riding.

We hear a lot of complaint in the press and from the opposition about how expensive it is to live in Vancouver, which suggests and which implies that the government has some kind of moral obligation to make it possible for everyone to live in Vancouver, in the most expensive city in B.C. Of course, it would be impossible to do that.

Four years ago I came back from Ottawa to the Lower Mainland. I decided to move back, and I thought I’d like to live in Vancouver so I looked for a condo in Vancouver. I very quickly learned that I couldn’t afford to live in Vancouver, so I bought a condo in Abbotsford. I loved it there. I was happy there. I was content there. It was a beautiful place. I’ve since moved to Chilliwack. It’s a wonderful place to live, and I’m loving it there as well.

[1550]

The point of that little story is this. All through the Lower Mainland, in B.C.’s interior, B.C.’s north and on Vancouver Island there are fantastic places to live. For example, I want to point out Hope in my riding. It’s a beautiful town — 5,000 people, 45 minutes from skiing in Manning Park, just under three hours from Kelowna, two hours from the American border and from Vancouver. It has all the conveniences — a great swimming pool, an arena. It has a lovely public library. Kawkawa Lake is right in the municipality of Hope. And the Fraser River, as well, is right there.

The drinking water in Hope is so clean that it comes right out of the aquifer, without chlorination. Hope is a stone’s throw away from fantastic fishing and hunting. It’s a stunning place to live, and it’s very affordable. I would encourage some of those who can’t afford to live in Vancouver to move to my riding — like Chilliwack, like Hope, like Agassiz, like Harrison Hot Springs. They are all great communities.

I will never fail to sing the praises of my own riding. In my absolutely unbiased opinion, it is truly one of the most beautiful places to live in Canada, and in comparison with Vancouver, it is very affordable. Focusing on Vancouver sells short all of the other great places there are to live in B.C.

Now, I want to talk about affordability and the budget. I’m very happy with the budget. It is a signal accomplishment. I would call it a historic budget. I think it’s even a budget that the NDP should support, although I don’t expect that at all. I want to mention a few things that I think my constituents would be concerned with, because they always let me know what is important to them.

I want to talk, first of all, about some social benefits that are made available by this budget. We have many adults in our community of Chilliwack who have developmental disabilities. I know that CLBC, Community Living B.C. — which has a budget already of $789 million, serving about 16,000 adults — has financial shortfalls, and there are always pressures. So last week we increased CLBC’s budget by $106 million over the next three years. I think that that shows that this government has a heart of compassion for those with severe disabilities. We are most generous to those who have the greatest need. It’s a great principle.

In addition to this, we’re going to add $20 million to the social assistance budget. Sometimes I get this question: why don’t you raise social assistance rates and disability rates across the board? It’s certainly true that now they are subsistence rates. But when I hear this, I remind people that almost all of our government programs, $45 billion worth, are naturally tilted toward those who need it most.

For example, our largest expenditure by far is on health care. But by definition, health care is about medical ne-
[ Page 6003 ]
cessity. It’s about need. It only helps those who need medical attention. The more you need, the more health care you get. We care the most for those who need the most.

Our tax system is also progressive. We allow those with the lowest incomes to pay less in income tax. This is important when we come to MSP premiums, which are going up again next year. MSP premiums are themselves progressive, so that anyone making less than $22,000 a year pays no premium at all, which means that 800,000 British Columbians will not pay MSP premiums this year. But I want to point out that MSP premiums raise just $2.3 billion out of $17 billion in total health care spending. The rest of that amount depends on our hugely progressive tax system. So health care contributions are all progressive, indeed.

I would further point out that in this budget, we’ll raise the numbers of those who pay no tax at all. In the coming tax year no one making under $19,000 a year will pay provincial tax. In their day, the NDP happily taxed the lower-income earners in B.C.

But I digress. Allow me to get back to social assistance rates. We’ve taken steps to increase the incomes of those on social assistance, through employment. In 2012 we began to allow those on disability assistance to earn up to $9,600 a year without affecting their benefits. That would almost double their income. Those on social assistance can earn $200 a month without a cut in their monthly benefit. That would increase their benefit by about a third. For those who are able to work, these are very significant increases.

I think the government would like to raise rates across the board. But rate increases in this way for 135,000 people are very expensive. I asked and found that to raise income assistance and disability rates by just $100 a month, it would cost over $160 million more every year. Given that we are already spending $1.6 billion per year now on those two programs, we have to settle for more affordable and more targeted assistance.

[1555]

That’s why in this budget the government chose to eliminate the clawback on child support payments for parents on social assistance. Again, this targets some of those with greatest need, in particular children. It will cost taxpayers about $10 million a year, but it will benefit 5,400 children in 3,200 families. Since there are only 5,900 single parents on social assistance right now, this measure will touch more than half of them. This will be a very meaningful increase in their monthly income. Since the NDP has been calling for this for some time, I know that they are rejoicing in this budget.

But there’s more on the social side that I want to point out. On April 1, 180,000 families will start receiving the B.C. early childhood tax benefit. The benefit provides $55 a month for every child under six years of age. Every family making under $100,000 a year will get the full benefit, and the amount is significant. A two-child family earning $60,000 per year will get $1,300 in the coming year from this program. A family with two kids could buy 32 litres of milk and 15 loaves of bread each month just from this benefit. That’s not an insignificant amount.

As long as you’re registered for the federal child tax benefit, you can’t miss this payment because it’s automatic. The cheques are just going to start coming, and I think that’s great. It’s costly to raise children today. This monthly benefit will help make it easier on young families. We have a huge emphasis in our society on spending on those who are elderly, and we absolutely need to take care of them. But we need a balance in our spending. We cannot forget about children.

I want to highlight another item of social spending for my constituents, and that is for all those families who have a registered education savings plan. A $1,200 grant for training and education will be given to each child in B.C. when he or she turns six. With interest, this will go a long way to their future education, and of course, parents can add to it.

You have to apply for this grant, so I would encourage my constituents to go to their local bank and get more information on the training and education savings grant. Of course, if they need more information, they can always call my office, and we will be glad to help them.

Now I want to turn to health care, which is the biggest item in our budget. It’s of great concern to the government that health care continues to consume so much of our province’s budget. The government has been successful in restraining health expenditures to less than 3 percent while still offering a great health care system.

This year the budget of health care will consume 37.8 percent of the total provincial budget. In three years it’s going to be 1 percent more, 38.6 percent of the total budget in three years. So Health is still growing in proportion to the total budget, but that growth has been slowed considerably. It’s quite an achievement, I think, in the face of a rapidly aging population.

Meanwhile, over the next three years we will add a total of nearly $3 billion to health care spending, which is a measure of our commitment to care for those who need it most, those who are ill in our province.

Nor have we forgotten about education. We will increase K-to-12 education spending by a total of $564 million over the next three years. It’s true that we’ve asked school districts to find savings of $29 million in administration next year. We don’t apologize for that. There are things districts can do together to make educational administration more efficient, and I support that. But in the overall scheme of things, we are increasing funding for K-to-12 education by a half-billion dollars.

Now, last year we had a serious labour disruption in our education system. This was difficult for students and for parents and teachers, as well as MLAs. I’ve spoken to some very angry constituents over the last six months. But this budget is proof positive that the government is
[ Page 6004 ]
committed to our K-to-12 education system. We’ve never spent more on educating fewer children than we are today. Our commitment to education is rock solid.

Now I want to move on to economics and the budget itself. I want to bring up a notable feature of our budget, and that is our fiscal prudence, which is a very important feature. There are several levels of prudence built into the budget to make sure we don’t overestimate our revenue and underestimate our expenses. Our projections for economic growth are therefore more conservative than private sector projections. So are our natural gas forecasts.

We’re also determined to hold the line on expenses. We’re limiting spending growth to just 2.5 percent. And just in case something bad happens, we’ve built contingencies — a $350 million contingency fund that will grow every year — into the budget as well as a forecast allowance of $250 million that will also grow. When you add these up over the three-year budget plan, our contingencies add up to $2.1 billion. That’s a lot of insurance against downturns in the economy, and it increases public confidence in our budget.

[1600]

Even with these amounts built in, even with a difficult forest fire season last summer, we have managed to balance our budget for three years in a row, and we’re forecasting three more years of balanced budgets totalling over $1 billion in surplus funds. I’m pretty proud of that. I would point out that in the last election the NDP predicted and promised in their election platform three years of budget deficits. I have no doubt that they would have delivered handsomely on that promise.

I think it’s a bit ironic and rich that the NDP now rail against government debt that we incur for things like schools and bridges and dams. Two years ago they publicly promised to mire government not in what some would call “good debt” that delivers an economic benefit, like schools and bridges and dams, but in operating debt — just giving away the store in program spending, as they are doing hand over fist in Ontario right now.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

So far this year B.C. is the only province to balance its budget. Alberta is in difficulty. Saskatchewan is on the brink of a deficit. Quebec is solidly in deficit territory. Ontario, Canada’s largest provincial economy, is in a positively frightening state with a deficit of $12.5 billion.

America, in particular, continues to worry me. I’ve been speaking about this for the last two years. Last year its deficit alone was $485 billion. Looking ahead, the White House proposes a budget through to 2025, and it forecasts in that year $687 billion in deficit — the deficit growing right through to 2025. The debt will amount to a staggering sum of $20 trillion in 2025.

If the American economy ever runs into a bump in the road, if ever there is public confidence flagging in the American dollar in the face of these gigantic numbers, we will need to be prepared for a big economic shock. That’s why I especially appreciate the prudence of our B.C. government in our careful budgeting.

Now I want to go on to talk about LNG for a moment. We’ve been criticized for putting all our eggs in the LNG basket and, at the same time, of de-emphasizing LNG, which I would note are contradictory accusations. But we’ve not backed away from LNG at all. We’ve been very frank and open and honest with the public. We hoped something would happen sooner. No one could have projected the drop in oil that the world has experienced.

Even so, we have 18 consortiums now that are still interested in developing LNG in this province. None of them have left. None have walked away from the table. In fact, we continue to hear good things — most noticeably a few days ago when the Prime Minister announced a welcome new federal tax break for the industry to bring some of these companies to the table for a final investment decision.

We have not put all our eggs in the LNG basket. In fact, we have put no eggs in our LNG basket. It is private enterprise that has done the spending. Industry has taken the risk and spent a total of $8 billion so far in preparing their proposals. The taxpayers have been exposed to no risk at all.

We’ve not counted any chickens before they’re hatched. We’ve not assumed one penny of revenue from LNG in our budgets over the next three years. Any more revenue we get from companies — building plants or preparing sites or doing other work — will be gravy for the provincial budget. I do believe it’s going to happen because the longer companies hang on, the longer they keep spending on their proposals, the more likely it is that they will commit for the longer term.

It’s a matter of time. We need to be patient. Surely, the critics of LNG should get this. There’s no risk in developing this industry. There’s no downside. There’s only an upside, and that’s why we’re going to continue to chase this industry and bring LNG to B.C.

I want to turn to a few other issues that I’ve been involved with. It was in my riding last summer that a case became public where animals were abused on a local farm. This was a hugely unfortunate circumstance, and it deserved a strong government response. Of course there’s no room for cruelty to animals in B.C. The $5 million given in the budget to the SPCA will help with their ongoing campaign to improve their facilities and will defray operating expenses for them in other areas so that they can concentrate on fulfilling their mandate to combat cruelty to animals.

I recently toured the very cramped quarters of the SPCA in Chilliwack and was impressed with their concern for animals in their care. I certainly hope that some of that $5 million is going to make it out Chilliwack’s way, to improve the SPCA’s building there.
[ Page 6005 ]

Before I sit down I want to talk for a moment about my corrections portfolio. It was a huge privilege to be named Parliamentary Secretary for Corrections to the Minister of Justice just after the election in 2013.

[1605]

I was mandated to provide a report on how to increase safety in our custodial institutions — and by that, I mean prisons — to the minister. My report was made public before Christmas.

The public may not know that there are only 2,500 inmates in our provincial jails. Half are waiting for trial on remand and about 1,250 are serving sentences there. But there are about 15,000 people under sentence being supervised in community. Most of those who do go to prison — in fact, 89 percent of those in prison — stay there for less than 60 days. In other words, our society hardly uses prison anymore at all as a sanction. Really, it’s reserved for the most serious cases.

Now, in terms of safety, I found that our prisons are very safe for B.C. government employees like guards in prisons and for volunteers and other private stakeholders who work with our inmates as well. But prison is really quite an unsafe place for inmates themselves, because they have disputes with each other. The group of those who follow a criminal lifestyle in B.C. is a fairly small group — the criminal nation, if you want to call it that. They know each other from the street, and they bring their quarrels into the institutions from the street.

Given that many have anger management problems and some have mental disabilities, it all results in over 1,000 injuries every year between inmates. When you bear in mind that there are 2,500 people at any one time in jail, it makes our prisons quite violent places — particularly so when you consider that two of our nine institutions in the province are hardly violent at all, namely Nanaimo and, in my own riding, Ford Mountain institution. This makes the seven remaining all the more focused in that difficulty, and I make recommendations to reduce that.

One of the main points of my study was effectively illustrated by some justice statistics I saw a few days ago, which I want to share with you. They were statistics from the police in Vancouver. They showed that while violent crime was down in Vancouver in 2014 — and of course, that’s great; we’re all happy about that — property crime is up. It’s way up: a 10 percent overall increase in one year. Break-ins to businesses rose 27 percent. Theft from vehicles rose 21 percent in just a year.

Multiple property crimes like this are characteristic of someone who is addicted and out of control, just doing anything to find money or something to sell to buy drugs or alcohol. This reflects accurately what I found in prisons. Literally everyone I talk to in prisons said the same thing: crime in B.C. is driven by addictions to drugs and alcohol. I say in my report that our justice system is not serving these people well, because about 90 percent of those in jail have some kind of addiction. In one particular prison in B.C. officials told me that every inmate there had an addiction problem.

I found that many inmates are put in jail by the courts for a short period of time, but they do so 50 times in a row over a long period of time. I’m not exaggerating when I say that. I talked to one inmate who told me that he had been in and out of prison 50 times in his career.

I received lots of statistics from the ministry. I want here to thank employees of the ministry who were very accommodating in dealing with my many complicated requests for information. No doubt, they grew very tired of me, but they gave me detailed statistics that were very helpful and revealing. I found that the worst offender in B.C. right now in prison has accumulated 67 sentences in the past ten years — not over a lifetime, just in the last decade. That’s 67 crimes committed, arrests made, charges laid, trials held, convictions given and sentences served — probably mostly in community where the offender had opportunity to do other crimes while he was serving his previous sentences.

It doesn’t make sense — what we’re doing. These people are doing life on the instalment plan. They’re spending their lives in prison by degrees, bit by bit. It’s because we’ve become so tolerant of drug-induced behaviour in our society. We don’t see it as a big deal. We give people a slap on the wrist, but in doing so, we don’t help them to break free from their addiction. The result is that they leave a trail of crime and victims of crime and risks to safety and health costs and policing costs and insurance costs and broken lives and beaten wives and ruined families and untold miseries behind them for an entire generation until they get too old to do it anymore or they die of an overdose or something else brought on by their lifestyle.

In this way, our system is falling short of these people, even though it’s run by courageous and caring people who are all doing the best they can with what they’ve been given.

[1610]

I’m not casting aspersions on anyone in the system, but I call, in my report, for more long-term treatment that leads to freedom from addiction, that fights addiction rather than accepting it — treatment that removes people from the drug scene to sit down, to get clean and sober, to attend school, to learn a trade, to give them time to break the hold of drugs and alcohol in their lives. It doesn’t have to be in a prison setting, where they’re confined against their will.

Every addict wants this. They all, at some point in their journey, want to break free from their addiction. It’s a miserable life. They all know this. Like the inmate who told me that he was 46 years old, and he has nothing — no job, no education, no family, no friends, no skills, no money, no possessions, no future. He has nothing. That’s what drugs did for him. Now, I understand that there
[ Page 6006 ]
may be a small subset of hard-core addicts that will never break free from addiction.

Helping most people escape from drugs and alcohol with a little tough love over a longer period of time would make our society safer, happier, more prosperous. It would help those people and their families have better lives and would make them free to fulfil their potential as human beings. For many years we have fought the supply side of drugs through police actions. Now we need to add to that, a struggle against the scourge of addiction, by attacking the demand side of the equation, through treatment. In my report I argue for treatment that brings people to a place of freedom from addiction.

This is the plea from my report, and I hope that the government will listen. To change a societal direction, I understand, is very difficult. I don’t underestimate the difficulty of this. The ship of state is huge. It’s ponderous. It’s slow. But I have been encouraged and energized by the inspiring people who work for Corrections B.C. I do believe that things can change for the better.

In that regard, I want to end with a tribute. After touring all of our institutions and talking to inmates and front-line staff, talking to probation officers around the province as well as stakeholders around B.C., I’ve found that there are thousands of people in B.C. who care deeply about offenders and about their victims.

These are some of the most difficult people, who live on the margins of our society and that no one else wants to deal with. Yet people really care about these difficult offenders — from front-line officers in prisons who deal with them every day to probation officers who supervise them in community; volunteers who conduct religious services; chaplains, as well; and teachers who teach people to read — people who work with them in 100 different ways. They’re passionate. They’re eager to do their job. They’re working to change lives and hearts.

I want to end with a story. In my travels I visited VISU, the Vancouver intensive supervision unit in the Downtown Eastside, and I heard from the young workers there how they shepherd and befriend a small group of people on probation who have serious mental disorders. They seek them out in the back alleys of the Downtown Eastside. As they sit down with these folks, they have coffee or a meal with them. They become their friends and helpers. They negotiate with landlords to help them find housing. They help them with their meds so they will keep out of jail. They love what they do. I was so impressed with their commitment and their compassion and their courage.

When I left the office of VISU that day after visiting for a while, I saw a container by the door with a wand attached to it. I asked what that was for. They told me it was to disinfect the chairs after their clients come in to visit.

These people are public servants. They don’t get paid a whole lot. They do this kind of thing more as a labour of love. They could get better jobs elsewhere. But they don’t do it for the money. They do it because they love to do it. I was so impressed and grateful that we have public servants like that in our province. So I want to salute them and thank them. I want to encourage them in their work.

One of the great pleasures of my job is to meet all kinds of fantastic people from all over the province who are doing amazing things. Many of them are from my riding of Chilliwack-Hope. It’s a pleasure and a privilege for me to serve them every day in this Legislature.

I’ll be standing in my place to vote for a responsible budget, a practical and a compassionate budget, an extraordinary budget, a budget that every British Columbian can take pride in.

G. Heyman: Let me begin my remarks on the budget — a budget which I’m sorry I have to tell the member for Chilliwack-Hope I will not be taking great pride in. Nor am I likely to vote for it. But I will outline my reasons for that in as much detail as a 30-minute speech allows me.

[1615]

Let me, first, start by offering some thanks to some people without whom I’d be unable to do my job and the constituents of Vancouver-Fairview would be far less well represented than they are.

My constituency assistants Jarrett Hagglund, Ashley Fehr and Reamick Lo work together as a great team. They ensure that the issues that come into the office — particularly at times like legislative sessions, when I’m not in the constituency very often — are regularly brought to my attention. They’re particularly good at ensuring that there are linkages between issues that residents identify as important and issues that we are discussing and debating here in the Legislature.

I also want to thank my legislative assistant here in this precinct, Elena Banfield, who has been working for us for a few months now and who does a particularly tremendous job of sorting through the issues that come toward me in my spokesperson role, helping me arrange the kind of outreach that I hope will allow me to speak knowledgably about the issues that people in the technology sector or the economic sectors or film and television or people who rely on transit wish me to know about.

Finally — while I won’t name them all, because I regularly phone or e-mail almost every single one of them — I want to thank the tremendous staff that we have in our caucus services. Whether they specialize in communications or research or work together to put together the information that is needed for analyzing legislation, speaking to bills, speaking to budgets and throne speeches and preparing for the questions of the day, they do a tremendous job, and they are very dedicated to their work.

Frankly, they enable us on this side of the House — as do, I’m sure, the staff for the people on the opposite side of the House — to be as knowledgable and prepared as we are capable of being ourselves.
[ Page 6007 ]

Let me move on from the people I work with to the people I represent. I want to thank the constituents and the residents in Vancouver-Fairview for a few things. Let me start by thanking them for giving me the honour to represent them here in this Legislature. It is an honour that I had dreamed about but that I am very proud to be entrusted with, and I take it seriously.

I’ve learned, and I continue to learn on a daily basis, about the issues that are of importance to them, the issues that affect them on a day-to-day basis, the issues that roil around in their brain as they go to sleep at night trying to figure out how they’re going to deal with the problems that face them in the coming days and weeks.

I will say that one of the things I learned very early in this job — in fact, I learned it during the election campaign — is that I can go to the door of a constituent in Vancouver-Fairview — as, I’m sure, is true, or I hope is true, of every MLA in this House…. I may go with my preconceived ideas of what is important and what the best policies and answers for their daily lives are, but they have often very different ideas that are rooted and grounded in their day-to-day experience and to which they wish me to give my full attention.

I will thank the constituents again for sharing their hopes with me, for raising issues with me. Let me start my response to the budget by talking about some of the issues they have raised with me. They are issues that, unfortunately, we don’t see much, if any, action or response to in this budget.

One of the foremost issues that has come up very often…. Vancouver-Fairview is in the heart of Vancouver. We all know Vancouver is an expensive place in which to live. The issue of social housing — the availability of social housing and the failure of this government and other governments to do more and devote more resources to affordable social housing. Whether it’s in the form of subsidized housing or support for cooperatives or more support for non-profit housing, we simply don’t see enough of it.

It’s an issue that comes up regularly. People worry about whether, if their income has an interruption, they’ll be able to have a roof over their head, let alone stay in the community to which they’ve grown accustomed. They worry about their children. They worry about whether their children will be separated from the neighbourhoods in which they grew up and the friends to whom they’ve grown attached. This is an issue about which we can do more and about which we should do much more. I hope we will.

[1620]

Another issue that comes up frequently is the issue of transit and transportation. Much of the Broadway corridor — in fact, some of the most congested parts of the Broadway corridor — run right through the heart of Vancouver-Fairview. Some of the north-south arteries as well are congested. People do not get home as quickly as they would like. They waste time and productivity getting from point A to point B. This is an issue for many of the small businesses along the Broadway corridor, along the Main Street community, along the Cambie village and along South Granville.

Merchants and businesses and tradespeople need to be able to move quickly. One of the things that prohibits them from moving quickly is the lack of availability of enough transit to get people who do not need to drive vehicles off the road. People are always making choices about how they will move, and in the absence of affordable, frequent and accessible public transportation options, people default to the car. That is what in fact congests our roads.

While there’s not much mention of it in the budget, sadly, the insistence of this government on rolling the dice of our public transit future with a referendum and then a subsequent failure to stand up clearly and do more than simply say they support a yes vote — to be forthcoming with the kind of information and facts and options and choices that people will be faced with if the referendum fails, all of which will cost far more money than the increase of half a percent in the sales tax — is alarming.

I don’t know why the government chose this one area of capital spending to submit to a referendum. I’ve heard the Premier and the Transportation Minister talk about how proud they are of giving residents of Metro Vancouver a choice, a say, in how they will be taxed for the transit future, but they haven’t done that on other issues.

They haven’t even done that on other transportation issues. They haven’t done it on the proposed Massey bridge. They didn’t do it on Port Mann. They didn’t do it on the South Fraser Perimeter Road. They aren’t proposing to do it on Site C, and I’ll have more to say on Site C later. They haven’t done it on any of the allowances and subsidies and reduced royalties that are being offered to the natural gas industry.

I’m not suggesting they should do it. I’m suggesting quite the opposite. I’m suggesting that governments are elected to make decisions about priorities for the province and to make them in the best interests of the most people, and that includes the interests of the economy and the things that will support a healthy and growing economy.

There is a reason why recently Port Metro Vancouver announced that they will be joining the coalition of forces and community groups and people supporting a yes vote. The people who are responsible for managing Port Metro Vancouver know that one of the worst impacts of congestion, not just for people in the Lower Mainland but for people all around the province, is anything that slows down the movement of commodities and goods from all regions of the province to get to our ports.

I think the Premier understands this. I’m sure the
[ Page 6008 ]
cabinet understands this. I’m sure the Transportation Minister understands this. And I hope it worries them, because it will not be helpful to the economy of British Columbia to have a failed referendum on reducing congestion in Metro Vancouver and to have to live with the economic consequences of that. It’s a bad gamble. It’s a gamble that should not have been taken, and it’s a gamble for which I hope all of British Columbia, particularly residents — drivers and transit users both — and small businesses in Metro Vancouver, will not have to pay a steep, steep price.

It will be completely at the feet of this government if there isn’t a positive outcome, and I hope the government has a plan B. They say they’re not thinking in terms of a plan B. They say that they’re putting all of their attention and focus on having the referendum succeed.

[1625]

The minister likes to say that I said a year ago that the referendum didn’t have a hope of succeeding, but I want to be absolutely clear: I support a yes. I support a yes not because I think we should have a referendum or because I think there aren’t other funding options that might have been possible to be discussed between government and the mayors of the region and the citizens of the region. I support a yes because I know how critical it is to the future livability of Metro Vancouver, to the future economy of Metro Vancouver and to the future economy of British Columbia as a whole.

Let me move on to another issue that comes up frequently from my constituents in Vancouver-Fairview. They talk regularly about the pressures they feel helping to care for aging parents and their desire for their parents to be able to age in place. Their desire is for their parents, as they are in the last stages of their lives — I don’t mean the final last stages; I mean the final phase, the phase of being seniors and, hopefully, healthy and engaged in the community — to have the supports they need that would allow them to remain in place, to remain among the people they know, to remain among familiar surroundings.

Unfortunately, there simply isn’t enough in this budget for health care generally or for seniors specifically. In fact, there is less service for seniors. There is less for needed home support. It doesn’t make sense to me. While I recognize that that expenditure would affect the bottom line of the annual budget, I also recognize that it’s a proven, safe investment in lower health care costs long-term. Providing home care for people who need it, seniors or others, relieves the strain on the acute care system and the residential care system — a residential care system which continues to not be funded to the level it should.

Finally, a year ago many constituents came to my office to talk to me at length about their concerns about programs that were being proposed to be cut, scaled back or eliminated by the Vancouver school board of trustees, not because the board of trustees didn’t support the programs, not because the board of trustees didn’t think these programs were critically important, not because they didn’t want to offer them, but because there simply wasn’t enough money in the budget to offer them. The school board managed to find some money to continue some of them for another year.

I know that parents will be coming to my office to talk to me — they’ve already begun — to urge me to help them speak out for funding for the critically important programs that help.

The other day I spoke in this Legislature about someone of whom we’re all proud in British Columbia, on both sides of this House — Mark Reid, a teacher who gives so much, not just to the students who take music in Van Tech but to underprivileged youth in Vancouver and Canada’s lowest-income neighbourhood, by offering free classes in classical music.

Music isn’t a frill or a luxury. It’s been shown that music education increases young people’s intellectual capacity. It increases their ability to learn. It stresses and reinforces the important ability to engage in productive team work, something that everyone will use at a later point in their life. It’s something that helps the economy, something that helps our communities, and yet it is music programs that are under threat in Vancouver.

Many parents in Vancouver-Fairview are deeply concerned about this, just as they’re concerned about some of the loss of specialized counselling with respect to drug use and with specialized schooling for kids who have a problem fitting into the normal structures of most schools. I went to a public hearing at the Vancouver school board and heard some of those graduates, who are now very successful in their careers, talk about how if they’d remained in the school in which they were originally enrolled in the classes and the structure that existed, they wouldn’t have succeeded.

[1630]

They needed some of the specialized attention that they got at City School that helped them realize their own creativity, their own abilities, their own knowledge. Many of them have gone on to be highly, highly productive members of the community in Vancouver and major contributors to the economy.

When members opposite talk about how there’s nothing wrong with encouraging school boards to find a combined $29 million in administrative savings, my response is: “You’ve been asking boards of education to do that year after year after year after year. You may be funding the negotiated wage increases, but are you funding the increases in Medical Services Plan premiums, for which they’re also responsible? Are you funding the increases in B.C. Hydro rates, which they will have to pay?”

On top of that, they’re being asked to find $29 million in administrative savings. If there was money left to be found, they would have found most of it by now, because they’d have to. They’ve been forced to. They’ve been forced to by an underfunded education system.
[ Page 6009 ]

I say to members opposite that it’s not a reasonable request. It’s not a simple request. If there is that kind of money available in the system, there is, in fact, a crying need for it in other areas, in programs that have been scaled back or cut completely or in the ability to meet the increased fees that members opposite simply have not been talking about.

There’s a common theme for the Liberal government in the budget. They claim credit for and say they and they alone are responsible for a balanced budget, and that’s why we have and continue to enjoy such a good credit rating, and that’s what is fundamentally underpinning the economy that British Columbians want and enjoy.

Let me say to members opposite that you will hear from me a different theme, a different common theme. On paper, when you look at numbers, the budget is balanced, but the Liberals shouldn’t claim responsibility for that. Maybe for the numbers on the page.

What the Liberal government should claim responsibility for is for finding a way to balance the budget on the backs of working families by changing from a progressive taxation system to tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of British Columbians and increased flat fees for everyone else, flat fees that are taking dollars out of the pockets of working families, that are making their lives much, much more difficult and that are fundamentally shifting the responsibility of supporting the activities of government for British Columbians.

Why do we see tax cuts for people who simply don’t need them, people who make over $150,000 a year? It’s simply not necessary. It’s not necessary. Those savings will hardly be noticed by the people who benefit from them. But who’s paying for them? Who’s paying for them with increased fees, whether it’s B.C. Hydro or ICBC or ferry fares or any number of other things? It will be working families.

B.C. Hydro rates are going up by 6 percent in 2015. That’s about $70. It may not seem like a lot of money to the people who are enjoying the tax cut, who make over $150,000 a year. But I assure you that for a family, whether it’s one income or two incomes, who are making slightly above the minimum wage, who are wondering how they’re going to get equipment for their kids or give them music lessons or put healthy food on the table, it is a significant amount of money.

Over a five-year period we will see a 28 percent increase in B.C. Hydro rates or about $300 a year. Since 2001, when this government took office, we have seen or will have seen a 74 percent increase in B.C. Hydro rates. Medical Services Plan premiums — the only province to have Medical Services Plan premiums.

[1635]

It’s not because we on this side of the House don’t think health care needs to be paid for, but because we recognize Medical Services Plan premiums as being a regressive form of taxation as opposed to supporting it through a progressive income tax system that does demand a bit more from those who have the ability and capability of paying for them. MSP premiums will go up 4 percent, $33 more per person or $68 more per family. ICBC rates are up 5.2 percent, $37 more for basic coverage. Between Hydro, MSP and ICBC, we’re seeing an average increase of $175 this year.

So I say to people on the other side of the House — and any commentator who says that it’s just great we have a balanced budget: I’m not opposed to a balanced budget. I just don’t think it should be balanced on the backs of working people when the only great beneficiaries of this budget are the richest 2 percent of British Columbians who are receiving over $230 million in tax breaks.

What could we do with that $230 million? We could do a lot. One of the first things we should do is provide relief and support to working families who are struggling to make ends meet, who are struggling under wage stagnation in this province since the B.C. Liberals took power. Job growth is seventh in Canada — not first but seventh. There are things we could do. There are things we should do.

There are things that we won’t be doing, because this Liberal government rewarded the people, their friends, who needed help the least, and turned their backs on people who aren’t even asking for significant help. They’re just asking for a fair shake, a decent break, fair treatment and a progressive income tax system.

Let me also say that when members opposite say this budget is balanced, I would say to them: when the Auditor General has pointed out that B.C. Hydro in fact is not making money but is racking up debt and burying it in deferral accounts, why is this government taking a dividend in 2015-16 that’s equal to $555 million and in 2016-17 of $589 million? That’s over $1.1 billion in two years, $1.1 billion that is going to be paid for in a flat tax in the form of hydro rates by everyday working families in British Columbia, by small businesses in British Columbia and by others, so that this government can claim, disingenuously, that they’ve balanced a budget that also rewards the richest 2 percent.

ICBC will pay this government a dividend of $160 million a year. That dividend, as well, will be paid for by working families who see their basic insurance rates go up. All of these increases add up to well over $1,000 in hidden fee and rate hikes since 2001.

B.C. has the highest level of inequality we’ve ever seen. We have the highest level of inequality in Canada. It’s growing greater, and it’s growing greater because of the kinds of policies of this government — the policies that take money from Crown corporations and soak working families through increasing flat fees that have to go back to make up the difference. When you add that together with the cut to tax for the richest 2 percent, you see the real shape of this budget. That’s why nearly one in five children are growing up in poverty. As of 2012, 16 per-
[ Page 6010 ]
cent of British Columbians live in poverty; 50 percent of lone-parent families live in poverty.

[1640]

Let me close my remarks by talking about some of the recommendations that I heard and that members on both sides of the House heard requests for as we toured the province with the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. Let’s see just what kind of response this government gave those recommendations.

In communities around British Columbia it’s important that households and small businesses have access to investment. One of the recommendations was to continue to maintain the current provincial income tax rates for B.C. credit unions and not to match the phasing out of that particular tax treatment by the federal government.

There is no mention in this budget of that, so when the phase-out starts and gives credit unions in B.C. the same tax treatment as banks, we will see that it actually isn’t the same tax treatment. When the full phase-out is in effect, the effective tax for credit unions will be over 3 percent higher than it will be for banks. The effect of that will be a $395 million cut in available funds to invest in B.C. households and small businesses, because that is what credit unions do. They don’t take their profits and take them somewhere else.

There was a recommendation to develop strategies to sustain the B.C. forest industry through the mid-term and provide adequate funding to update inventories for forestry and other land-based users and industries. We see nothing in this budget that will expand the ability of our government and our Forest Service to actually know the extent of the resource that is available to us for future development in British Columbia.

There was a recommendation to introduce a comprehensive poverty reduction plan and to review income assistance rates, the minimum wage and the clawback of child support payments. I will commend this government for finally, belatedly, ending the clawback of child support payments. That is important, and it is good that they have heeded the calls of so many families who were suffering under that clawback.

But what do we see for a poverty reduction plan in response to a recommendation not just this year but last year? We see $5 million for a tax reduction credit and an additional $20 million for income assistance. That’s not a plan. That’s a drop in the bucket.

For child care, there was a recommendation to provide funding and support for the development and implementation of a child care plan. This government in this budget says it will provide $660 a year — $660 a year — to families to assist in defraying the costs of child care. Child care has been shown to be absolutely crucial to families to support working parents to contribute to the economy. When we invest in child care, the economy pays that back in relatively short order by increased productivity and taxes. So $660 a year, when many families are paying $1,000 to $2,000 a month for child care, is another drop in the bucket.

Finally, because I am running out of time, what do we see to build the green economy, the diversified economy that this government talks about so much? We see a grand total of $5 million in new money in this budget, $2 million to extend the digital animation or visual effects tax credit to post-production and $3 million for the small business venture capital fund when the technology industry indicated that a significant uptick in venture capital accessibility from both levels of government, but particularly this one, would in fact help spur those new start-ups in the pipeline to create jobs for British Columbians.

We could do better. We should do better. But we’re not doing better, and that’s why I will not be supporting this budget.

[1645]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member opposite just spoke about the credit union system in British Columbia. I’m a huge supporter of the credit union system. In fact, I was the chair of North Shore Credit Union, now known as BlueShore credit union.

The member opposite criticizes our support for the credit union system. The NDP — that’s the party, that’s the side that actually supports the corporate capital tax. Talk about losing jobs, talk about penalizing investments in our communities. The member opposite can’t have it both ways.

It is an honour to rise to speak in support of Budget 2015. It’s not easy to balance the budget in these turbulent times. As our Minister of Finance mentioned in the budget speech, for a quarter century, from 1980 to 2005, there were good years, there were lean years, and three different governments. The budget was only balanced four times. Despite a fragile global economy, I am proud of our third consecutive balanced budget.

Markets are still volatile, and economic growth in many jurisdictions is inconsistent. Governments around the world have many spending pressures. It is a tough task to make sure that we live within our means, but we’ve done just that in British Columbia, and we’ve done it for three years running. We have accomplished this by sticking to our plan.

Our plan is simple: keep B.C. diverse, strong and growing. It guides everything that we do, and that includes how we manage our finances through the budget.

Nowhere is the balancing act of managing your finances more critical than in a small business. I am a former small business owner, and I know what it’s like when you win a large contract and you’re so happy — it’s a great feeling — and then the dreaded wait, sometimes for months, before you get paid. I know what it’s like to put your own paycheque in your pocket for perhaps weeks or months to make sure that your own employees
[ Page 6011 ]
cash their paycheques before you do.

I understand what it’s like to have to put a “Back in five minutes” sign on my door when I was the only person working for my business — and that was when you needed to use the washroom. But I also appreciate and understand the joys and the sense of accomplishment and the independence of running a small business.

I owned and operated my own small business, Tora Design Group, for over 20 years, and prior to that I worked for my family’s Japan Camera 1 Hour Photo operations. I don’t know if you remember Japan Camera 1 Hour Photos, but my parents owned three of these franchises. I can tell you how times change. Kids these days wouldn’t know what to do with a roll of film if they found one.

Several of my family members are small business owners, as well, and I come from a large family of several aunts and uncles and a lot of cousins. My sister and my cousin — they owned health food stores. I have cousins who are graphic designers and own their own business. I have a cousin who owns an automotive parts distributing company. I’ve got cousins who are in the construction business. I have a cousin who owns a fish-packing boat. I have a cousin who is a restaurant consultant. I have a cousin who’s a doctor, and yes, most doctors are small business owners.

We are an exclusive club in British Columbia. In Canada B.C. may be the only province to boast a balanced budget. Why is that important? Well, small business owners know that spending less than you earn is the key to a successful small business. Our family had it drummed into us at an early age: don’t spend frivolously, don’t borrow unnecessarily, don’t pay for your groceries on your credit card, and pay your bills on time. My 87-year-old dad continues to bang that drum to this day, and his granddaughters, my nieces, will benefit from his wisdom.

Small businesses don’t have the same capacity as governments to borrow. The triple-A credit rating is the highest possible rating that can be given to a company, a country or a province. Credit-rating agencies only award triple-A when there’s an extremely strong capacity to meet financial commitments.

This gold standard means a triple-A-rated borrower can secure a loan at a lower interest rate, as there is much less risk that the money will not be repaid. This leaves more money in the province to pay for our core services that British Columbians expect. That means that businesses have to live within their means, and that means that we have to live within our means.

[1650]

There are approximately 380,000 small businesses in our province. That’s 98 percent of all businesses in British Columbia. If a business has 50 or fewer employees, we consider that a small business. What surprises most people is that the majority of that 98 percent of businesses that are small businesses have actually five or fewer employees.

Businesses are the economic engine of British Columbia and the backbone of our province, but it’s the small businesses that are the hearts and souls of our communities. As the Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business, I talk with small business owners all the time. There are, obviously, many small businesses in my North Vancouver–Lonsdale riding, and I regularly hear from them that they support our government living within our means.

In fact, chambers all across this province have supported this budget. The Abbotsford chamber president had this to say on our balanced budget. “The chamber has consistently called on government to balance its books, and we are pleased to see this ongoing commitment to fiscal discipline.”

Budget 2015 does that by continuing to control spending while making modest investments into measures to help grow the economy. British Columbians can take pride that we are the only jurisdiction in Canada to balance our budget and are seeing the benefit, as our government puts part of the projected surpluses towards paying off our debt.

John Winter, the president and CEO of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, said: “While not a flashy budget, government’s strong fiscal management is providing additional fiscal flexibility for future years. This flexibility is needed to help to address top-tier challenges facing business, notably further skills development, tax competitiveness and other productivity issues.”

David Hull, the CEO of the Cranbrook chamber, said: “I will take rather boring, dry and fiscally responsible over the converse any day.”

This is what Michael Hind, the executive director of the Tri-Cities chamber, said. “We told the province that the values of balance and moderation are of the utmost importance to our members. Our delegation asked for a balanced budget and a focus on other major industries aside from LNG, and we saw both of those as a focus in this year’s budget.”

I’m a big fan of the chamber network, and last week our government recognized the important contributions that chambers of commerce make in B.C. by proclaiming February 16-20 Chamber of Commerce Week.

There are some in this House that have a different attitude for chambers, so let me debunk some myths. The chamber of commerce is not a bank. They are a broadly based business organization working to support businesses small to large. The chambers of commerce are not a private club. They are an open, accessible and modern organization supporting local businesses and contributing to the growth and health of their communities. And chambers of commerce are not part of government. They engage with all levels of government and are effective as a voice of business.
[ Page 6012 ]

I’m not alone in my support for the chamber network. Many of my colleagues have served on their local chamber of commerce boards, and some of us went on to volunteer at the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. Our Minister of Energy and Mines, our Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, our Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and I all proudly served on the B.C. Chamber of Commerce board.

Chambers vary across the province. As I have mentioned, our Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources was a part of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce — the chair of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. He was also the chair of the Kelowna chamber. Some chambers, like the Kelowna chamber, have over 1,200 member businesses. They have several paid staff and host events, workshops, luncheons, dinners and annual galas celebrating business excellence.

The Cranbrook chamber, which is the Minister of Energy and Mines’ local chamber, has over 500 members, and David Hull is the new CEO. David replaced Karin Penner, the queen of Cranbrook and the queen of chamberland, who retired just last year after 30 or so years as the Cranbrook chamber executive director and CEO.

Some chambers are smaller, like the Quesnel Chamber of Commerce with over 250 members. Amber Gregg is the CEO. That’s a position that our Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development once held. Some are entirely operated by volunteers, like the Likely chamber. It’s been a tough few months for this chamber. After the terrible dam breach last year businesses struggled, and the chamber reached out to their MLA for Cariboo North for assistance.

We were able to provide the Likely chamber with funds to help with the economic development. What the tourism operators wanted us to do was to send a message to the world that they’re open for business, and that’s exactly what we’ve done.

[1655]

Now, my chamber, which is the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, hosts an annual Governors’ Gala. This wonderful event raised funds for the North Shore Neighbourhood House and the Presentation House Theatre. With the support and generosity of the business community, the event raised $160,000, with $110,000 being directed to the rebuilding of a North Shore Neighbourhood House daycare facility that burned down last December.

There are hundreds of chambers in B.C., and what they all share is a passion for their community. What they all do really well is to represent the voice of business in their communities and provide opportunities for networking and learning. A strong chamber is the foundation for a strong community, and that’s why I’m such a strong supporter of the chambers of commerce in B.C. One of the best investments I tell businesses that they can make is an investment in their local chamber of commerce.

We recognize how important small business is to our economy, and we’re investing in programs that help small businesses. Whether you’re starting out or looking for growth or planning on retirement and exiting your business, Small Business B.C. is the province’s premier resource for small businesses.

Let me give you a sense of some of the things that they do. They host workshops and seminars and webinars. A few of them that are available in the next couple of months are “Tax Tips from an Accountant,” “Workplace Wellness,” “Starting a Consulting Business,” “How to Do Business with the B.C. Government,” “Young Entrepreneurs: Business Planning and Financing,” “Are You Thinking of Exporting?” “Are You Thinking of Importing?” “Succession Planning for Businesses” and “Understanding Financial Statements.”

Our government, along with the federal government and the private sector, supports Small Business B.C. with annual funding. This Thursday the Small Business B.C. Awards ceremony is recognizing the best in small business. Congratulations to those finalists for these awards, and congratulations to the two small businesses in North Vancouver who are finalists.

One of them is Sole Girls. They’re a finalist in the category of best community impact. This is a business that is all about empowering young girls through running. Sole Girls addresses issues in youth mental health, girls that drop out of physical activities and body image issues. The girls who complete the program are mentally and physically prepared to run a five-kilometre fun run, and they’re found to be less likely to bully or show anger negatively and more likely to try new sports. Sole Girls employs two people in North Vancouver.

Cycle Component Network, CCN, specializes in on-line registration and fundraising solutions for cycle events, clubs and licensing bodies. CCN employs nine people, and they are a finalist in the best workplace category.

My favourite category, however, is the Premier’s People’s Choice Award. This award is presented to a B.C. business that can demonstrate that they have the unwavering and loyal support of their community. The award goes to a small business that can show that their community thinks that they go above and beyond. This year’s finalists are Firehall Brewery from Oliver; Game Quest, Prince George; Julie’s Edible Bouquets from Quesnel; Nonna Pia’s Gourmet Sauces from Whistler; and SO Country Radio from Penticton. Congratulations to all of them.

Budget 2015 also provides an additional $3 million for direct investments in eligible new corporations by allowing for up to $10 million in additional equity financing for qualifying new corporations in 2015. What does that mean? This program encourages individuals known as angel investors to invest their own capital directly into an eligible small business or venture capital corporation.
[ Page 6013 ]

Eligible investors may receive a 30 percent tax credit for investing in eligible small businesses under the small business venture capital tax credit program. The program supports up to $100 million annually in total investments. These are investments that move us towards our goal of making B.C. the most small business–friendly jurisdiction in Canada.

We’re also approaching the second anniversary of the signing of the small business accord. The accord is an important document because it ensures that the government puts a small business lens on all the work that we do. It’s a living document, and it’s evolving and changing to meet the needs and interests of the B.C. small business community.

We’re also recognized as leaders in Canada for cutting red tape. For the fourth consecutive year the Canadian Federation of Independent Business gave British Columbia an A grade in its annual report card on red-tape reduction.

[1700]

We are the only jurisdiction in Canada to receive this grade. We know that unnecessary red tape costs time and money, and that’s especially true for small businesses. That’s why we’ve reduced regulatory requirements by 42 percent since 2001. That’s more than 154,000 unnecessary regulatory requirements off the books. We’ve committed to holding the line on net-zero regulations through 2019. That means that if we add a regulation, we take another one out.

That doesn’t mean we won’t continue to do our due diligence around regulations related to health, safety or the environment. But we want to make sure that every single regulatory requirement in B.C. is actually necessary, meaningful and serves a purpose. Let’s remember that when we’re talking about small businesses and the budget, we are balancing the budget with one of the lowest small business income tax rates in Canada. At 2.5 percent, our small business tax rate is set at a fair and reasonable rate. That’s 44 percent lower than it was in 2001.

We know these efforts are helping small businesses. This is proven every month with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business’s Business Barometer index. It asks small business owners across Canada about their business performance and hiring plans. B.C. small business owners consistently show one of the highest, if not the highest, confidence numbers in Canada.

That economic confidence echoes throughout the business community in B.C. In part, that confidence is attributed to a government that keeps taxes low and a business climate that is friendly to investment and job creation. This confidence is vital to growing our economy and creating jobs.

Just today I read something that the Conference Board of Canada released today. B.C.’s economy is expected to lead Canada’s growth in 2015. The conference board does not expect the B.C. housing market to slow down and expects that household after-tax incomes will grow due to low inflation and lower fuel taxes. Job growth is also expected through the year.

Another example where the future looks bright is the tourism sector. The North Shore, where my constituency of North Vancouver–Lonsdale is located, has many tourist attractions. Seventy metres above the Capilano River is the Capilano Suspension Bridge. This is a top attraction in Vancouver. Five minutes up the hill from the Capilano Suspension Bridge we have Grouse Mountain. These are two of the three top tourism attractions in the province, and those are in our neighbourhood.

We are blessed to have so many tourist destinations in British Columbia. Tourism is a key pillar in the B.C. jobs plan, and there is a very good reason for that. Tourism is an economic driver in our province. Tourism creates jobs. It produces revenue for many small businesses in every region of the province, and it contributes to tax revenues through its substantial contribution to provincial GDP. Most importantly, it is comprised of many different types of businesses.

As we’ve seen here in Canada and around the world, a diverse economy is a strong economy. Nowhere is that more evident than in the tourism sector. So whether it’s hotels or restaurants or kayak guides or heli-ski operations or taxi drivers or fishing guides, the sector is as diverse as it is strong. And 2014 was a great year for the sector.

Overall, there were 5.3 percent more international visitors coming to B.C. in 2014 than there were in 2013. That represents nearly a quarter-million more people visiting our province, and they’re coming from every corner of the globe. Visits from China are up 26.2 percent. Visits from India are up 20.7 percent. Visits from Japan are up 12.2 percent, and 3 percent more Americans came to B.C. than the year before. These are significant increases, and those increases translate into real jobs for British Columbians. These visitors help support over 19,000 businesses of all sizes in the tourism sector.

This is probably a good time for me to make a quick pitch for the community of Likely. As I mentioned earlier, following the dam breach at Mount Polley the tourism operators in this area want the world to know that they’re open for business. Likely is about 100 kilometres northeast from Williams Lake and 160 kilometres south of Quesnel. Likely is situated on Quesnel Lake, one of the deepest fjord lakes in the world.

Likely, along with Horsefly, is a side tour of the Gold Rush Trail and is the start of the alternative back-road route past Ghost Lake, along Matthew Valley Road — only in the summer — to Barkerville. The Quesnel River flows through Likely and is a great spot for fishing and viewing spawning salmon.

[1705]

Popular activities await you in Likely and in the area around Likely. They include kayaking, gold-panning,
[ Page 6014 ]
hiking, horseback riding, llama treks, boating, fishing, camping and snowmobiling.

A balanced budget means we can continue to invest in the tourism sector. Our government invests over $90 million each year in the sector, and we are able to continue making that investment by being good fiscal managers.

I’d like to speak about the film and digital tax media credits that have been expanded or extended in Budget 2015. The government recognizes the benefits of having a vibrant film and digital industry that creates long-term, stable jobs in B.C. We are a growing hub in North America and a global hub for the video game development industry. Our province has a 30-year history of video game development, and we want to keep that trend growing. That’s why we extended the interactive digital media tax credit to 2018.

It’s also why we created the digital animation or visual effects tax credit, the DAVE, in April of 2003 and increased the credit in 2010 from 15 percent to 17.5 percent — and now why, in Budget 2015, we have also expanded the DAVE to include post-production activities. Alongside well-established tech companies like Electronic Arts, THQ, Capcom and Sharpe Studios — they all applaud this Budget 2015 and the efforts that we made to support the interactive digital media industry as well as the film and television industry.

The Motion Picture Production Industry Association of B.C. welcomed our government’s 2015 budget commitment. Peter Leitch, MPPIA’s chair, said this: “B.C.’s industry tax policy is tied to jobs, and the expansion of DAVE will drive growth by capitalizing on our underutilized market strength in post-production.” He goes on to say: “We look forward to working closely with government to execute a strong public-private strategy that ensures our screen-based industries play a leading role in the future of B.C.’s creative economy.”

We will continue to attract game developers, studios and film and television productions from around the world to ensure that B.C. remains the best in the world.

I had the opportunity to attend the opening of the Blenz coffee shop at the HOpe Centre on the Lions Gate Hospital precinct in my riding. This Blenz Coffee location is a social enterprise, which means it has a focus on a social mission. At the Blenz coffee shop at the HOpe Centre for mental health they will be doing more than just serving a great cup of coffee. They will be providing employment for people recovering their mental health. This is a wonderful partnership, an initiative between Blenz, Vancouver Coastal Health and the Canadian Mental Health Association.

I have two great constituency assistants in North Vancouver. Debbie Sutherland is a wonderful full-time addition to my office and is ably assisted by Chris Drouin. They keep our offices open. Our constituency assistants are our faces in our communities while we’re in Victoria. I couldn’t be happier with the great team that I have in North Vancouver, so I thank you very much. Thanks also to my chief of staff, Matt Holme; my new EA from Merritt, Parveen Sandur; and our new administrative coordinator, Nicki Blakesley.

Finally, a thank-you for the unwavering support of my family, and especially Fred. You know how important you are to me.

Entrepreneurs work 365 days a year to grow their businesses. This government admires that attitude and that effort, and that’s why we’re working every day to ensure that B.C. is diverse, strong and growing. In the last three years B.C. has established an exceptional record of hitting our targets. Small business and tourism operators are optimistic on B.C.’s outlook, and so am I.

H. Bains: It is always indeed an honour and a privilege to ever get an opportunity to stand in this House and speak about issues that affect our constituents today and what the issues are that would affect their future. I just feel myself very fortunate to have gained the confidence of Surrey-Newton three times, and as a result, I’m here.

[1710]

Every time I stand here and see my name on the chair here, it reminds me of the history of this place and the history of British Columbia and how far we have come. If I reflect back, on these chairs someone sat at one time, when they were making decisions and passing legislation to the tune of about 139 legislations that were considered to be racist — and they were racist.

Some of them were to keep people that look like me — and yourself, Mr. Speaker — out of the country. Other legislation was passed here making us ineligible to vote. But all those people that came before us — different organizations, many progressive-thinking people — worked hard to make Canada a better place for all of us. As a result, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to their efforts and their struggles, you, me and many before us are actually sitting on the same chairs and helping to make laws for this province.

What a great opportunity to reflect back and to see how far we have come and how far we have to go to make sure that when we…. Many of us — I think all of us — will be in a rocking chair one day on our porch and looking at our grandchildren playing in the yard. I think, truly and authentically, you could clearly look in their eyes and say that as a result of our input, we have made their world more peaceful, more equal, more just than the world that we inherited from people before us. I think that’s the whole goal of us being here.

I’m sure MLAs and ministers, who sit on both sides of this House, come here with that notion, with that commitment. But there are many different ways, how we move ahead, and that’s what the discussion is all about. People on that side feel that people who are at the top end of our wage scale or fiscal ladder need more support than
[ Page 6015 ]
the ordinary working people, the middle class, who are actually out there working day in and day out.

These are the people who pack their lunch pails — Mr. Speaker, you’ve done it; I’ve done it; I know that many people in this House have done it — to go to work every day, to produce product and provide services and come home. We take our children to hockey games, soccer games, skating, and we start the day all over again in the morning. Those are the people who create wealth. Those are the people who work with their hands every day.

If you look at the document that’s before us, those are the people who continue to get burdened by this government, tax over tax — a shift from those who can afford it, those who already have enough, over to those working people and the middle class — and all those fees are continuously added on. If you look at this budget, it is very clear that there’s no relief for those people, those workers and the middle class. They continue to be paying — they will continue to be asked to pay — increases in B.C. Hydro rates to the tune of 80 percent, ICBC rates, MSP premiums and ferry rates. Any other service that they need, they are asked to pay a fee for that.

At the same time, the government announced that those top 2 percent of wage earners in this province will get a $236 million tax break. It’s clear which side and whose side this government is on. They’re certainly not on the side of the working people.

[1715]

They are clearly showing that they are on the side of those who didn’t even ask for a tax break. That is a group of people that were not in need at this time.

Then they brag about balancing the budget. Well, let’s examine that notion as well. On the one hand, they will say that the budget is balanced. On the operation side of the books, the budget is balanced. On the other hand, if you look at the debt side, how fast the debt is increasing in British Columbia under the watch of this Premier…. Let me give you some numbers.

When this Premier took office, the provincial debt sat at $45 billion. It is sitting around $60 billion or $62 billion now, and it is scheduled to go to about $70 billion by the time this fiscal cycle is over in three years. If you look back at the history of debt in this province, that is the fastest growth of debt accumulation in the history of this province. Then they talk about how they have balanced the budget. But they are borrowing to pay for the projects that we need, and they will be asking our children and their children to pay for the debt they are incurring.

If you look at how they try to convince British Columbians…. “Oh, by the way, those people who are under a certain bracket, they pay the lowest income tax in the country.” Well, let me talk about that. I think in order to do it justice…. This writer, Dermod Travis, wrote an article in the Province, just looking at those arguments. It was in the Province newspaper on Friday, February 20. He goes on to say:

“Government policies are normally designed to help citizens as they try to move up the economic ladder, not penalize them for trying. On that count alone, this week’s budget from the B.C. Finance Minister is an abject failure.

“In its budget highlights the B.C. government presented four scenarios to bolster its case that ‘British Columbians continue to have one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada.’ But buried deep in another budget document — page 106 of the three-year fiscal plan — are two other scenarios, and strangely, B.C. doesn’t fare quite as well when they are pulled out for comparison.”

What a surprise. This government would like you to believe the rhetoric that they always come up with — how British Columbians at certain levels are the lowest when it comes to income tax.

“Accepting the government’s numbers at face value, a single individual earning $80,000 in B.C. would have the lowest tax burden in Canada. Yet a single individual earning $25,000 has the third-lowest burden.”

It goes on to say:

“A two-income family of four earning $90,000 has the second-lowest burden, but the same family earning $30,000 has the fourth lowest.

“Notice a pattern? The wealthier you are in B.C., the lower the comparative tax burden compared with other provinces.”

That’s what this government does — continues to give breaks to those at the higher end of income.

Then he goes on to say:

“Undoubtedly, it is a coincidence, but surely no government would ever stoop so low as to design fiscal scenarios that were the most favourable for their political spin, such as setting income levels marginally below where the full impact of MSP premiums might kick in, which would likely throw some of those favourable interprovincial comparisons out the window. It is why what other provinces have to say about interprovincial tax burdens is so fascinating.

[1720]

“According to the Saskatchewan government’s intercity comparisons, a family living in Vancouver earning $50,000 annually in 2014 had the highest tax burden of the ten cities included in their analysis, including property tax. A family earning $75,000 was a little better off at fifth highest.

“Numbers compiled by the Manitoba government don’t back up B.C. either. A single parent with one child, earning $30,000, would have a lower tax burden in seven other provinces than they do in B.C. A two-income household of four, earning $60,000, would have a lower tax burden in Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.”

So there goes their assertion that those people at the lower end are better off here when it comes to income tax. He goes on to say:

“But what’s really killing off the economic hopes of most British Columbians is the incessant nickel-and-diming by a government that lacks the political will to set personal income rates at a level where the tax burden is shared fairly among all British Columbians.

“Whether it’s a B.C. Hydro rate increase, an ICBC premium hike or a rise in MSP premiums, they’re all just another way for the B.C. government to pick the pockets of taxpayers. And since income rarely factors into the equation with regressive taxation, it is generally those who can least afford the hit that get hurt the most.”

That’s the analysis by IntegrityBC, and here goes the argument.

We all knew that that’s exactly what’s happening out there, that those people at the upper end of the fiscal ladder get support from this government. They continue to get tax breaks.
[ Page 6016 ]

Why is this debt is going up that high? They would like you to believe that they’re building bridges and roads. They’re building the convention centre, and they’re building schools and courthouses. Yes, of course, they’re doing it, but how are they doing it? The pattern will show that they are doing it with complete mismanagement and incompetency. That’s why part of that debt is running so quickly and so high.

Some examples here. Vancouver Convention Centre. Remember this? It was pegged at $560 million. How much of a cost at the end? Almost a billion dollars. And the Minister of Education says that’s great. Wow, great management. You know, it was pegged at $563 million; it cost over $800 million.

You know why? The Auditor General actually dug up that information and made a report on that. It was because of the mismanagement and incompetency. They started, you know, digging for those pilings and pylons before the business plan was even built. That’s one example.

You take a look at the Port Mann Bridge. First, there was supposed to be a twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. Then, lo and behold, we were told, and British Columbians were told: “We’re going to tear down the bridge that still has about 50 years of life left. We’re going to tear it down. We’re going to build two bridges instead of one.”

They tried to explain to British Columbians that building two bridges would be cheaper than building one bridge. Well, the numbers don’t show that. The numbers clearly show how big the cost overrun on that project was. It’s hundreds of millions of dollars, as a result of that decision.

When asked in this House, the minister’s explanation was: “Well, we asked three multinational construction companies, and they came back that we should tear down the old bridge and build this one ten-lane bridge. So we went with it.” Did they do any cost analysis themselves about whether that argument actually made fiscal sense for British Columbians? No. They just took the word, at face value, of three international companies. And the result is before us — hundreds of millions of dollars in cost overrun.

South Fraser Perimeter Road. Again, it was hundreds of millions of dollars in cost overruns. Golden Ears Bridge — we could talk about that. And many people talk about how inefficient TransLink is. But that is the result of this government forcing their ideology-based decisions on TransLink. Golden Ears Bridge is one prime example. It was a P3 project. It was forced on TransLink — to have a P3 project. They made the argument that a P3 project made sense because the private sector takes all of the risks.

[1725]

Well, guess what. TransLink now is forced to pay about $40 million a year for traffic that is guaranteed to the private contractor for traffic that is not there — $40 million. Can you imagine how many buses $40 million could put on the road to reduce the congestion in the Lower Mainland? No, but they will never even consider that.

The B.C. Place roof. What were the numbers there? It was supposed to be $150 million, and it ended up $500 million. Those are the numbers. A great job by this government.

Also, another one, the Canada Line. Again, this was an ideology-based decision forced onto TransLink: the Canada Line. It cost, per passenger, per kilometre, to operate that line, 21 cents, according to TransLink’s own numbers. But on the other hand, the Expo Line and the Millennium Line, which were built the traditional way, cost 11 cents per kilometre, per passenger. Double the operating cost.

That’s the issue here. It’s mismanagement by this government, and total incompetency is the reason, or part of the reason, why the debt has grown so fast.

I’m going to talk about some of the other issues that are in the budget that haven’t been addressed. Look at what’s happening in Surrey or south of the Fraser. Crime is the biggest issue. The biggest issue. We have seen crime not being reduced. Crime is growing, despite this government’s announcement that we would have “Violence-free B.C.” Remember that? Violence-free B.C.

Interjections.

H. Bains: Well, the minister there said that crime is going down. Well, maybe they should come to Surrey every once in a while and face the reality. I will give you some of the results. I think all the minister has to say is just talk to the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education should know. If he doesn’t, all this information is on the Surrey RCMP’s website.

Here. The fourth quarter of 2014, compared to the previous quarter in 2013. Maybe the ministers can pay attention here. Violent crime in the last quarter of 2014, up 45 percent. Robbery in the last quarter of 2014 compared to the same period the previous year, 81 percent up. Sexual assault, 25 percent up. Assault, 48 percent up. Property crimes, 6 percent up. Residential break and enter, 48 percent up. Theft of motor vehicles, 64 percent. Stolen property, 57 percent. Fraud, 47 percent.

There we go. That’s what’s happening in Surrey. Those are the facts coming from the Surrey RCMP website. That’s all you have to do. Just take a look. Look at the facts.

We have three ministers from Surrey that sit on the cabinet. You would think that they would have some pull, that they would have some convincing powers. You would think that, right? And that’s what the people of Surrey are expecting from these three ministers. They sit at that cabinet table. What do they get for Surrey? Not much. Not much in crime reduction. Their own blue-collar panel that was put together…. What happened to that report? It’s going to sit on a shelf somewhere and collect dust because they are not going to act on it.
[ Page 6017 ]

The three Surrey NDP MLAs — the MLA for Surrey-Whalley, the MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers…. We put together what we call the Surrey accord. We asked for a five-point formula that could help curb the crime in Surrey, which included that we need more police officers, a better policing model and more police officers on foot and bike patrol.

[1730]

Well, we need help from this government. Surrey city alone cannot do that. RCMP officers are doing everything they can, but they don’t have the resources.

We also asked for a specialized court to deal with chronic offenders. That also required this government to come to the table, and they are missing in action there as well. We asked for regulating the recovery homes. Again, no action by this government. We also said that we needed a comprehensive plan to deal with mental health. All of those issues — well, most of those issues — had been agreed to by the panel that was put together by the Premier. But again, no action.

You would think that these three cabinet ministers would be arguing our case on behalf of Surrey, don’t you think, Mr. Speaker? Not a chance. The results aren’t there. Maybe the ministers who said that crime is going down probably should pay attention to…. These are some of the….

I’ll give you a taste of some of the e-mails that we are getting in our constituency office. Here’s one: “Hello, sir. We are living at 149th and 76th Avenue. Last weekend a robber went to ten houses, knocked on the doors, and everybody recognized and called up the police. On that day he also came to my house and tried to squeeze my neck. Sir, my question is: if we are not safe in a country like Canada, then where do we need to move to? In Surrey crime increases day by day. Please do something.” That’s one e-mail.

Another one says: “Hello, sir” — well, it has my name in there; I’m not supposed to use my name. “My name is Rita, and I live at 81st and 135th Street. My concern is about the prostitutes roaming on our streets. It doesn’t look good in front of kids and any newcomers. I have phoned the police so many times, but the problem is still the same. We’re sick and tired of dealing with it on our own. We need help.” This is just a taste of some of the e-mails we get.

What response do we get from this government? Will they come to the table and sit down with the city of Surrey and the RCMP and design and agree on all those aspects of a crime reduction strategy that I just spoke about and that the panel put together? Do you think they will be there? No, because they’re too busy giving tax breaks to their friends who are the 2 percent at the top end of the fiscal ladder. That’s why there is a problem.

Let’s talk about some of the other issues. Forestry, which has built this province for the last 150 years, has been forgotten by this government, along with high tech, along with mining, because they were too occupied with LNG for the last few years. All of a sudden they woke up the other day and said: “Oh, by the way, we probably should have diversity in our economy.” Well, surprise, surprise.

Forestry. If you really look at what’s going on in forestry, it is a travesty, because forestry is what built this province. Forestry is what paid for our social programs, like health care and education. It is on its knees, thanks to this government’s ill-advised policies.

Here is what’s happening in the forest industry. In 2013, 6.7 million cubic metres of raw logs were exported from B.C. — 6.7 million. That is the highest and record number in the history of this province. When you go back to…. They like to talk about the last century. You talk about the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s. Look at all the sawmills we had. We processed those logs here. In 1998 the log export was about 200,000 cubic metres — 200,000. Compare that to 2013 — 6.7 million cubic metres — and 2014. The numbers are both the same.

In the meantime, we have local manufacturers, local sawmillers complaining that they cannot get raw logs in order to work at full capacity in their mills. Some are not calling the workers to work because they can’t get those logs.

[1735]

The minister would like you to believe that they have a surplus test, that logs are only allowed to be exported from B.C. if they pass the surplus test. Let me explain how the surplus test works and what abuse is going on, on that side. The surplus test is basically that if those logs are surplus to local needs, they can be exported.

What the minister has done…. They have put together what they call a timber export advisory committee. These are supposed to be experts from the industry, and they are. All those export applications go through this committee. Guess what. In 2013-2014 they looked at over 100 applications, and in over 100 applications they determined that they do not meet the surplus test.

Guess what the minister did. The minister overruled all those 100 applications — overruled his own committee. How fair is that? Follow your own rules as they were preached. They set the rules, and they set the committee to follow those rules, but then the minister will interfere and overrule that committee. That’s the problem with the forest industry — that the minister responsible is not doing anything about it.

As a result of that, what is happening? On Vancouver Island and the coast we have lost 6,800 forestry jobs since 2001, a 41 percent drop, including 4,000 jobs in wood and paper manufacturing. A coastal region including the Lower Mainland saw 68 forestry mills close between 2001 and 2011, a 38 percent drop.

Pulp and paper mills are hurt because of the decimation of the coastal sawmilling industry, because they rely on chips, chip input of the fibre from these sawmills.
[ Page 6018 ]
That’s what’s happening. In the meantime, we have sawmillers who are saying they’re not getting the raw material they need.

Let’s talk about education in Surrey — a $29 million cut from school boards across the province at a time when we need, according to Surrey school board, more capital investment so that we could put those 7,000 children who are in portables right now into real classrooms.

Guess what. Those portables right now, which number about 285, are scheduled to go up to over 350 because of a lack of attention by this government. You would think the minister from Surrey, the Minister of Education, who sits at the cabinet table…. Do you think he will argue on behalf of Surrey children and parents? Well, the result shows quite the opposite. That’s a serious issue.

Surrey Memorial Hospital — again, we need more investment so that we could have more health care service providers so that we could cut down on the lineup at Surrey Memorial Hospital emergency. I think those are some of the serious issues that Surrey is facing.

Time and again you take a look. The pattern is there. Either they ship our jobs overseas or they allow foreign companies to bring their own workers to B.C. The end result of this is that we see workers are left behind in the lineup. You know, sometimes we wonder if they are in the lineup with this government.

In the meantime, foreigners are taking our jobs as far as our raw materials are concerned, and as far as when foreign investment comes to B.C., they’re allowed to bring their own workers. Those workers then get abused and exploited. That is a real, real shame.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I am certainly pleased to respond to the budget for 2015 today, a budget that will help keep British Columbia’s economy on track while protecting the critical services that British Columbians rely on.

[1740]

I hope the House will allow me to take a few minutes to recognize those important people in my life. First and foremost, the two very handsome men in my life, my husband, Mark, and my son, Kai, who give up their quality time with me so that they share me with my community and the rest of British Columbia, who support me no matter what. It is because of them that I am here. They inspire me to help make their lives better as well as lives for British Columbians better.

I’d be remiss to not mention my mother and father, Heinz and Alice,who have been there through the highs and the lows, the triumphs and the travesties, instilling the work ethic and the dedication that I bring to this job — this very important job here in Victoria — and teaching me the value of a dollar and teaching me money management.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I have a fantastic extended family, as well as great friends such as Nicole Biagioni, who provide invaluable support for me while I am here in Victoria.

Of course, the critical work of my constituency assistants shouldn’t go unrecognized either. Shari Cummins, Krista Bryce, Heather Mahoney — they work tirelessly every single day to ensure that the people in my community are taken care of. I am so grateful to have them.

I certainly wouldn’t be here today, either, without the constant support of my riding association: my president, Jack Doan; my vice-president, Janet Smukowich; Paula Peterson; Gord Almond; Alan Larsen; Graham Reid; Margaret Rebin; Michele Obara; John Phillips; Norm Kilarski; Phil Gates; Sylvia Martin; and so many more volunteers who support the work that is done here by our government.

This government has balanced its third consecutive budget. It keeps British Columbia on a sound fiscal path for the future. When we look across our beautiful country, B.C. is the leader in so many ways. We’re the healthiest and the most active. We have the best health care outcomes and now our continued sound fiscal management.

Thanks to our diverse economy, British Columbia has not experienced the same economic downturn that other jurisdictions around the world have faced over the last year. Around the world we have seen economies struggle. It’s through our continuing restraint and our conservative fiscal plan that this government is able to address the needs of British Columbians.

This is a time where we need to continue our support of the vital programs and services that support our families, protect our children and enhance our communities. Budget 2015 balances all of those needs. This is my first budget response as Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation. For that reason, I’d like to take a few minutes to talk about my ministry. Our mandate is to give families the tools that they need to participate more fully in their communities and to help them become more independent.

My ministry enters the new fiscal year focused on a number of priorities that will help us support British Columbians in need of assistance. One project is Accessibility 2024. It lays the road map for making B.C. the most progressive jurisdiction in all of Canada for people with disabilities, by 2024.

We also announced changes to the family maintenance program that will help improve the lives of families receiving assistance.

Our Work B.C. centres provide supports and services to get people back into the workforce. We also continue our income and disability assistance for those in greatest need.

Budget 2015 will help us deliver on these key priorities. It provides $2.6 billion in support for British Columbians, for communities across our province. That’s a $64 million increase from last year. It’s funding that will support
[ Page 6019 ]
B.C.’s residents, our communities and the future of our province.

The core of my ministry budget is spent on income and disability assistance programs. This budget protects that very core service. This year we’ll direct $1.7 billion to help individuals and families meet their needs through income assistance and supplemental supports, a $26.6 million increase from the previous year. This funding will support 170,000 people in our province over the next year.

[1745]

There is also over $330 million for the ministry’s employment programs that will support the underemployed clients at our 85 Work B.C. employment centres across the province.

Our government will make child support payments fully exempt for families receiving income and disability assistance. Parents will be able to keep, dollar for dollar, what they receive in child support, over and above what they receive in assistance. On average, that works out to about $300 of extra money for families every month. This move is expected to benefit 3,200 families and 5,400 children around British Columbia, providing them with an additional $32 million over the next three years.

Community Living B.C. serves people with developmental disabilities and their families in our province. Our government is committed to maintaining those programs. Budget 2015 provides an additional $37.7 million for CLBC, which is an increase of 4.7 percent over the last fiscal year.

Over the next three years, CLBC will receive an additional $106 million to support people with developmental disabilities. This new funding will allow CLBC to provide supports and new services to approximately 2,300 individuals who are eligible for CLBC supports — supports such as respite care, residential care, shared living, community inclusion and employment supports as well.

Over the years, the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation has developed strong partnerships that allow us to combine our resources and accomplish more with the dollars that we have. These partnerships include work with other ministries within our government and agencies outside of government, including the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Ministry of Health, B.C. Housing, Community Living B.C., as well as other community agencies that deliver services on behalf of government.

It has been my very good fortune over the years to work closely with extraordinary individuals and organizations, both within my constituency and around the province, who contribute to the social, cultural and economic fabric of our province.

My constituency has several distinct communities. It includes two cities. It includes Nanaimo and Parksville, and two towns, Lantzville and Qualicum Beach, as well as the rural region of Nanoose. It also includes three First Nations communities: the Snaw-Naw-As, Snuneymuxw and the Qualicum First Nations. Each of these communities has their very own unique character, their own needs and their own goals.

Over the past two years, I have been able to build some strong relationships with municipal and community leaders, such as Joe Stanhope, Mark Lefebvre, Bill McKay, Bill Yocum, Al Grier, Bill Luchtmeijer, as well as Chief David Bob of Snaw-Naw-As, Chief Michael Recalma from the Qualicum First Nations and Chief John Wesley of the Snuneymuxw First Nations.

There are also business leaders in our community who are the core of free enterprise, such as the Nanaimo, Parksville and Qualicum chambers of commerce, which are headed by Kim Smythe, Kim Burden and Evelyn Clark.

These relationships allow our government to better meet the universal needs of housing, health care and transportation, in ways that reflect the unique interests of individual communities.

In Nanaimo, for example, I was pleased to participate recently in the opening of Uplands Walk. It’s a $7 million supportive housing project for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. It’s actually the third supportive housing site that has been developed through a partnership between the City of Nanaimo and our government. It provides not only stable housing for 33 individuals but an opportunity for people to rebuild their lives in a healthy and positive way. Hearing the stories that day about how this housing has had a profound effect on the lives of the residents was truly moving and heartening.

Housing needs also exist outside of the urban centre of Nanaimo. In Qualicum Beach the community told us that seniors needed more affordable, accessible housing options. We responded by arranging $3.6 million in construction financing to help them redevelop and expand Qualicum park village. Like all good projects, this was also a partnership with the town of Qualicum Beach and the Qualicum-Parksville Kiwanis Housing Society.

[1750]

Health needs also vary significantly across my riding, as they do across British Columbia, but again, thanks to those strong partnerships, we are able to continue to meet the needs of the communities in my riding and across the province.

At Nanaimo Regional General Hospital we recently marked the official opening of two surgical suites at a cost of $3 million to better meet the needs of mid-Island people. Again, this success was due to a partnership between the province and the community through the Nanaimo and District Hospital Foundation and the Nanaimo regional hospital district. Thanks to that strong relationship, the lives of both patients and staff have been significantly improved.
[ Page 6020 ]

Meanwhile, in other, smaller communities around my riding, Parksville and Qualicum Beach, they’re working to deliver health services closer to home to reduce the need of travel. Given that my riding is home to such a high proportion of senior citizens, this is especially important for us.

Since it opened in 2013 the Oceanside Health Centre has been seeing unprecedented success, diverting patients away from the ER in Nanaimo and allowing them to receive the urgent care they need closer to home. The Oceanside Health Centre has helped so many people connect with family doctors, allowing them also to receive diagnostic and treatment services ranging from telehealth and ultrasounds or even IV treatments — again, closer to home.

In the response to the needs of my community, Island Health is enhancing its end-of-life services in the region by opening hospice beds at Trillium Lodge later this year. Having these beds available right close to home in Parksville has the potential to profoundly improve the end-of-life experience for patients and their families. It really is a reflection of our government’s commitment to helping families with loved ones who require hospice care.

This budget has committed additional funds to support these services for children and adults as part of our actions in working to double the number of hospice beds by 2020, supporting end-of-life care in our province. We are able to make these investments because we continue to build the economy and make sure that we live within our means.

With our diligent fiscal management, we are also able to make infrastructure investments. In fact, this budget reaffirmed our commitment to boost spending on universal health care by nearly $3 billion over the next three years, building on that recent Conference Board of Canada ranking that announced that we were leading Canada in health outcomes and that we had the ranking of third in comparison to 17 other countries. That’s such an impressive ranking for us, and it hasn’t been achieved because British Columbia spends the most money on health care. It’s because we invest taxpayer money wisely.

As we know, we’re nearing the halfway point of our mandate. I know it’s hard it believe that it’s been almost two years since the last election, because the time certainly has flown by for me and, I’m sure, for many others. But on May 9, 2017 those of us who are seeking re-election will face the electorate, and they will judge us on our performance.

The electorate will look back at the past four years, and they’ll decide whether they think British Columbia has been well managed and whether we’re heading in the right direction. Issues like health care are going to be at the forefront of their minds. The progress that we’re making in this field will prove that we are doing what they asked us to do by managing their money wisely and providing the services that they need.

As someone who travels up and down this beautiful island, I know firsthand the importance of transportation. Recently I had the pleasure to help announce the completion of a $15 million safety upgrade to the project on the Malahat. This project involved widening approximately 2.3 kilometres of Highway No. 1 from Shawnigan Lake Road to the summit to accommodate a new median barrier. With the completion of this project, the median barriers are now in place for over half of the Malahat corridor, and it’s certainly welcome news for the 22,000 commuters and motorists that use this highway every single day.

[1755]

I’m looking forward also to the release of B.C. on the Move, our government’s road map for provincial transportation improvements over the next decade, including Vancouver Island. In fact, this plan has been receiving input with the help of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transportation. My colleague from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky met with over 70 stakeholder groups on Vancouver Island in early September to hear firsthand what the transportation needs are of the Island communities.

One of the things that has been truly impressive to see over the last year is the increasing interest in the community in helping young people develop their skills and thrive in our community. Thanks in part to the leadership of Vancouver Island University under President Ralph Nilson and faculty in both the academic and the trade sectors, we are seeing real excitement and interest in this important sector of our economy.

Last month, actually, Work B.C. hosted a special Find Your Fit expo in Nanaimo to give young people a chance to explore the different in-demand fields. So many keen people came out and had the opportunity to get that hands-on approach.

There is no question that First Nations will also be a cornerstone of this future economic development in British Columbia. Our government recognizes this.

In fact, last September I was very pleased to be at the announcement at Vancouver Island University with the Premier as she appointed Chief Shawn Atleo as the first Shqwi qwal for indigenous dialogue in Canada. Anyone who knows Chief Atleo knows that he will do an absolutely fantastic job addressing indigenous issues and helping to build that new path for reconciliation in British Columbia. He will be housed at Vancouver Island University’s new Centre for Pre-Confederation Treaties and Reconciliation right in Nanaimo.

His appointment actually came on the heels of several announcements and some unique research projects at Vancouver Island University that will help serve First Nations, their communities and the people of the region. One of these projects will be to record and document the disappearing First Nations knowledge, their changes in diet and encouragement of the protection and remedi-
[ Page 6021 ]
ation of coastal ecosystems. It certainly shows our commitment to building those First Nations relationships.

Let’s shift to another topic. Although we’re on Vancouver Island, far from the gas fields of northern B.C., our whole community is aware of the opportunities and working together to capitalize on them. In the meantime, a diverse economic development is taking place right in our region.

Our government recently invested $2.6 million to support research projects at universities on Vancouver Island. That research ranges anywhere from recording that important First Nations knowledge that I mentioned about the health of the coastal estuaries at Vancouver Island University to research at Royal Roads University that benefits B.C. municipalities all the way to research at the University of Victoria into unmanned air vehicles that will help manage our natural resources.

There is steady growth in the mid-Island technology sector as well, thanks in part to innovations like the square one incubator, a new service in Nanaimo that helps start-up companies get the support that they need to succeed. Again, this is a partnership, and this time it’s between the Nanaimo Economic Development Corporation and the Innovation Island Technology Association.

Investment in the province’s valuable tech sector is not just happening in larger communities like Nanaimo. It’s also happening in smaller but no less impressive shared working spaces like the one in Qualicum Beach that we opened last year. It has been a workspace for some major budding and creative software companies like Cloudhead Games, who have recently spent much time in the U.S. expanding their company and growing.

No doubt, the folks at Cloudhead and other growing tech companies on Vancouver Island and B.C. will be happy to hear about the extension of the interactive digital media tax credit well into 2018 and the expansion as well of the DAVE tax credit, the digital animation and visual effects.

[1800]

The Vancouver Island Economic Alliance recently — last year, I guess — hosted another successful conference in Nanaimo. It was last fall, actually, where they brought together diverse parties from all levels of government, business and community leadership. The alliance’s collaborative approach to economic development offers many advantages to communities and businesses from across Vancouver Island.

I’ve seen many successes already within our community, and I expect to see many more positive impacts from the relationship developing through the alliance. Again, it is about creating and building those relationships and partnerships, working together in the best interest of our community.

Back in 2013 one of the platform items this side of the House campaigned on was to control spending and balance the budget. This is one of our core principles; no one would be surprised by that. We know the importance of spending within our means and making sure that the bottom line is met. Not only is B.C.’s budget balanced for the third successive year; we could actually be the only province to accomplish that feat this year.

You don’t have to look very far to see what happens when you don’t control spending and diversify your economy. According to the reports, Alberta is staring at a $7 billion hole in their budget, and the Prentice government is busy announcing a series of cuts and freezes to try and mitigate their overspending. The province even had to remove support for Edmonton’s bid for the 2022 Commonwealth Games, and consequently, Edmonton has now withdrawn their bid for the games. Last week the Alberta government announced that they’re going to cut spending by $2.2 billion, a reduction of about 5 percent from the current budget.

Thankfully, in our communities and in our province we’ve been successful at diversifying B.C.’s economy, and due to this, along with our fiscal discipline, we’re now in a position to start making those modest investments. As a mother, I want to see families placed at the forefront of our plans, and that’s exactly what this budget is doing.

There are many parts of this budget that support B.C. families. We campaigned to bring in the B.C. early childhood tax benefit to help parents with the cost of child care. As of April 1 this new benefit will come into effect for families. They’ll be provided with $660 a year for each of their children under six to offset the cost of care. Do you know how many families that adds up to? It’s 100,080 families. They will very shortly be seeing that early childhood tax benefit.

Another commitment that we made was the training and education savings grant. I believe it’s a program that the NDP opposed and that they actually wanted to scrap. It was in their campaign platform. They didn’t believe in it. But thanks to our ability to control our spending, there will be a one-time payment of $1,200 to every child in B.C. born since January 1 of 2007. That money will help them save for post-secondary education and benefit almost 40,000 kids every single year once they turn six. It’s another thing that we’re doing to help children and families.

On top of that, we have the $250 fitness equipment credit. Healthy, active living is not only good for our bodies; it’s good for our minds. It’s good for our province, and it’s good for our economy. By making it easier for families to participate in sports, we’re helping them improve not only their daily lives but their long-term health and wellness. This new credit announced the other day will be set at 50 percent of the amount claimed for the existing B.C. children’s fitness credit, so parents don’t need to be saving receipts and making sure they find them.

There’s also good news along with this additional…. There will be additional funding towards Community Living B.C.
[ Page 6022 ]

Last autumn our government and the public teachers union also managed to secure an unprecedented six-year labour agreement. Some people thought we couldn’t do it and that we would have to legislate the teachers back to work. Well, they were wrong. We were able to reach a negotiated settlement. In this budget kindergarten-to-grade-12 education will also receive additional funding of more than $560 million over the next three years as our government continues to meet its funding commitments for collective agreements negotiated in this sector.

This budget also includes a boost in funding for the learning improvement fund by a third, bringing it to $100 million per year. We’re also providing an additional $1 million for British Columbia’s school fruit and vegetable nutrition program, benefiting about half a million children across our province.

[1805]

The good news just goes on and on about this budget, further helping our families, our children, the people across B.C. There was even good news in the budget for the SPCA, where they’ll be receiving $5 million to help them with their facility upgrades. Again, these promised new and expanded initiatives would not be possible without practising fiscal discipline and balancing our budget.

I know that some people have described this budget as boring, dry and have even commented that it didn’t contain very many surprises. Well, that was the point. Stick with the game plan. It’s how you accomplish a goal. As an Olympic athlete, I know this well. Have a vision. Set a goal. Develop a strategy. Adjust as it’s needed, but stay determined and committed. Focus on the process, and the success will come.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

This budget offers a balance of increased spending in areas we rely on, such as health care for people in need, and we did it with fiscal responsibility. We will continue to work towards our goal. There is so much work in front of us, across all government. With this balanced budget comes a balanced approach, an approach that continues to serve and care for the people of British Columbia. It’s the right thing to do, and I am proud to support Budget 2015.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Island. [Applause.]

C. Trevena: I thank my colleagues for their hearty support in my response to the budget speech.

I’d like to pick up on a few items that previous speakers have mentioned in their response to this budget, Budget 2015, and what I’ve been hearing a lot from the previous speaker, the new Minister of Social Development. I congratulate her on her new cabinet portfolio. It’s a very important one. It’s one that has a huge impact for many, many people.

I would have hoped that she would have mentioned during her remarks that she was working on increasing the level that people get for their benefits, whether it is their disability cheque or their income assistance. I think that’s something that people would really like to be hearing — that they’re also going to get some more money for their housing allowance.

That being said, the minister keeps talking about controlling spending. We have a government that talks regularly about balancing the budget and talks about controlling spending, and you see the provincial debt going up rapidly. It’s now at $70 billion. It’s growing at a rate of 5 percent, which, according to most people’s awareness, is well above the rate of inflation. The government has got a long, long way to go before it is actually controlling any spending.

We do need to be investing in our province, and we need to be investing in it wisely. That is not happening in this budget. That is not being offered in this budget. Instead, what we’re seeing once again….

I’ve talked about this many times. I think a number of us on this side of the House are now heading towards our tenth year as MLAs. I’m very honoured to be the representative for North Island for the last ten years. Because of the timing of the elections and so on, we’ve had many, many budgets, so I’ve spoken to at least ten budgets now.

One of the things that I find very concerning is the continual comparison that running a government is like running a household or, as the Minister of Tourism said, like running a small business. Actually, it’s not. This isn’t running a small business. They’re not here balancing the books at the end of the week and at the end of the month and going to see the taxman.

They are running a province. More than four million people’s lives depend on decisions made by this government. It’s a huge responsibility. This isn’t running a small business. The thinking that goes into planning a budget and planning what the government is going to do, the agenda for the government, shouldn’t be in terms of planning a small business. It should be in terms of what the investment is that we need to be making in British Columbia for the good of the people of British Columbia and the good of the province now and looking to the future.

In that, I’ve got to say, we keep hearing about how the government is managing the people’s money, managing taxpayers’ money, doing this — again, small business rhetoric, householders rhetoric.

[1810]

It goes back, again — I’ve talked about this many, many times, but I will repeat it — to the 1980s with Milton Friedman and the whole monetary system. We had Margaret Thatcher talking about it; we had Ronald Reagan talking about it. The whole neoconservative concepts were ingrained.

We’ve had the government talking about how “we are
[ Page 6023 ]
managing taxpayers’ money, managing people’s money, managing their money.” It’s not. Once we pay our taxes, it’s public money. We are all vested in this province, and we pay our taxes.

Taxes are very good. I made some reference to this in my response to the throne speech. Taxes are very good for our province because that’s what funds the services, what funds the infrastructure, what makes our province work. It’s not our money. It’s not taxpayers’ money. It’s public money.

That’s what the government should be looking at. It should be looking at the public good when it is drawing up its throne speech and then pulling together its budget. In this budget it is definitely not looking for the public good. It is really — again, on this side of the House we do get somewhat into jargon — looking after certain friends, certain people who are already doing well, certain corporate interests, forgetting the huge number of people who are in the middle class and who are feeling that they cannot get by.

They want to see an investment in their future and in their children’s future and in the future for their parents, who may be looking for seniors care, and their children, who are looking for post-secondary education. They are looking for some relief from the government, some assistance and some vision.

What do they get? They get this budget. Really, it’s worse than boring. I think, once again, it is a very dangerous approach because it is not instilling a vision in this province. It’s not saying what could be done. It’s not investing in the province. It’s just saying: “Okay, we’ll shuffle along. Maybe we’ll still get some LNG. But we’re going to talk about diversification.”

What I find very interesting in this is that when we were talking about the budget all last week, we kept hearing about how it’s a surplus: “Isn’t it wonderful? We’ve got a surplus budget.” But as I say, we had the Minister of Social Development speaking just now. We don’t have a surplus while we have tens of thousands of people who are living on income assistance and tens of thousands of children who are going hungry and when we still have a record level of child poverty.

That is not a surplus for this province. While we have is a social deficit and also have an infrastructure deficit, we can’t be talking about a surplus, let alone a balance. We don’t have a balance if people are falling behind, as they are.

The reason people are falling behind is the approach this government has taken for the last 14 years. Since 2001 it has taken a classic neoliberal approach. It has cut taxes. It has ignored the concept of progressive taxation. It’s cut taxes. It has turned to fees and flat taxes as a way of raising income. It has this very weird idea of revenue-neutral taxes. What’s that about? You pay taxes because you’re investing in something.

We have a government that is not willing to be honest with people and say: “We need to get revenue from our resources, we need to get revenue from corporations, and we need to get revenue from individuals paying what they can, according to what they earn.” It’s classic redistribution for the good of the commonweal that we all pay what we can.

Instead, what we see in this budget is that there is effectively a $230 million tax cut for the richest in this province — $230 million to the richest 2 percent in this province — and the large group in the middle get nothing.

There are one or two things that are going to help out some lower-income earners — some. We on this side of the House for many years have been talking about the clawbacks that have happened. Luckily, we are now seeing a clawback, one of the many clawbacks, ending. There are many clawbacks.

Single mothers who are on assistance and receiving maintenance will no longer lose that maintenance. So they and their children will have a better opportunity. For some reason, that’s not happening till September. The new tax year does start in April. It could start a little earlier, but it’s happening. We’re not going to sneer at that. But there are other clawbacks.

[1815]

I had a gentleman in my office the other day — it was back in January — Harold Higgins, who is on CPP. Every time that his CPP goes up, that is clawed back from his disability. Every time we get a cost-of-living increase, that’s taken out of his income.

This year he got a $11.96 cost-of-living increase in CPP in January, but his provincial disability cheque was reduced by that amount. Every year this has happened. The money that the federal government gives him, as a right, through CPP is taken back by provincial government — to make it fair and equal for people, push people down to the lowest common denominator?

Mr. Higgins was in my office. He just cannot understand it. He is so frustrated that this continues to happen. He is entitled to his CPP, yet the government keeps on taking it back. And as he says, his hydro is going up, his rent is going up, and his cost of living is going up. That is reflected by the federal government but not by this provincial government, so the clawbacks continue.

The clawbacks continue, and they are unjust. Equally unjust is, as I mentioned, the approach in very basic taxation levels of this government, that we have no consideration for those that can pay more. We see the richest 2 percent getting this tax break that was promised a few years ago. “It’s going to end. Don’t worry. You earn that $150,000, and your surtax will end at the end of 2015.” I’m sorry. People can afford a little bit more.

Instead what we see is an increase in fees. Everybody’s hydro rates are going up. Those who are ferry-dependent — all of us on the Island and the islands — are seeing ferry fares going up. We’re seeing another 4 percent in April.
[ Page 6024 ]

MSP is going up. It’s going up every year. It’s going up again in 2016. We’ve already been warned about this. Now, MSP is a fascinating, fascinating flat tax. We hear every time that we raise it on this side of the House about all those people who actually don’t pay MSP. Well, we have to remember that those people who don’t pay MSP — it’s like those people who don’t pay taxes — don’t because they are too poor. We should, therefore, be worried about them that they cannot afford to pay taxes because they don’t have the money.

MSP is, I think, one of the most pernicious, regressive taxes in this province. It raises — I’m looking at the budget documents — $2.3 billion. The speaker before me was talking about an increase in health care spending of $3 billion. Well, if MSP is raising $2.3 billion, that basically pays for the whole increase in the health care budget.

Whether you earn $50,000 or $150,000 or $300,000, you pay the same MSP, and it is going up year after year after year. It is a flat tax that is regressive. It is unfair. It is unequal. It is being used, literally, to fund the health system.

Now, looking at the budget documents, going through the comparisons of interprovincial tax rates right across the country, it comes to medical service premium. Very interestingly, we have across the country….

It’s $72 for a single person, $144 for a family in British Columbia. Alberta, nothing. It’s part of their tax system. Saskatchewan, they’ve got nothing. Manitoba has got nothing. Ontario has got nothing. Quebec does have an equivalent of MSP. New Brunswick doesn’t. Nova Scotia doesn’t. Prince Edward Island doesn’t. Newfoundland and Labrador doesn’t. It doesn’t mention the Territories.

D. Routley: Another exclusive club.

C. Trevena: As my colleague from Nanaimo-Ladysmith says, it’s another exclusive club — us who pay MSP. Other provinces roll it into their tax system. It’s a payroll deduction in some provinces; it’s partially income tax in others. They find a way of making it progressive, not so it is a flat tax on people.

As I say, it’s fascinating to see this. It raises that much money. If you put together the money from MSP and the money that post-secondary education fees bring in, it’s more than corporate tax rate brings in — those two things. So it’s your students, your future and everybody else who needs health care.

[1820]

We do have a public health care system that we all are very proud of. We rely on it at various levels — us as individuals, our communities. We really need a good public health care system. There are ways of making it better. There are ways of improving it. We have different approaches. I think everybody in this House believes in public health, but the way it’s funded with a flat tax is outrageous.

I don’t know who members on the government side actually talk to, but they should talk to some seniors. I’m not talking about the seniors who really are very vulnerable. I’m talking about a middle-class senior, somebody who’s retired with a company pension. Maybe they’re in about their mid-80s. We live a long life in B.C.

They’re in their mid-80s. They are on a fixed income. They go to the seniors centre because they can get a good, nutritious meal there at $5 for lunch. They know they can afford that. But they look at their hydro bills and then the increase in MSP, which they are paying because they have a professional pension which was fixed when they retired 20 years ago. They say now: “We don’t know how we’re going to cope.” People can’t afford this. This is not the way of funding our health care system. It’s not the way of funding our province.

We have seen increases. Colleagues have been talking, on this side of the House, about the ratcheting up of our hydro rates. We keep seeing this going up and going up. We’ve had very competitive hydro rates. It’s been very, very good for business to keep hydro rates low in B.C.

We have an ample supply…. Or we had an ample supply of cheap hydro until this government decided to set up this very weird independent power system, one we had B.C. Hydro running, forcing B.C. Hydro to pay really expensive contracts for extraordinary lengths of time to buy power that we didn’t need, which has ensured that everybody is paying extra for their hydro and has had an impact on business. I mean, you talk to businesses now. They’re all worried. They’re worried about the cost of hydro. So we have that.

We have increasing ICBC. We are seeing…. As I say, I represent a ferry-dependent community. I live on an island off the Island. We are all here on the Island. We’re all seeing our ferry fares going up by another 4 percent. In some communities they’ve gone up by more than 100 percent in the last ten-plus years. These impact people’s lives. These are things that could be addressed in this budget if the government had really wanted to start looking at a bit of redistribution and making sure that everybody was getting a fair deal here.

I quoted a moment ago that if you put together the money, the income brought in from MSP, this flat tax, and add it to the post-secondary student fees…. We had, earlier today, some students in the Legislature. I was meeting with a group of students before coming into the House this afternoon. They are here for a few days. They are talking about student fees, student loans, the cost of post-secondary education. The Alliance of B.C. Students are bringing together student voices from various post-secondary institutions, and they are talking about the cost of going to post-secondary education.

The fact that post-secondary education brings $1.6 billion to the province may be something that the government wants to applaud, but I think it’s something that is quite shocking. Students are taking out massive loans to
[ Page 6025 ]
pay massive fees for what is…. Effectively, it’s a right. I mean, education is a right. We want to have an educated citizenry. We want to make sure that we have people who are both trained in the trades — I am trained in the arts — who can talk philosophy as well as deal with the plumbing, can write as well as be welders. We need to have this mix. But to look at the level of fees and see that it brings in $1.6 billion, that’s shocking.

Whether that also includes the outrageous level of interest on the loans that have to be paid six months after they graduate, whether or not they have a job…. They have a six-month grace period, and then their loans kick in. Even though they’ve got a six-month grace period, they still have to pay the interest. The interest keeps accruing. We are exploiting our future here by looking at that.

Madame Speaker, I’m noting the hour, and so I would move adjournment of debate, but I would reserve my right to continue speaking tomorrow morning.

C. Trevena moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

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

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